Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Lar

[edit]

Final (109/5/1) ended 04:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Lar (talk · contribs) - Lar is an exemplary Wikipedian who has helped me and many others out with his polite, well-reasoned arguments and votes on AFD, RFA, etc. Those of you who have come in contact with him know that the odds of him misusing the tools are miniscule. He's a reasonably well-rounded editor, with with over 4000 edits spread around several namespaces over the past five-odd months. Granted, a relatively low number are in the mainspace, but please do recall that editcountitis is fatal, and that adminship is not a trophy for accomplished mainspace editors. Lar would be a huge benefit to the project, as someone who really cares about others and always tries to lend a hand. Matt Yeager M2 (Talk?) 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to co-nominate Lar. Perhaps in my little nomination statement here I can offer a more qualitative statement of why I think Lar would be a good administrator. He is in a lot of places at the same time always popping up on my radar, and, after all, I welcomed him to Wikipedia, so I feel I have more insight than the typical visitor to this discussion. A while back, a new user asked somewhere what they needed to do to become an administrator. He was getting a lot of answers like "have 2000 edits" and "participate in AFD and RFA" or whatever, so I told him: just be nice and show good judgment. This is Lar. I think he's one of those unflappably calm sort of people, a genuinely nice person who'll go out of his way to help another editor, or make long-winded, thoughtful explanations for those who ask him questions [Note that I wrote that before I saw his answers to the questions, too!]. It's hard for me to convey my trust in his good sense to others, but Lar is someone with the demeanor I would expect to use his administrative tools conservatively and wisely, to be courteous, communicative, and cooperative in his role as administrator, and a good judge of, and respectful of, consensus. There's no cause for concern here; Lar will make an excellent administrator. :-) Dmcdevit·t 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet another co-nomination, if you don't mind me tagging along. I could also repeat that Lar has well over 3.5k edits, and mention the quality of his contributions, but I'd like to place emphasis on others of his many virtues instead. More than a month ago, I already offered Lar my wholehearted support and my desire to nominate him, but he graciously declined until he had ammassed more experience for the position. It is with this very humbleness that today, not only he has become one of our best contributors, but he has also remained an extremely friendly and helpful person, whose grace under pressure and will to collaborate and aid newcomers and veterans alike is simply inspiring. Ever since we first met, Lar has shown me the value of spreading Wikilove and the importance of a helping hand in the quality of our project. Personally, I cannot think of a more desirable atribute in an admin. Phædriel cH- tell me - 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am honored that folks think enough of my contributions to want to nominate me, and I accept with pleasure. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you may have, or share your concerns and feedback, whatever the outcome may be I look forward to being a better wikipedian as a result of this process. Lar: t/c 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

#This is not a vote. Just a placeholder for when Lar accepts. - brenneman{L} Dear closing 'crat. Do NOT count this support unless the timestamp has been replaced with a time after the RfA started

  1. Support of course, per my nomination statement. Dmcdevit·t 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I claim this spot to place a loud support as co-nominator! Phædriel cH- tell me - 12:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I-may-be-the-last-nominator-to-support-but-at-least-I-was-the-first-nominator support for all the reasons given above. Matt Yeager M2 (Talk?) 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Suppose. of course this user would make a good admin, despite admitted slight policy wonkism. There's more to adminship than vandalfighting. pschemp | talk 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Of course! _-M o P-_ 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Congratulations to the nominators for brainwashing him. However, what's with the placeholders above? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Naturally.--Sean Black (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support; likely to be an excellent admin. Good question answers. Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, just for spite (see below), and because I have some natural sympathy for the long-winded, being rather so myself! Also because even when we disagree (inevitably, my not being a process wonk!), he has always been a reasonable and thoughtful person, and a good contributor to the project. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Have had only positive interarctions with this user. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I like the answers below, and the wide focus. May be a vital admin in areas that others might not jump into as quickly. RadioKirk talk to me 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good user.ßlygugSy | Have your say!!! - review me 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - per all of the above! -- DS1953 talk 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Another good one. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, my interactions with him have been good so far. He will make a great admin. --Terence Ong 06:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Really, really, really didn't want to use the cliche but just had to use it again Support. He isn't an admin yet? Kimchi.sg 06:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - Richardcavell 07:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I will flesh out my reasons later. --kingboyk 07:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Don't see much need to flesh out in great depth now; suffice to say, Lar is mature and well balanced. He does good work here (such as working with me to set up the Beatles WikiProject) and I'm sure he won't abuse the tools. --kingboyk 10:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support.  Grue  07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per above. DarthVader 08:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support and not just because you copied by RfA style, but the answers are pretty good as well! Hard to pin down specific support reason, just overall good :) Petros471 09:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. *faints* - that's twice one one RfA page you know.... --Celestianpower háblame 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, obviously. Will make a great admin. Kirill Lokshin 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. 700 mainspace edits gave me pause, but I see good depth and breadth in the edits. I'm impressed with his communication on talk pages and appreciate his thorough answers to the questions below. ×Meegs 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No reservations. --MONGO 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support with no hesitation whatsoever. He's a good editor who is already doing most of what an admin should be doing. Give him the buttons. Nandesuka 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. He isn't an admin? Oh, 'Support. Fetofs Hello! 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per noms Bucketsofg* 12:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support for the thoughtful answers to the candidate questions. Dr Zak 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Joe I 12:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support; seems sensible and a considered contributor. Colonel Tom 13:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --W.marsh 13:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--Jusjih 14:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support Stupendous, very thoughtful editor. Perfect disposition for adminship. Xoloz 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Very ready to be an administrator, "on top of things" on Wikipedia, but not enough community interaction. (Just joking on that last one, Lar.) Jared W
