Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar

English: The 2010 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted. Suomi: Vuoden 2010 ylivalvojien vaalit on loppu. Uusia ääniä ei hyväksytä enää. العربية: انتخابات المضيفين لعام 2010 انتهت. لا أصوات أخرى سيتم قبولها. Deutsch: Die Stewardwahlen 2010 sind beendet. Weitere Stimmen können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Español : Las elecciones a Steward del año 2010 han concluído. No se aceptan más votos. فارسی: .رای‌گیری در مورد انتخابات ویکیبدهای جدید پایان یافته است.رای‌های جدید مورد قبول واقع نخواهد شد. Français : Les élections de 2010 pour Steward se sont conclues. Aucun vote au-delà de cette date ne sera compté. Gaeilge: Tá na toghcháin Maoir 2010 dúnta anois. Ní féidir aon vótaí eile a glacadh as an am seo amach. Galego: Xa remataron as eleccións a steward do ano 2010. Non se aceptarán máis votos. Alemannisch : D Stewardwahle 2010 sin umme. Du chasch nimmi abstimme. עברית: בחירות הדיילים לשנת 2010 הסתיימו. הצבעות נוספות לא תתקבלנה. Magyar: A választás lezárult, további szavazatokat nem fogadunk el. Italiano: Le elezioni del 2010 a Steward sono terminate. Nessun voto ricevuto dopo questa data sarà preso in considerazione. 日本語： 2010年のスチュワード選挙は終わりました。今後の投票は受け付けられません。 Nederlands: De stewardsverkiezingen van 2010 zijn gesloten. U kunt niet meer stemmen. Polski: Wybory stewardów w 2010 roku zakończyły się. Nowe głosy nie będą akceptowane. Português : As eleições para Steward de 2010 estão encerradas. Nenhum voto lançado a partir desta data será computado. Русский: Выборы стюардов — 2010 завершены. Дальнейшие голоса не будут приняты. Svenska: 2010 års val av stewarder är avslutat. Ingen ytterligare röstning kommer att accepteras. 中文： 2010年监管员选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。 中文（简体）： 2010年监管員选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。 中文（繁體）: 2010年監管員選舉已經結束。逾期投票將會作廢。 Ελληνικά: Οι εκλογές επιτρόπων για το 2010 έχουν τελειώσει. Δεν γίνονται δεκτές άλλες ψήφοι. Türkçe: 2010 kâhya seçimleri tamamlanmıştır. Daha fazla oy kabul edilmeyecektir. Azərbaycanca: 2010 eşikağası seçkiləri tamamlanmışdır. Daha çox səs qəbul olunmaz.

Lar

Lar will be a member of the Ombudsman Commission for the coming year. This reconfirmation is your chance to comment on Lar's contributions over the last year, and will apply to him regaining the steward tools at the end of that term.

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

Deutsch:

• Sprachen: en, de-1
• Informationen zur Person: Ich wurde in den Wahlen von Dezember 2007 zum Steward gewählt. Ich bin auch Admin auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia, Commons, und Meta (in der englischsprachigen Wikisource habe ich die Funktion abgegeben), Bürokrat auf Commons, CheckUser auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia, Commons, und Meta, sowie Oversighter auf Commons. Ich denke, dass ich in den verschiedenen Steward-Aufgaben ziemlich aktiv gewesen bin, und möchte gerne weitermachen. Ich begrüße eure Kommentare.

English:

• Languages: en, de-1
• Personal info: I became a steward after the December 2007 election. I also hold admin rights on en:wp, Commons, and Meta (I gave it up on en:ws), 'crat on commons and meta, CU on en:wp, commons and meta, and oversight on Commons. I think I've been fairly active at the various steward tasks, and I have plans to continue doing so. I welcome your feedback.

español:

• Idiomas: en, de-1
• Información personal: Me convertí en steward en las elecciones del 2007. Soy administrador en la Wikipedia en inglés, Commons y Meta (renuncié a ellos en Wikisource), burócrata en commons y en meta y CheckUser en la Wikipedia en Inglés, Commons y Meta y supervisor en Commons. Pienso que he estado bastante activo en las diversas tareas de steward y tengo planes de seguir estándolo. Agradezco vuestros comentarios.

français:

• Langues: en, de-1
• Renseignements personnels:

עברית:

• שפות: en, de-1
• מידע אישי: אני נבחר לדייל בבחירות דצמבר 2007. אני גם מפעיל מערכת בויקי האנגלית, וויקישיתוף, ומטא, אם כי ויתרתי עליו בויקיטקסט. אני ביורוקרט על וויקישיתוף ומטא, בודק על בויקי האנגלית, וויקישיתוף, ומטא, ומסתיר בוויקישיתוף. אני חושב שהייתי די פעיל בכל הפעילויות של הדיילים, ויש לי תוכניות להמשיך לעשות זאת. אני מקדם בברכה את ההערות שלך.