  40. Support per co-noms. I would have supported sooner, but I was reading the long-winded responses to questions. (Just kidding!) --Elkman - (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, a very well-qualified candidate. -- Natalya 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of co-nominators, but I would have also gladly nominated you. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Bandwagon support - seems a fair and intelligent person, and though I haven't personally interacted with him, I trust the judgment of those before me in this case. Fut.Perf. SU 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Long overdue. --TantalumTelluride 19:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Yes Jaranda wat's sup 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - another easy one. Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. For great encyclopaedia! Rob Church (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Rama's Arrow 23:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A good editor who will make a good admin. Gwernol 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. He's a bit of everything. Royboycrashfan 02:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Sure, why not. joturner 04:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I could have sworn I supported yesterday but my name isn't on the list support. --Rory096 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I thought he already WAS one... --Cyde Weys 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support Logging in on wikibreak just to support this candidate support. Wow, Lar really deserves the mop, he is a level-headed, calm, polite, and practical editor. We need more like him on wikipedia. It's high time. :) -- Banez 08:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I have known Lar long enough to trust him. --Ghirla -tryop- 09:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, good editor and haven't seen any problems. May check back if NSLE expands on what he's saying below. I don't think the placeholder thing is that odd, given how much of RfA is pre-figured on IRC. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per multiple nominators UkPaolo/talk 15:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, meets all my standards. --Tone 16:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, nothing to complain about here. -Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 16:47 UTC
  62. Unconditional, Conditional Support, the quality and quantity of the nominators, leaves me with no choice but to support this candidate. However, a warning to the wise; if you want to stay with Wiki for the long haul, try not to become too involved in political entanglements or dramas. This can be difficult, especially for an admin, but I have learned it best to stick with 'Pedia and community-building activities.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support. Lar was very helpful on irc in resolving a copyright dispute between myself and Durin. Would make an excellent administrator. --Dragon695 18:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per article creations and Beatles project work. Joelito (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. If Lar wants a mop, I say we give it to him. -- MarcoTolo 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support t/c lol - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Time for a great user to get a mop! --Primate#101 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support - Although I considered a neutral just to spite him for not letting me get in another co-nom. Great user that will be a great admin. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Meets my standards. - May. 3, '06 [07:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  70. Support Yep, he'll be good.&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per (multiple!!) noms. Not much more to say, thoughtful considerate editor, will make a fine admin. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I came back from health related wikibreak for this one. There really are too many noms. My interactions with him have been positive and that says a lot. The quality of his contribs say much. He will be a good trustworthy admin.--Dakota ~ 16:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support per above and below (answers to questions). Excellent answers to the question, we need this user to have the extra tools to be able to accomplish some of the tasks that he wishes to accomplish.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, go gettem. Deizio talk 16:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support very few mainspace edits, but then again, that's not necesarilly a bad thing. --Bachrach44 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Extreme barbeques cabal support! jacoM2plane 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Another thought-he-was-already-and-we-need-to-fix-that-immediately-darn-it. Lar's been an extremely positive, levelheaded contributor when I've been around. Georgewilliamherbert 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support He's a nice guy that helped me make a table for one of my subpages. --Shultz IV 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Weak support - Have no problems with this editor, and I think he'll be a great admin, but four nominators is overload - 2 is enough. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support, of course. Four people have felt that he's good enough to nominate as a candidate, and from my own personal experiences with them, I really have to agree; he's a great canditate. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Going to be a great admin. FloNight talk 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Good edit count, though more name space edits would be helpfull. Has been doing this long enough and affably enough. Liked the answer on question 4. (And thanks for the praise for RCPatrol.)Dlohcierekim 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Sounds like will be a good admin. Davewild 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support --Jay(Reply) 01:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Seems like a nice chap. Flowerparty* 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Good and responsible contributor. I was on the opposite side from him on the Webcomics RFAr back in December, but he seems like a sensible guy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support great user, and I'm very surprised he wasn't already an admin. keep up the good work.--Alhutch 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Lar has helped and encouraged me to become a better Wikipedian, no kidding. I was surprised to learn that he was not an admin and I really think he deserves it. Dspserpico 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Lar seems to be an excellent Wikipedian. Mr. Turcotte 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. 90th Support I found this while asking Lar if I could nominate him myself. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I find myself in the cuious position of being mister 93, following mister 90. Lar's a good editor. Hiding Talk 04:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per all of the above, and the fact that none of the below arguments to oppose seem reasonable to me. I am, however, a little bothered by the number of nominators and their badgering of a couple of the opposers--though I agree with their arguments, it seems inappropriate on an RfA. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, it looks like this one's going to make WP:100 soon. —Khoikhoi 05:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - outstanding editor. Metamagician3000 07:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support: I would rather miss being the 100th supporter than wait any more, but Lar will cross the century. --Bhadani 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:10, 6 May 2006(UTC)
  100. Support(Aatuapina 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  101. Support. Great candidate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support: Admin quality. RENTAFOR LET? 20:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Redundant Support. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Full Support. (^'-')^ Covington 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support: NigelJ talk 07:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, gladly --heah 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Looks into other side and is an Inclusionist--E-Bod 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. —Ruud 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support has great diplomacy and a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ziggurat 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oh, fine, now I can't, just to be contrary! You see what you made me do? Now you're one support closer to having to be an admin. Ha! Joke's on you. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would have supported had this come, say, three weeks ago, but a recent altercation has left me with the difficult decision to oppose. Not willing to go into details, but it involves Esperanza. Also, even if someone said they'd strongly oppose, there is no reason to do what you did above, Lar. Just let her voice her opinion when she chooses to. NSLE (T C) at 04:20 UTC (2006-05-1)
    I guess its not clear, but that's a joke up there.pschemp | talk 04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't, and was still not called for, anyhow. NSLE (T C) at 04:28 UTC (2006-05-1)
    Ah, there's nothing wrong with a laugh. Snoutwood (tóg) 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I found it funny :P. --Celestianpower háblame 09:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NSLE: Would you mind sharing a little more info? Those of us who don't really know Lar (or you for that matter) would like to hear the full story and judge for ourselves before rendering a vote. --Bachrach44 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Not someone I'd be comfortable with having the delete button. Grace Note 23:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind explaining why? -Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 16:47 UTC
    I'm sorry but I did write that in plain English, and I don't see what part of it you're having a problem understanding. Grace Note 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar is well known as being something of an "inclusionist". I can't see him even using the delete button unless he's 100% sure. It's therefore not your English which is being questioned, but the statement. --kingboyk 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with which kind of "-ist" he is. I support deletionists and oppose inclusionists as I see fit. I don't see what the statement that you are questioning has to do with you. There is a notion here that friends of candidates have some sort of right to harass oppose voters, whereas support voters may go unchallenged. I think that notion needs to be challenged. You have no right at all to harass me. I said why I oppose him and it is absolutely nothing to do with you. Grace Note 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to distinguish between "seeking more information" and "harangueing/harassing". I do not want my supporters, or anyone's supporters, in any RfA, harassing those who are expressing their opinion. That's just not proper. But I think a question along the lines of "what did you mean by that?" or "why do you feel that way, can you give us more information so we can improve our understanding?" or even "OK, but were you aware of this, you say X but here's a bunch of evidence that X is actually not true" may influence you, or other commentors to change their views. That's NOT harassment. That's NOT haranguing. It's information sharing. Since this is a consensus driven process and not a vote, gathering more information and increasing the informed-ness of the consensus is always a good thing. Except for those who want to disrupt things. And you're not here to disrupt are you? No, I rather prefer to assume that you have legitimate concerns, but you're not choosing to elaborate on what exactly they are for whatever reason, as is your perogative. But as I told someone else, somewhere else, we all build up reputations here. You can have a reputation as a thoughtful contributor who supports their views with informed discourse (the reputation I think I have), or a reputation as someone who is not willing to do that, not willing to help others make up their minds. The choice is yours. I support whatever choice you make, but I find that reasoned statements with backing commentary or evidence often carry more weight. Lar: t/c 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not calling your English into question (where did you get that idea from?), I just want to know why you would not trust him with the delete button. -Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 15:07 UTC
    It is nothing to do with you. If I say I don't trust him, what's it to you? I find this sort of haranguing of oppose voters very infra dig. If you are not already an admin, count on my opposing you if you ever try to become one. There are enough empowered bullies without adding any more. Grace Note 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you please relax. Nobody is calling into question your reason, nobody is bullying you into support, nobody is even demanding that you explain your reasons. And unless you find compelling evidence to the contrary, you should not assume that anybody is. We just find that you have given a very vague explanation of your vote, and we'd be interested in knowing what your reasons are, as these may affect our votes. Please don't blow this out of proportion. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose too many nominators. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that's a joke? For one thing, he has no control over who nominates him (and how many do so). -Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 20:58 UTC