日本語:

• 言語: en, de-1
• 候補者の情報: 2007年の選挙でスチュワードになりました。管理者を英語版ウィキペディア、コモンズ、メタで（英語版ウィキソースでは辞任）、ビューロクラットをコモンズとメタで、チェックユーザー係をコモンズとメタで、版秘匿係をコモンズで務めています。スチュワードの様々な仕事を割とよくこなしている方だと自分では思っており、引き続き頑張りたいと思っています。忌憚なくご意見をお聞かせください。

português:

• Línguas: en, de-1
• Informações pessoais: Eu me tornei um steward depois da votação de Dezembro de 2007. Eu também tenho direitos de administrador na Wikipédia em inglês, Commons e Meta (Eu abdiquei no Wikinews em inglês), sou burocrata no Commons e no meta, CheckUser na Wikipédia em inglês, commons e meta, e oversight no Commons. Acho que eu tenho sido bastante activo nas diversas actividades dos stewards e tenho planos de continuar a sê-lo. Agradeço vossas sugestões.

русский:

• Языки: en, de-1
• Личная информация: Я стал стюардом после выборов в декабре 2007 года. Также я продолжил быть админом в en:wp, на Викискладе и на Мете (и сдал флаг в en:ws), бюрократ на Викискладе и Мете, чекюзер в en:wp, Викискладе и Мете, ревизор на Викискладе. Я думаю, я был достаточно активен в выполнении разных стюардских задач, и планирую продолжать быть таковым. Жду ваших отзывов.