    That's not exactly true, all the nominators were in contact with me, and I could have asked for less of them to actually nominate me, or even stricken their nominations after they made them, if I had so chosen. In fact if I had let everyone that told me they wanted to nominate me actually do so, it would have been an even longer list. Paolo may feel it's indecorous to have more than 1 or two, I'm not sure, and it's true 4 is a bit more than normal. I guess having more than one is a bit prideful, and I'll be the first to admit some pride that so many fine folk wanted to. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal so maybe it's a flaw to have such pride. However, I do have pride, what can I say? But the important point here is: I appreciate the supports and the opposes, and Paolo and others should comment as they see fit. I appreciate it if they elaborate as to why, so I can learn, but people don't have to if they don't want to. Lar: t/c 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a joke. When I saw Lar in the TOC of this page, I scrolled down to support, but switched to oppose when a I saw 4 co-nominators. This is more support than one would logically expect. My fear is that such an excessive support may continue even if, as an administrator, Lar contracts adminitis and go nuts. I believe this is unlikely to happen, but I fell the disruption an "untouchable" administrator may cause is just too high to take the risk. I can reassure Lar that I see no problem with him accepting four nominators. It's really that four people insisted on nominating him. - Liberatore(T) 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the number of nominators is excessive too (and it could have been at least 5 as I have offered to nom Lar). Whether it's enough to oppose is a personal choice but I hope this one "symbolic oppose" is enough to send the message that this wasn't a good idea. --kingboyk 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words more nominators makes him a bad admin? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No. In RfAs, I try to evaluate how much the project will gain from the promotion of the candidate, compared with the possible risks. In 99% of RfA's, this is the same as "will himi/her be a good admin". This RfA falls in the remaining 1% in which the candidate seems perfectly good, but there are other reasomns for making me worried about the potential risks. - Liberatore(T) 18:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - appears to be ingenuous, proud and opinionated. This is a valuable combination of assets for contrasting opinions amongst equals, which is where Lar belongs: amongst equals. --Dragon's Blood 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose - appears to be a little bit too policy-wonkish for my taste. Physchim62 (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose (for now), just some comments on IRC are making me wonder the motives, may change once additional question is answered. --NigelJ talk 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to support --NigelJ talk 07:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - seems to be a very nice editor, but the mainspace edits are very low. abakharev 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he doesn't have the highest sheer ammount of edits, but the quality of his article edits is superb. Note that The Observatory (band) [1] and Kingston-Port Ewen Suspension Bridge [2] have been featured on {{DYK}}, along with several others. He also created Waldo-Hancock Bridge and Teresa Bagioli Sickles quite recently as well. My point is that it's the quality, not the quantity, of the edits that matters, and Lar's edits most certainly have the former.--Sean Black (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I am voting Neutral, leaning to support, although I decided to oppose RfA's with less than 1000 mainspace edits, unless special circumstances. abakharev 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, okay, but you're sort of missing my point :). Having sheer numerical standards like that is unhelpful... here's a candidate you want to support and you really have no reason to believe he'd abuse his privileges, and you're getting hung up on some number. It's silly.--Sean Black (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some people believe admins should be experienced in more than buggerising about on policy pages, Sean, and that number of edits is at least a rudimentary metric for judging the sufficiency of experience. Grace Note 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just demonstrated, he does far, far more than "bugger about on policy pages". But I wouldn't expect you to actually read the comments you're responding to when you could take part in your favorite pastime.--Sean Black (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Total edits 4377 
Distinct pages edited 1501 
Average edits/page 2.916 
First edit 19:08, 8 June 2005 
 
(main) 717 
Talk 374 
User 285 
User talk 1062 
Image 90 
Image talk 3
MediaWiki talk 1
Template 51 
Template talk 91 
Help 1
Category 16
Category talk 37
Wikipedia 962
Wikipedia talk 687

User's last 2000 edits:
56 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 01, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 6, March, 2006
Edit summary use for this user (over the 2000 edit(s) shown on this page): 100%
Average edits per day: 35.73
Edits on top: 12.05%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 95.5%
Minor edits (non reverts): 2.4%
Reverts: 2.1%
Unmarked edits: 0%
  • About the placeholders. There have been questions and concerns raised in the past about supports given prior to the start of an RfA. My conoms and Brenny all wanted to show their support and had signed their views. Because I'm a policy (and process) wonk, I struck the times and replaced them with notes, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Until and unless they formally re-sign, their supports should not be counted. I have every expectation they will but to be properly process (and policy) wonkish, I had to do it. Now, about Mindspillage's placeholder. That's a joke, folks. She has been asking me when my RfA was going to start and in joking around with me about it she said "I'm going to massively oppose". I have no reason to believe she will, I was being funny. (or not, your mileage may vary). We are doing serious important things here building the greatest encyclopedia ever but we can have fun anyway, darn it. I'm really sorry NLSE didn't get the joke or didn't think it was appropriate, but I support anyone's right to oppose for any reason. Lar: t/c 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)'s comment: Excellent advice, and thanks for it. But I am afraid I'm 'meta-X' (where X is whatever community/project I've been involved in) and always have been, since the dawn of the net... that's not likely to change. The key, as you say, is to stay out of the drama and stick with the community building aspects (and article writing, of course... I've moved 1 to article space since this RfA started and another just before it) Lar: t/c 17:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ...that adminship is not a trophy for accomplished mainspace editors. – as a nominator puts it. I'd hate to disappoint the nominator but wikipedia's primary goal is to be a free content provider. Most people who do produce multiple featured articles are admins and are in a very good position to deal with criticism, people handling and consensus, and quite familiar with wikipedia's policies. I have a question to Lar listed below: =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I may follow up here. Adminship is not a trophy. Full stop. Vandal fighter, mail answerer, good article writer, thoughtful policy/process wonk... these are all things that help the encyclopedia and they may be measures of whether an editor has the qualities necessary to be a good admin, but admin is not a reward. It's a thankless and unending set of tasks that will get an admin (if they're good at what they do) all sorts of flamage, hate mail, etc. Sure, there's egoboo in a successful RfA (like, if I may have the pride to say so, this one looks like it's going to be) and some egoneg too (every neg hurts, whether it's valid or not, at least a little), but that's about it. You get no extra weight to your words, no extra shield to your actions, no free pass if you flub up, and if anything you get closer scrutiny than before.
I had to be prodded into standing for Adminship, I wasn't sure I had the time, or the desire to do it (doing communities for as long as I have tends to jade you on the whole "ooh, what do these buttons do" coolness factor of being an admin of any sort), but I've fallen in love with this project. Wasn't my original plan to do that, as I said in my questions, but I'm now thinking this is the coolest project I've ever seen, and maybe, just maybe (there's that pride again, but it's pride in all of us, from Jimbo down to the 1 edit anon who corrects a typo he spotted), it's the most important project the world has ever seen too. But as Nichalp says... all this stuff is peripheral. Policy, process, the foundation, admins, WikiProjects, Featured Articles, the whole lot of it exists in order to get product. Sure, it's fun, it's important, it's personally fulfilling but don't invest your emotions in the project as a project, or as a community. Invest them in writing good articles, or, if you don't have the time, interest or talent to write good articles, in doing the other things that enable others to write good articles.
And if you, gentle reader whoever you are, are thinking of standing for adminship, think hard about why you want to, and what it means, and how you intend to conduct yourself. There are lots of good essays out there, but I particularly recommend this one: User:Mindspillage/admin because I intend to hew as closely to its precepts as I possibly can. Sorry for the length of this but it needed saying. Lar: t/c 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

About questions: I tend to be a bit verbose (or "long winded", as user:Dmcdevit calls it... with noms like these who needs enemies? But I digress!). Others have advised me to be terser in answering these, but that's not who I am. Sorry if it seems like a hard slog and I don't get to the point right away but hang in there. You may also find Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Lar interesting reading. Although the process hasn't been widely accepted, there is useful (if a little obsolete in some aspects) background on me there if you want it. Lar

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
Answer I like how Petros471 answered these, so I am cribbing from the approach used. I am going to give a short answer, and then refer to the tool list.
Short answer: I am not primarily a vandal fighter, or someone who sees themselves getting primarily involved in enforcement of things like 3RR and the like. That's not to say I won't do them as needed but with 800 plus other admins I think that would usually be covered well enough, short of a crisis. My focus, rather, would be on editorial things (related to making content better) that require admin powers: moving pages that can't be moved easily, and editing pages that are protected, and setting/removing protection. I'd be there to help people as needed of course. I get asked to help people out, or to informally mediate content disputes, once in a while already.
Long answer: So then, let's go through the list at WP:ADMIN, and review the items:
  • Protected pages: This is a biggie. I am a big fan/proponent of the Did you know (DYK) process. I have 10 (or more if I have gotten off my butt and edited more articles) successful DYKs now, and I want to get involved in helping select and promote new entries, I think I'd be good at it, (at first in consultation with other admins such as Gurubrahma or Cactus.man). The DYK template itself is protected (for good reason I feel) and images used in it need to be protected as well (this seems to be typical for things used on the main page). While the placing of notices can be done by a non admin, only admins can do the whole process efficiently. There is a (too?) small core of volunteers on that and I'd like to help when I can. There may also be other instances where I want to edit protected pages (with careful examination of consensus via the talk page), but I don't see myself protecting or unprotecting controversial pages as much as just doing the mechanical part of editing protected pages.
  • Deletion and undeletion: I'm not a m:deletionist, I'm more of an m:inclusionist with a lot of m:eventualist and m:mergist tendencies. But when something has to be deleted, we should not shy away from it. I think having an inclusionist such as myself do a needful deletion and then being there for the editor whose page got deleted and needs an understanding listener, is a pretty good approach. I would also help out with obvious speedy deletes, and if the PROD process is on line reliably again, doing some PRODs now and then. I think. But I don't see this as a primary focus. (I'd be more likely to try to rescue than delete. (For any article you vote to delete, vote one to keep, or improve one which is on the border of being thrown in the bin --Anthere) I might get involved in the occasional AfD as a closer (probably in consultation with others at first) but only if I had not nominated or commented on it during the course of its review. Like Tony Sidaway and a few others, I would happily undelete and userify articles on request whenever that was appropriate (after review of content for suitability, it's not a carte blanche). I think creating articles in userspace is a good approach, and so is post deletion userification to see if a user otherwise in good standing can turn the article into something encyclopedic.