Comments about Lar

Note: I've addressed some concerns raised here. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Helpful fellow. Please confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• confirm. Seb az86556 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Even though there has been some problematic disputes between Lar and myself in the past, he has always shown that he is highly competent and a valuable asset as a Steward. Ottava Rima 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep — Jack Merridew 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  See below talk page for further posts from me offering examples of appropriate stewardship efforts. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Active, helpful, and knows his building-bricks. Kylu 02:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  kewl Jack 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Confirm as Worstest.Steward.Ever. (j/k, now leg(g)o of my leg, oh that hurt!). -- Avi 03:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm, Have never seen a steward related issue and definitely worth keeping around, to bad he's leaving for a year ;( James (T C) 06:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Good steward; no steward related issue as James says. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• keep MoiraMoira 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk 08:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Helpful fellow; best to have him around. Katerenka (d) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• I had something planned for this - what was it now useless, unhelpful, indifferent Nope it's gone - must be ok then I guess...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll add to this having read up the page again. Strongly confirm. I see people who do not like Lar. Maybe there are some issues on en wp - let's face it - anyone active on en wp usually has some issues there. However I fail to see issues with Lar as a steward which is what this is about. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Good sense of humour. Keep –Ejs-80 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm, of course --Church of emacs talk 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• outstanding ;)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. --Erwin 13:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• For me much too much jobs, sorry, no. Marcus Cyron 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm for sure --Mardetanha ^talk 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against confirmation. Likes to act as judge, jury and executioner. Lycaon 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against confirmation. Has consistently shown that he focuses on specific users whom he doesn't like. Causes drama and plays wikipolitics, seeing everything as his side verse everyone else. There are also other unresolved issues. JoshuaZ 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep.--Jusjih 04:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• keep --FiliP ██ 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against confirmation, per JoshuaZ's "unresolved issues"; pattern of inappropriate behavior which creates a hostile environment for female contributors.Proabivouac 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose reconfirmation. Has extremely militant and unreasonable BLP views as expressed in recent RfC discussion at en-wiki[1]. I cannot trust his judgement. Nsk92 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  E.g. this comment here[2], where he says that removing a prod "without fixing" the article should be blockable. What if prod was placed incorrectly? Who decides if the article "is fixed"? And what about forwarding an article to an AfD for a substantive discussion? Basically, a narrow-minded militant ideologue, with a potential to drive off a great many long-term contributors from Wikipedia. Should not even be an admin, let alone a steward. Nsk92 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment - I see several grudges. Could you please back this up with more substantial information, and make a clear case so that it can actually be considered? The current wordings are mainly opinions and not substantiated. Effeietsanders 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Those editors who are active at en-wiki surely know what I am talking about. But here are some details. In mid-January of this year a small group of admins with particularly militant views regarding BLPs went on a unilateral deletion spree: they started a mass out of process deletion of "unsourced and unwatched" BLPs without any regard to deletion policy, without using any of the established tools, like CSD, PROD, and AfD and without any discussion with other users. There was a big bruhaha at en-wiki regarding this, with a big wheel-war, blocks, massive panic etc. See the details at these ArbCom pages:[3][4]. Lar was a part of the group involved in these mass out-of-process deletions, see his deletion log for Jan 21:[5]. Later on he aggressively defended this position (see his statements in "BLP deletions" ArbCom request and his comments in the subsequent RfC[6]. Unfortunately, the ArbCom at en-wiki refused to reign in these mass out-of-process deletions and we are still dealing with the fallout of this affair. Anyone who is willing to engage in such reckless disregard of established process and of consensus, such as what Lar did in the mass BLP deletion episode, does not deserve any position of authority. Like I said, he should not even be an admin, and certainly not a steward. Nsk92 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for the information, I think most people here are not active enough on enwiki to get this kind of information from the top of the head. Just to be totally clear, this is an enwiki matter only? Are there any aspects that were affected by his steward tools, status or otherwise? Is there any indication this is likely something to play up cross-wiki when Lar remains steward? Do you think he would use his steward buttons/authority in that discussion? Or is it that you personally don't trust/like him any more, and therefore want his position removed? Effeietsanders 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Primarily the latter. I do not trust the judgement of someone who has abused his position of authority at en-wiki in such a reckless and disruptive way. Nsk92 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  See below for a cross-wiki example. Durova 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Razorflame 07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. Greatly helped. Good luck w/ your new hat. --Aphaia 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep --Jyothis 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• restore post ombudsman. bastique ^demandez! 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• keep - also when low activity is expected: there is more to being a steward than just the technical actions, we need him as he is very valuable on the list as well. my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. oscar 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• remove - Steward is probably one of the positions that require the most trust out of any on WMF wikis. After the BLP fiasco explained above, and Lar's extreme and almost fundamentalist viewpoint regarding it, I cannot in good conscience say that I trust him with the position. I know of no instances of steward abuse, but he has already supported use of sysop tools against consensus (and with an air of contempt for the community) on en.wikipedia, so I can't rule out the possibility that he would use his steward tools in promoting that agenda. The Wordsmith 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - reconfirmation per JoshuaZ and the BLP issues.--Sandahl 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Drama monger—almost all of his edits are outside of the main namespace; largely inactive, very few mainspace edits—little evidence that he's really there to contribute to building an encyclopaedia; engaged in disruption in the recent BLP kerfuffle; carries old disputes into new venues—his response to my criticism about his disruptive deletions was to attack intelligent design and global warming editors; misrepresents himself—despite his attacks on an AGW-cabal, he still passes himself off as an "uninvolved" admin in the current climate change probation. Not suitable for such a position of trust. Guettarda 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. One of the most rude people I've met on enwiki. Also, commonly ignores policy and pursues his own vision of Wikipedia instead. Pohta ce-am pohtit 17:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  Per request below, here are the kinds of articles Lar has been deleting on sight or proposing for deletion after the community outcry put an end to the former practice: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The argument is that they are "unsourced", but most external links in those articles work, and many are en:WP:RS. Note that all these diffs are selected from an extremely narrow time window. Check his logs for way, way more, and also see the evidence of Nsk92 above, who is a very respected editor on en:WP:WPM. Here is an admin commenting that "those deletions are clearly out of process" (emphasis his); this comment refers to a different set than those above, but in similar circumstances. Following deletion procedures is now "policy wonkery" according to Lar. After being cautioned that some of those articles did have sources, his reply was "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." To another user that points out that a source was listed as "further reading" instead of "references", Lar replies: "Improperly sourced, then, and a valid deletion, wasn't it? Did you want me to undelete it to your user space so you can fix it? I bet you can fix it in less time than 3 years... if you set your mind to it." Later on en:WP:ANI, he pretends that was never an issue: "All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit." Obviously, the usual en:WP:DEL deletion process is now replaced by an admin who decides by himself what sources are acceptable. Presumably, he should just decide who gets the admin bit and who loses it; why bother with such an ineffective community?! Pohta ce-am pohtit 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Totally trustworthy; note that any of the bad-faith-looking opinions opposing above should be ignored unless accompanied by diffs. --Guinnog 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, strongly. An extraordinarily helpful and clueful member of the community, a real asset. Some of the opposes may say more about the opposers than about Lar. --Tryptofish 20:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. BLP views are irrelevant to stewardship, despite what the opposers of the BLP movement may argue. Give an example of abuse of stewardship. Hmm, don't think there are any. Lara 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. BLP issue shows Lar has a poor understanding of policy, consensus, and when and where he can use the tools. All of these are critical for Stewards. Plot Spoiler 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm: Don't see any issues with his stewarding. I've always thought the steward-only vote for reconfirmations was rather silly, but some of the comments on this page make it pretty clear why it's necessary. --MZMcBride 02:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Fine with me. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. Excellent record as a steward. Cla68 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, despite the wild animals that he keeps. Civil, helpful and considerate. billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  How did you know I was a wild animal? ;) - Josette 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Confirm -- CactusWriter 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• mreow ! mreoow DarkoNeko 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per JoshuaZ and Guettarda. Also he is a very active contributor to WikipediaReview, I remember in the past there were allegations of conflict of interests and security concerns... Alex Bakharev 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm BLP has nothing to do with sterwardship, go fight your inclusionist fight elsewhere. Coffee (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm - Lar is doing a fine job. JamieS93 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose reconfirmation, per Joshua and Nsk92 and the fact that I simply no longer trust Lar. He was once someone I considered a trusted wiki-friend but I've seen way too much inappropriate behaviour, back-rooming and wikipolitic games in recent years and do not trust him with positions of trust. It's really just boils down to a simple matter of trust. Sarah 06:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
•  reluctant oppose due to being brought before arbcom, and BLP issues. I, personally, would never stand for Steward because I am a divisive and controversial figure; such people should not be stewards even though - on the whole - their actions are to project benefit. It is, regrettably, a position where one must be above and beyond suspicion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. See talk page for reasons and discussion. Durova 23:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. Strange issues on en.wp don't have do to anything with his good work as a steward. --MF-W 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm - tired of irrelevant allegations that have nothing to do with him being a steward. - Josette 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep --Vituzzu 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm, no major issues with use of steward tools. enwiki actions are unrelated to stewardship and I don't see Durova's issues as a big deal. NW (Talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm, as one of the most solid people on the project. Larry is truly one of the good guys. Also, the fact that several people I hold in quite low esteem don't like him speaks well of his character as well. As NW states, Durova's "issues" just aren't that big of a deal. Unitanode 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Lar is one of the few true grownups I can count on in wiki, he may ruffle some feathers on occasion, but that's because he does the right thing and he's usually right far more often than he's wrong. Lar is very trustworthy, I have not ever seen him abuse his position (most people that he has to discipline in some fashion have thoroughly deserved it, IMHO!) plus he has a level head and a good sense of when to use a carrot and when to use a stick. If he speaks critically of someone's behavior, it usually means that person needs to take a good look at themselves. The drama folks above really only illustrate my point; Lar will do the right thing even when it isn't the thing that makes him popular. That is always needed in any leadership position. Montanabw 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Remove per BLP. And I vaguely recalled some privacy concerns caused when Lar was using the Checkuser tool. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  So there were; see (for example) the last version of Talk:SlimVirgin-Lar before blanking:[13]Proabivouac 08:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks for the link. Couldn't keep track of many things in detail with so many issues and dramas around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  The more relevant link, of course, is this one: en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar, particularly the findings of fact and remedies, in which SV was admonished for stirring up trouble in inappropriate ways, and I was exonerated of any wrongdoing. But of course, that's a less useful link if (like Proabivouac apparently does) one has the goal of continuing a smear campaign after one's blackmail attempts fell flat, because it undercuts one's narrative rather inconveniently. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Lar, I have kept away from this, but if you're going to misdescribe what happened, then obviously I'll have to correct it, so you might want to reconsider your summary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'd invite anyone to read the link I gave to the case summary, and draw their own conclusions. You were admonished, I was cleared, and Proabivouac continues to try to libel and blackmail people to this day. I'm open to rewording, feel free to mail me a suggested change if you like, but those are the salient points. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Besides being the steward, his active meta-steward involvement is very important for other stewards. --Millosh 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Remove per BLP concerns, Wikipedia Review involvement, and issues raised by User:Durova. —Ynhockey 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not sure what to say here... A lot of people are clearly having personal griefs and give arguments that don't seem relevant to me. However, it also seems some of the arguments actually make sense. I don't know yet what to think of this. I hope everybody will give relevant arguments, and no more "per XX". Also, make clear what exactly the arguments are and what the relevance is. Thanks. --Effeietsanders 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Against confirmation - due to serious concerns about demeanor and inappropriate behavior, as raised above in comments including those by Ynhockey, Alex Bakharev, Sarah, Durova, Pohta ce-am pohtit, Nsk92, Lycaon, and JoshuaZ. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm - has performed well as steward. Let's not use grudges from other roles to poke at someone. Stanistani 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm - I don't see any connection between steward duties and BLp activities on enwiki. Kevin 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Over time as a steward Lar has proven helpful, very effective and (as others have said) a solid user and a mainstay. I have not seen complaints about his activities as a steward. I was on the committee that looked at the alleged misuse of tools (from 1st half 2008) and I do not have any current residual concerns nor have I heard substantive claims of any of it happening in the nearly 2 years since the actions took place (apologies to those who hold strong views on it, and declining to rehash the debate here). Regarding the more recent issues over BLP and general interaction/conduct, whether Lar was right or wrong, it's worth noting the local ArbCom endorsed his and others' recent actions on BLP. That aside, I have not been tracking Lar's conduct nor do I know how much general conduct traditionally speaks in steward reconfirmations. But in terms of pure trust to perform the steward functions and use the steward tools, my impression is that any lessons have long since been learned and do not seem to provide reasons for concern as of 2010. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Comment. FT2, thanks for explanation. I've been searching to find if any of the objections are related to Lar's stewardship. I would like to remind those who are opposing that: (1) Being a steward is not, in fact, a big deal. Misusing steward permissions leads to removing rights and possibly to a legal action against a [former] steward. As Lar didn't abused his implicit power on some smaller project and as he is a very useful steward -- the only reason which should matter in his case is abusing permissions. (2) Last years we have lack of stewards and Lar is one of the active ones. Besides that, his overall influence into stewards dynamics is very positive. -- So, if he doesn't deserve to have permissions at en.wp or if it would be problematic to give to him some different kind of trust, please raise that issue at the appropriate place(s). Otherwise, the situation looks like that someone can't be a forster because of his behavior in supermarket at the moment when we don't have enough foresters. --Millosh 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Proabivouac responded to this comment at 08:02, 17 February 2010. It then devolved into a dispute that has gone off topic and was moved to Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar#Dispute_between_Proabivouac_and_Lar. If anyone wishes to continue the dispute, please keep it to the talk page. Ottava Rima 17:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Remove. His arrogant behavior is unbecoming for a steward. Ruslik 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There might be issues, but they don't relate to being a steward at all. It's up to enwiki to decide what to do with him over on enwiki, not take it out here. Majorly talk 14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. RMHED 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Retain - Lar is by far among the most thoughtful and dedicated people I have run across over the past few years in the Wikimedia community. The fact that he's completely open about his opinions (when appropriate) makes him even more of an asset, not less. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reconfirm and the person closing should note that many of the oppose voters are grudge settling on a matter that has nothing to do with stewardship. This is minority of people who are unhappy with BLP enforcement on en.wp (and incidentally on the wrong side of the local arbitration committee) and they are spilling it over here.Scott MacDonald 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. What happens in enwiki, stays in enwiki. --Tinz 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. I've worked closely with Lar on CU issues in the past year and believe he posses the dedication, judgment and skills required to retain the steward bit. --Versageek 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm A good guy, trustworthy, thoughtful. Concerns remain as to his possible misuse of lego, but he seems fine with the tools. Ceoil 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, good job as a steward, most of arguments against deal with local conntent disputes, which have nothing to do with stewardship — NickK 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Iain99 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Because I want to do rude things involving Lego with him. Or because his actions and behaviour across various WMF projects and beyond (including the Wikipedia Review) is up to and above the required standard. Also a charming dinner companion, I'm told. George The Dragon 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Privatemusings 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep --InkSplotch 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• confirm. --Túrelio 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose reconfirmaion per Sarah, specifically; "I've seen way too much inappropriate behaviour, back-rooming and wikipolitic games in recent years and do not trust him with positions of trust." Ryan Postlethwaite 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be helpful in steward activities. The fact that after months of stasis there is a battle brewing on en:wp on BLP and Lar been active in that rather than stepping back has very little to do with that. Other comments as to his views on BLP policy, his communication style, and perceived "politicking" might or might influence his legitimacy and effectiveness in policy discussions and implementation on en:wp, but also are of limited relevance to being an effective steward. Martinp 20:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep i don't really understand how the BLP issues prevent him from carrying out steward duties. Themfromspace 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Will Beback 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Specifically, I am concerned about his non-neutral interactions with users and with his extensive involvement with the banned users who hang out at Wikipediareview. Stewards should be beyond reproach. Lar, though perhaps a valued contributor, is too entangled in politics, including the BLP issues, to hold a key position that requires neutrality across multiple projects. Will Beback 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Kind and caring person, great administator and Steward. --Mbz1 12:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. --FollowTheMedia 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I trusted him but his perspective and actions for the ongoing BLP issues disappointed me. He is not that responsive either.--Caspian blue 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - concerns raised by editors such as Sarah and Durova are worrisome. I don't expect anybody to have a crystal clear record, but concerns raised by editors I trust are making me suspect there is something to them, I am afraid. --Piotrus 04:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've seen you do great work on en:wikipedia. I've also seen other actions that cause me too much concern to support.--Cube lurker 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Alex Bakharev and Sarah, despite the fact that Lar will eventually get his revenge for this, both off-wiki and on-wiki. Or perhaps because of that. And as an additional point, while my own concerns are unrelated to the BLP drama on en-wiki, it is quite disappointing to read a number of commenters here pretending that the concerns raised regarding that are by people who are "not happy about policy". Rather, it is clear to me that those raising this issue are entirely supportive of policy, but quite concerned about very specific behaviors. The astonishingly disrespectful distortion that anyone who opposes Lar's confirmation is opposed to policy, is, in fact, typical, and part of the problem.Jayjg 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm the Legoman. I approve his BLP stand. Bishonen 09:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC).
• Confirm, helpful steward. --Mercy 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pohta ce-am pohtit, JoshuaZ and others. This kind of wikilawyering and wikipolitics are precisely the types of role models that will bring Wikipedia to its knees. --Leifern 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A drama queen who helps friends but has vendettas against anyone who somehow rubs him the wrong way. I do not consider Lar trustworthy (yes, he can be kind and caring, but in my experience that is either a facade or simply unreliable), and he has been a source of far more trouble than he is worth. The comments provided by JoshuaZ and Durova are compelling (and come from two people who are far more trustworthy and have done far more to promote the encyclopedia and the integrity of its workings). Slrubenstein 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, sadly. Although Lar is obviously hardworking, I don't believe he has shown the character required for a position of such trust. Quadell 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per JoshuaZ, Sarah, Durova, and others -- too involved in Wiki-politics and drama IMO. Khoikhoi 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Sad oppose. To get the negative issues over with, I too believe Lar has a tendency to be vindictive against those who disagree with him. [14] and [15] looks like jumping at BLP ghosts instead of anything substantial, and dragging the issue of flagged revisions into the mix does no favors either. Starting this WR thread with the sentence "There are some people on there who aren't usually confused. Some." also seems a tad arrogant. I will concur with his supporters who point out that Lar is a helpful fellow, but it appears we will be getting an influx of new stewards now. Sjakkalle 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  Note: Three stewards resigned within the confirmations yet[16], at least five (without Lar) will—afaics—fail (User:Pathoschild/2010 steward confirmation statistics), and only eight to ten new ones will be elected[17]. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this to me looks like a personal attack. Furthermore, a steward should be a leader and uniter of a 'broad church' and healer and voice of calm in times of difficulty. Instead we get this divisive comment, among others. Yes, we needed to do something about BLP, but am really unimpressed with behaviour in the last few months. Casliber 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Polargeo 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• I confirm. User has superior understanding of BLP, which is and ought to be a Foundation priority. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Rama 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose stewards should not defend editors for calling other editors "trolls"[18]
  Administrators and Stewards should not thank[19] editors who stated they have "utter contempt" for "community consensus",[20] "a consensus of idiots does not override good sense",[21] "I am indifferent to any such moronic consensus",[22] and "a basket case, morally bankrupt, community"[23] (Editor later blanked these comments and defended his deletions)[24]
  Lar not only thanked this editor, he actively helped this editor delete several notable articles,[25] which led to an arbcom and then an unprecedented amnesty.
  This bullying editor should not be an admin, let alone a steward.Okip 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Raymond 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Of all the stewards up for reconfirmation, Lar is the one I interact with the most. He's the one I've gone to in the past (won't now due to the Ombudsman role) if I have questions or issues, as he's almost always available and is incredibly knowledgeable. I'm not particularly moved by some of the diffs I've seen above; some of it is grossly being blown out of proportion (I'll admit that I didn't look at every link, though). I trust Lar, which is all I really care about in this matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm - Not at all convinced by the oppose comments, many of which rely on a personal interpretation of events that could be taken differently with a little good faith; Lar handles this and other elevated positions well. Shell Kinney 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Confirm² for I think that we're commenting about his steward word. Wikimedians usually fulfill several roles and we should keep in mind that they're not the same. Maybe on enwiki he's had problems. So perhaps he should be sanctioned there (perhaps). But as steward he's been flawless and therefore he shouldn't be denied the confirmation.