  • Reverting: I don't see myself doing much reversion, because I'm not intending to be a vandal fighter primarily. But I find myself now manually reverting stuff that I see got hit, and I have a fairly big watch list (800 and growing) so this would be useful. As a believer in good edit summaries I would only use rollback for vandalism. I think using rollback for edit warring is not good form at all. Heck, I think edit warring is not good form at all, I subscribe to 1RR, and to the notional admin version of it as well. I would NEVER revert another admin's reversion/block/whatever without consulting that admin and my peers. The parole Tony Sidaway is under now is how I'd always conduct myself.
  • Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings: If I had a good friend that had run into trouble, it might be a good thing if I did the enforcement, it might be gentler. I think there's value in trying to gently explain things and console and listen. But all my friends here (with the possible exception of Brenny, snicker) are not very likely to get into that sort of situation, I don't think. In general I probably would leave that to others. Wouldn't shy away if it was needful.
  • Hiding vandalism from recent changes: Not sure I'd use this very much.
  • Block and unblock: I am not primarily a vandal fighter, I only revert it when I find it, so I would expect that usually someone else got to it first and did the block, but if the need arose I would do it. You MUST warn appropriately first, though. That takes judgement, it's not mechanical but we must try to convert vandals to contributors where we can. Remember Don't bite the newcomers!! Judicious warnings can turn people around, I am sure of it.
  • Design and wording of the interface: This is an area of interest for me, I have some limited expertise in UI design (I've been working in IT for 25 years) although not a primary focus. It's very high visibility so every move, every change, has to be run through careful consensus first, I think. I am probably more on the timid side than the bold side, all told so unless consensus was clear.. I just don't see myself changing UI stuff much. But it is a good power to have. (especially around April 1st... I confess, I do like a good subtle joke)
  • Other: There are a few things here so let's break down further:
  • Move category pages and other move protected pages Moving things is an area of interest for me so I could see myself moving category pages as needed, when requested, when it was clear consensus was there for the move. Similarly with moving protected pages.
  • View Special:Unwatchedpages to see pages which may be more vulnerable to vandalism. I might add a few that are of interest to me but I don't want to overpromise there.
  • View the history of deleted pages- Viewing deleted pages goes part in parcel with restoring and userifying them on request, you can't decide if the request is reasonable without reviewing the page. I would also fix history where it needed fixing but only with a lot of forethought and care (and consultation the first 19 times or so).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I like every article I've ever touched. They all stay on my watch list pretty much forever, whether I just fixed a stray capital letter somewhere, or wrote the entire article from scratch. But clearly, in articlespace, I'm quite proud of my DYK selected articles. I'm also quite pleased with the progress of the Wikiproject for The Beatles. We've made a lot of progress in a short time, including developing some new article classification techniques and perl based automation, and I am proud to have had a hand in that. I'm also, as some are fond of teasing me about, keen on bridge articles for some reason. (there's an explanation but it's convoluted).
I hang out on Village Pump and do try my hand at answering questions there when I can, as well, although I'm not always the first to get the right answer out. You don't need to be an admin to do it, everyone should give it a try sometime, it's fun to help others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: While I have had a few "frank and full exchanges of views" I do not think I've been in any serious ones with anyone where I badly lost my civility. Again, others counseled me to just leave it at that, put in some random feel good statement about how I love everyone, and quit answering the question at that point... but that's not me, perhaps it will be my downfall, who knows? Here are some I recall. There may be others but these are the ones I remmeber the best. (I think an evaluator that draws a conclusion that I like to fight really is missing the point here. I'm just a "cards on the table" kind of guy.)
  • Probably the first example of some sharp elbows was the WP:AFD for Checkerboard Nightmare: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Checkerboard_Nightmare. At the time I had less than 80 edits, and my comment to the discussion was struck by User:Jtkiefer (since resigned as an admin). That put me on edge, I am afraid. To this day I think it highly inappropriate to strike comments of new users, in fact of ANYONE other than oneself, unless they are clearly sockpuppets. Put the edit count under them, sure... but strike? Not even the closing admin (or 'crat for an RfA or RfB) should do that. That put a burr in my saddle and I decided to build up my participation here in order that my words would not again be disregarded. (Hey, everyone needs some reason to start getting serious... my addiction would follow soon enough).
  • About this time, the WP:RFAr for that rather unhappy AfD got under way: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics and I traded elbows with a number of users, including Aaron Brenneman and Geogre among several others. I think everyone involved is pretty equanamable about me at this point though. Aaron, especially, I count among my close wikifriends. (HE may not agree, I dunno, you'd have to ask him)
  • Meanwhile, I was cranking out bridge related articles, and after doing a few, I happened to create Pghbridges.com, an article about a reference site good for bridge information. This is the only article I've yet created that got nomed for AfD and I was somewhat taken aback by that. It survived but I 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, JzG's among others, something I regret. I still think that RasputinAXP may have made a mistake on that one but in the final analysis mistaken deletions are one way articles get improved. He and I exchanged emails recently about it. He had forgotten it until I reminded him, and I happily supported his recent RfA, which ended in promotion.
  • Userboxes. I have the belief (not shared by all) that knowing where an editor stands is useful. So I have a bunch of them on my user page, and I participated pretty heavily in Kelly Martin's RfCs in all their incarnations. I think Kelly wasn't too happy with my view (as a process wonk) that her actions, while in the spirit of IAR, might not have been for the best of WP overall. I'm still not sure where we stand and I feel bad about that. I want to keep my userboxes though. So you might want to oppose on those grounds.
  • Jtkiefer's many requests to be a 'crat... (Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jtkiefer 5 among others). I spoke out against them. Some might say I was holding a grudge (since he struck my comments in that first AfD). I hope that's not the case, I felt it just wasn't a good idea for him to apply over and over again. You'll have to be the judge of that.
  • Being the metawikipedian that I am, I've also been involved in various other discussions about policy, too many to recount them all here. You'd have to ask others what they think of my contributions there.

Additional question from Kingboyk

4. As an admin you will have to do some things that are negative to certain individuals, such as blocking vandals and disruptive users and deleting articles per CSD guidelines or consensus. It's almost certain that at some point this will lead to determined vandalism of your user page, rants on your talk page, complaints at some forum or another, and insults/streams of consciousness by email. As somebody who seems to thrive on consensus and cooperation, how do you feel about this negative side of adminship? --kingboyk 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Ooh! Good question. So far no one has vandalised my pages except in fun (and I tend to leave that vandalism in there for others to find and chuckle over). But the RCP gang are good at catching that sort of thing and reverting it, and I'd expect in a lot of cases I would only notice it in the history. It wouldn't phase me much. Rants on my talk page? Complaints on other pages? Stream of consciousness in my emails? I get those now, so we're only talking about degree, really... remember I've been active in online communities in various capacities for far longer than some of our 'crats have been alive, and I still get stuff from some other activities even now. Your question is "how do I feel about it?", though... not so keen actually. I'm not one of these "bring it on" dudes that likes to fight. But it's a necessary part of the process, and I'm ready for it to increase again (it has waxed and waned in the past due to my activities (particularly LUGNET, but other places too) elsewhere). One key thing that helps deal with it is that there is a strong support network here. I have found that good, effective editors and admins build a web of people they rely on for moral support when things get bumpy. You're part of that web for me, Steve, as you know, and I have a lot of other friends here too. There are also a lot of other vehicles for getting support (not an exhaustive list): Esperanza (long term stress reduction and support), IRC (a quick fix of joviality, or a place to ask "WTF??" and get advice, either publicly or one on one with someone), WP:AN/I (good for fast breaking things), dropping someone an email (good for deeper issues) and, believe it or not... taking a deep breath, shutting the computer off, and taking a walk.
5. Your mainspace edits are supposedly low and your nominators have focussed on the quality of your edits. I don't have a problem with numbers but I would like to know this: If you were to get into a conflict with an experienced admin say over the usage of fair use images in an article, how would you deal with it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Interesting question. First I'm not sure I'd characterise my mainspace edit count as low, despite what some might say. I think with well over 300 different articles touched, dozens of images uploaded and added to wikipedia (or Commons where possible and where I knew to do it, I have some earlier ones that probably should be moved over) to a wide variety of topic articles, including some I've taken myself (and dual GFDL/CCSA licensed to the project), and extensive WikiProject participation, I've had a fair bit of article related experience, and I've had 12 (almost all started from scratch, and two since this RfA started) articles featured on the front page via {{Did you know}} so far. So low? No. I'm actually rather proud of my contribution record and make no apology for being proud of it, or of its distribution. Is it distributed differently than some others? Sure. I'm not a vandal fighter (except incidentally from articles I watch) or a big user of WP:AWB so my mainspace experience isn't weighted with automation or quick reverts. But I'd stack my mainspace contribution record up against anyone's (not that we're competing, I'm just saying that I do not see the issue with it others do).
But that's not your question is it? (it was a chance for me to soapbox, so I did... hehe) You ask how I would handle a concern about fair use images. It's funny you should ask that, because I've dealt with it, tangentially at least, already. First, when I upload an image that's fair use, I'm pretty meticulous about citing exactly what articles it can be used in, as the guidelines suggest one should do. See my contributions log for images, and particularly see some fair use examples such as Image:Mysweetlord1971single.jpg, Image:Maná publicity still.jpg, Image:The Week US Cover December 16 2005 small.jpg and even (back in December when my count was much lower) Image:AmericanBridgeCompanyLogo.jpg... all note the particular articles that fair use is appropriate for. So I'm not sure I'd get in a conflict about this, at least not very much. But if I did, I think I'd handle it like I handle everything. Calmly and with a lot of discussion.