  To make the example a bit more extreem, this is like saying he shouldn't get confirmed as stewards000 because he made a bad judgement on FA discussions. As a matter of fact, he shouldn't be "stewarding" on enwiki, so saying "I disagree on his BLP views therefore I vote oppose as steward" is a non sequitur. Please do focus on the issue at hand. We're evaluating his steward work, not his enwiki community behaviour. Sometimes this kind of issues make me believe I do the right thing trying to edit as little there, as people get very sensitive and use anything against you). es:Drini 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above posters who addressed his extreme rudeness and abuse of CU tools. I have unfortunately encountered both myself. Crum375 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that, since some people mention BLP as an issue, I happen to share Lar's view about BLP. Unfortunately, the way he behaved while presenting his view alienated many editors and made that position harder to defend, so I stayed out of the debate. Crum375 11:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Remove I'm aware of two incidents related to Lar's handling of private information which in light of the other concerns expressed above suffice for me to oppose this reconfirmation, though I'm open to reconsider if satisfiable explanations are given.

  1. en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: here it's helpful to make some digging beyond the final decision. Regarding en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision#Breach_of_privacy, I cite the proposed finding: "Lar disclosed data derived from page logs, in circumstances in which none of the situations permitting disclosure applied. This constituted a breach of the privacy policy.". This was supported by three arbitrators, none opposed, but couldn't pass because arbitrators found it was not within their jurisdiction to rule on privacy policy violations (instead, it was up to the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission...). Nonetheless, arbitrators passed a remedy (link): "The Committee reminds all operators of the CheckUser tool that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times." (passed 7 to 0). From this, it seems clear to me that arbitrators found the handling of private information by Lar in this matter 'suboptimal', to the point of breaching the privacy policy, even if the uses of the checkuser tools themselves were found within acceptable range of CU discretion. From reading Newyorkbrad's additional statement, I can see it was not excessively 'bad' but still concerning. Plus, the characterisation of the situation by Lar above doesn't seem genuine at all, in any case misleading.
  2. I've stumbled across another incident, to which I've seen no satisfactory explanation and that I find quite concerning. This happened here (scroll down to the suppressed edits): Lar, while in dispute with David Shankbone, posted on his talk page, and got responded but the whole discussion was removed and suppressed (oversighted) by Keegan. It seems to me that stewards should know when not to post material that may need to be oversighted or even might lead to a conversation requiring oversight.