In thinking back, the closest situation I can think of where I intially made the wrong choice was use of a picture of The Beatles in non article space. See this WP:Beatles talk thread as well as this one. I initially tried to defend the use but after thinking about it a bit, have worked hard with others to find a better image, (which I think we have), to use in the project boxes. I wouldn't characterise that as a conflict though, more of a discussion. I think my record shows I don't do conflicts much. I'd also point to this thread about image usage: User_talk:Dragon695#Re: Your comments on Taxman's RfB. You may have noticed that Dragon695 commented in their support vote that I helped resolve that dispute. It was on IRC so I won't post logs but I spent a fair bit of time going through why copyrights on images, even logos, pose problems and why Durin was doing what he did to address the issue. I'm rather pleased that Dragon695 chose to mention that. Here's another example: User_talk:Lar/Archive_3#Herb Alpert (rethreaded from his talk page where it started) in which I pointed out to Tijuana Brass that there was a potential issue with his use of an album cover. Note that Brass has supported me, and further, I have an open RfA in progress for him, when he's ready to accept and move forward, as I think he'll make a fine admin come the day, about 6 weeks or so from now according to him, when he's ready. (but I digress!) I just don't do conflicts much I don't think.
I hope that answered your question. I hope it wasn't too wordy! (/me laughs at self) If not, please feel free to ask for clarification, and thank you for taking the time to ask sucha a thoughtful question. Lar: t/c 14:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got 700 edits to the mainspace, that's less than your contributions in other namespaces. Relatively speaking you do have a lower edit count than most people on RFA. As I've clarified before, I don't have a problem with low edit counts as long as those edits brought about some value to the encyclopedia. (I had just about a 1,000 when I was voted as admin. It was low because I used to edit entire articles offline.) I've gone through your contributions and you do seem to have a good understanding of referencing and image copyright policy. We need more admins who have sound fundamentals. The question on the conflict wasn't answered in detail, but from other debates you've pointed out, I'm taking your word for it. I'll support your adminship since you do have a pretty good grasp of article/image policy. Hope I can inspire you to author at least one featured article in the future. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of a breadth first guy (and I too do sometimes create complete articles with just one edit) so I don't want to commit to doing FAs.... but you seem to be quite expert at helping others get articles to FA status, so if I ever decide to try for that with one, I know who to ask for advice! As to the question you asked, let me try to address it directly. Restating, you're asking how I would handle a conflict with a more experienced admin about something (maybe it's the experienced admin part that is important, not the fair use?) over say, fair use, how would I handle it? Is that the gist? I think the consensus model here is important. I subscribe to 1RR. I don't like to get into conflicts. I have, as I gave examples of in question 3..., but it's not why we are here. How one approaches conflicts seems a fundamental part of philosophy. Seek first to understand, then to reach common ground, then to reach consensus or compromise, then to resolve... but keeping in mind that certain fundamentals cannot be compromised about. I'm not sure that's an answer or not. Lar: t/c 17:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Silly question by Dragons flight

6. I've noticed something curious, and since this RFA seems like a sure thing at this point, I thought I'd mention it. Yourself and Ral315 are well respected members of the community. By contrast, Lir, Ril (same person as Lir), and -Ril- (different person) are banned as the result of arbitration. So, how do you explain the moral superiority of the letter "a" over the letter "i"? Dragons flight 17:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Are you sure you're not channeling some other editor with that question? I have to confess I have no idea! Perhaps because A is composed of several parts, working together, just as we must work together to make the greatest encyclopedia the world has ever known, and leaning on each other, as we lean on each other for support, and fun, while I stands alone? Lar: t/c 17:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not channeling I don't think, but when I first saw your name on RFA I thought: That's a terrible idea. But as it turned out I had conflated you with Lir (which probably dates me). As it happens, I'm glad you are not Lir. Also, I must say you put together a remarkably good answer to such a stupid question.  :-) Dragons flight 18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from NigelJ

7. Right, so you obviously want adminship, but I'm querying the actual motive behind it, I noticed on IRC just before that you mentioned something about once you get adminship you'd go and delete all the userboxes, not alright I'm not a total fan of userboxes myself, but I have my own reasons for using them, now my question to you, is how do *we* know that once the b'crat gives you adminship, that you won't go (as you suggested on IRC) and erratically delete said userboxes.
A: First, sure, I want adminship, now that I've been convinced of it. I accepted, after all. But ask my noms, it was a pretty hard slog to get me to agree to accept. So it's no big deal. Sure, it's nice to get the support of so many peers I like and respect but I'm going to be a better wikipedian whatever happens. I don't see adminship as anything other than being willing to help the encyclopedia out in more ways than a non admin can.
Second, IRC is a place, especially in the wider channels, to goof around. Unless you ask someone if they are serious to be sure they meant it, I would not actually take anything anyone says on IRC seriously. Refer to what I said in #4 about support networks... If you seriously think I'm going to erratically delete things, or get in wheel wars, or whatever, you SHOULD speak out in opposition. But I'd suggest that if you seriously think that's likely, then you haven't really studied my actions here very carefully. Can't say as I blame you, it can take a fair bit of work to dig into someone's record and be absolutely sure, but I just don't think a convincing case could be made that I'm that sort of person. You'll have to decide for yourself, or take the word of my noms and my 100 supports. Lar: t/c 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lar&oldid=1143823958"