  I'm especially concerned because it's been pointed out that Lar is involved in multiple interpersonal or political disputes, and those two incidents happened during such disputes. I feel our projects need less disputes of this kind, and stewards, due to their position and access, should be above them, and while this is not always possible, certainly not furnish them. Cenarium (Talk) 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  I would strongly urge all who have concerns about the first case to read Newyorkbrad's statement that Cenarium has kindly linked to. Carefully and completely. Then draw their own conclusions. I stand by whatever I have said about this case, from the very beginning when SlimVirgin was bruiting accusations about in myriad places, to this very day, including the remarks I made further up this page. As for the other matter, with my steward bit turned off, I can't refresh my memory of who said what, but what I recall suggests that I spoke flippantly, which cascaded matters, and the net result was that a fair bit of stuff from a number of people needed to be removed. I regret that, but we are none of us perfect. I don't consider it a major incident but it was an imperfection. That editor does not bring out the best in people, sometimes. That's not an excuse, just an observation. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Pcap, Nsk92 - his behavior during the recent BLP fiasco on en:wp is dismaying, vituperative, and fanatical in nature. Other checkuser abuses mentioned in this thread finalize it for me. RayAYang 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as I trust neither his judgment nor integrity based on various actions on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rude, dismissive, self-righteous attitude to those disagreeing with him, as evidenced by his comments during the BLP dramafest on enwiki, in my view, makes him unsuitable for this position. This has nothing to do with his deletions or his views on BLPs. Tim Song 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Minds can differ on this BLP nonsense. Those differences don't somehow render the his judgment vis a vis the tools suspect in the least. Protonk 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm Lar is a trustworthy contributor whom I believe has struck a fair balance on the fine line which sometimes arises between professional, politically correct conduct and decisive action and honest opinions. The projects need people who are able and willing to think through and act in difficult cases, and are able to do so autonomously when and as required, and yet are able to moderate their own emotional involvements and retain an appropriate distance. Both classes of behaviour are not always politically advantageous, and at least some of the opposition above strikes me as rather petty hair-splitting arising, especially to the extent that many of them appear to have no bearing on the role of stewardship. I support Lar not because we've always agreed, but because we've disagreed and been able to talk through the disagreement as adults. Stewardship isn't a "congressional" seat: We shouldn't choose people based on how much we agree with them on 'issues'. Narrowing the position to functionally inert baby-kissers would do us no good, nor would we do well to only accept candidates who have been aggressive enough to drive away everyone they've every disagreed with. --Gmaxwell 20:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm No issues with prior history as a steward. An asset to the team. Thank you for continuing to volunteer. NonvocalScream 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Cenarium, Cert, Durova, et al. Questionable CheckUser actions, and demeanor towards those he disagrees with are concerning. Blurpeace 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm I have found Lar to be approachable and extremely helpful with cross-wiki questions. Opposing due to BLP issues etc on en-wiki is a bit bizarre considering he does not routinely act as a steward there, and it is his actions as a steward that are under consideration here. Pablo X 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blurpeace, et. al. Lauryn Ashby (d) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the numerous previous users citing ENWP BLP issues. Distrust on one's home wiki is not becoming of a steward and hardly appropriate for an ombudsman. If non-steward actions are irrelevant then Thekohser should be getting a lot more support for his candidacy. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ + jh0367 ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose not because of disagreement over the BLP issue as such, but because of his arrogant manner in discussing it and in replying to questions and making comments generally. One of the least pleasant people to deal with of all established Wikipedians. Such matters are very much pertinent. DGG 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose! For anyone who isn't opposed to this person, PLEASE, look at some of the links Okip has provided. I've noted his person's behavior in the past, and don't believe they should be trusted with any position of power or the tools that come with it. Dream Focus 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose reconfirmation. Lar has clearly lost the community's trust: the opposes are neither few nor petty. It is quite possible to act in both good faith as well as intemperate scorn for the community. Lar needs to take a break from the tools and refocus, and the community seems to be articulating quite clearly that such a break should not be considered optional. Jclemens 05:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Since a suppression of mine has been brought up in this conversation, call me neutral. The suppression that took place involving David Shankbone was based on a complete misunderstanding which devolved into matters that fall within the privacy policy. Both parties made a reasonable request to redact the conversation, and as such it was removed. Please don't put too much weight into that issue, tempers flared and both parties achieved a resolution. In my opinion, Lar has done well as a steward and also has not used his capabilities to abuse the system or gain an upper hand, nor used it as a measure of status. I think he does admirably in separate the UserGroup from his day to day interest in the projects. Keegan 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm The opposes aren't convincing. AniMate 06:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Lar's views have become increasingly extreme, particularly those related to BLP. Thus far he has largely been able to keep those views separate from steward work. It is my hope that stays that way (or better yet, a slight decrease in the fervor given to certain matters). Lar is one of the most well intentioned and helpful editors around, and I'd like to keep him around. Prodego ^talk 06:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong confirm Hmmm. I see quite a number of opposes from people with obvious axes to grind, and several very contentious attempts to re-write the history of what has happened on the English Wikipedia. It's inevitable that someone of the experience, committment and visibility of Lar will become occasionally involved in high-profile issues, and that that will bring an opportunity for a few disgrunted users to make their point. However, no-one can be a great Steward without addressing the hard issues. That's what they are paid for (haha), and Lar should be commended for taking his duties extremely seriously and for not ducking issues that he must have known would earn him no brownie points. MichaelMaggs 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm, good work as steward. LeinaD (t) 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lar has become a polarizing figure on the English Wikipedia. That's illustrated well here, with several supporters alleging that opposers must be harboring grudges, rather than just expressing what might be legitimate concerns. Supporters have talked about how helpful Lar can be. I'm one of the people he used to be helpful toward—and I supported him for steward in 2007—but he turned on me suddenly shortly afterwards for reasons that were never explained, and that's when I experienced a different side to him. He began to attack me on- and off-wiki. He tried to turn people against me. He supported Poetlister—a middle-aged man with multiple sockpuppets on the English WP masquerading as young women, who tried to out me because I'd pointed out they were socks—for bureaucrat and CU on Wikisource, though he knew about the serial sockpuppetry. He would turn up with snarky comments until it reached the point where I was reluctant to speak out on any issue in case he arrived with an insult. He checkusered me. He supported editors who opposed me on content issues regardless of the rights or wrongs, including banned ones. I'm not the only person he has done this kind of thing to—I have seen him be rude to good people in a way that nothing could really justify and that has left them deeply upset. Now the BLP issue has alienated a whole new bunch of editors. I broadly support Lar's stance on BLP, but I feel the way he has pursued it may have turned people who could have been persuaded into opponents.

  Stewards should operate above the fray. I think Lar needs to choose whether to be involved in the management of the project or its politics, because those roles are often incompatible. And above all I'd say to him, please realize that the people you target are often just as loyal to the project as you are. I'm also sorry about having to post this, and I hope it doesn't start up trouble between us again. I was sorely tempted to stay away, but I didn't feel I could justify not saying anything because of concern about consequences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Does not seem suitable for this role. Colonel Warden 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blurpeace. Jaakobou 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Something doesn't sit right with me to support Lar. Perhaps it is my ridiculous xenophobic attitude towards giving Wikipedia Review participants, (no matter how explanatory they are about contributing there), too many tools. It's pretty much impossible to be in Lar's position and not infuriate or at least agitate one or perhaps many more people, so perhaps it's best to let someone else take over this role and let Lar get back to something more fun. I want to add that it is odd though that Lar has more opposition here than other Steward reconfirmations I have seen.--MONGO 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per most of the above. Xavexgoem 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought I was in a tiny minority re Lar until I saw the comments on this page. Tim Song and DGG put it succinctly. (FWIW I share Lar's views on BLP and would in fact go much further toward cleansing the project of marginally relevant BLPs, so it's unrelated to that issue.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris 06:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nsk92. Bolo1910 06:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• I haven't closely followed the en.wp BLP saga, but at the end of the day that is an en.wp issue, and if Larry has lost the trust of the en.wp community, I believe that he is open for recall there. Until there has been a vote of confidence on en.wp that says otherwise, it is inappropriate to say that he has lost the confidence of the community based on a small subset of motivated en.wp's turning up here.
  In regards to stewardship, Larry is quite inactive (especially if we discount the high count of rights changes for en.wp and Commons, where are wikis he is active on), yet he supported global sysops. Sorry, but that is a hot-button issue for me, as you know - as a result, I oppose reconfirmation at this time and recommend that he stand for reconfirmation next year. A lot can change in a year, and he will be in a position to give assurances then about whether or not he intends to be active or not in 2011 as a steward. John Vandenberg 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep  Roger Davies ^talk 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per SlimVirgin and Durova FeloniousMonk 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. I have some concerns about his judgement and tendency to abuse process. MSGJ 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• 'Remove, very abrasive interactions with those he seems to have preconceptions about, domineering and tends to dismiss reasoned argument. I've not paid close attention to the BLP issue, and like Lar favour removal of bios unless there is clear well sourced motability. However, his judgement appears to be poor. . . Dave souza 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm. Sensible and trustworthy user. And the link to get to other pages has exceeded limits, so the only way for me to get to other confirmations is to go through the entire list and find their pages one by one. SandyGeorgia 22:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• I felt comfortable this year with every single member of the team. This is true, regardless of the mere count of actions and the amount of interactions on wiki, mailing list, IRC, social networks or real life. Therefore I'd feel much more comfy if all current stewards are confirmed. --M/ 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)