Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar

Active discussions

Too many jobsEdit

For me much too much jobs, sorry, no. Marcus Cyron 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Marcus has held this position fairly consistently for some time now, he opposes a lot of candidates and current stewards on these grounds. I guess, given that I've actually dropped some roles since becoming a Steward, I'd be curious as to how many Marcus thinks are ideal, and which ones he thinks I still need to drop. Most community members won't vote in a steward in the first place unless they have shown significant tenure and significant (broad) experience. So I dunno. I certainly respect Marcus and his views, he's often the first person to spot issues, but I think I disagree about the number of hats that would be "too many". ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

LycaonEdit

Against confirmation. Likes to act as judge, jury and executioner. Lycaon 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think reading Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Estrilda is instructive. Draw your own conclusions but it is my view this case, which went on for months, shows just how patient and inclined to find an amicable solution I am even in the face of others calling for blocks. That said, being a CU means that you do act as "judge, jury and executioner", sometimes. Comes with the job. Doesn't mean I like it, but it does come with it. But no "execution" is final, and I'm always open to having my work reviewed, or to giving second chances. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPsEdit

Biographies of Living Persons are a serious problem. The WMF Board has taken a firm stance on them. The BLP policy on en:wp is pretty clear. A few folk, including several opposers, are not happy about policy, but fundamentally, the ArbCom has endorsed taking a firm line on BLPs, more than once. I think being concerned about unwilling victims of BLPs is more important than specific procedural concerns. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

attempt to summarize the issues brought upEdit

This is not supposed to be a discussion section, please create a seperate section for that. I only mention the names that bring in /new/ arguments/information on that argument, so for detailed links etc, please find those names. --Effeietsanders 09:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pro:

  • Helpful
  • Active
  • Valuable on the mailing list (oscar)
  • Trustworthy

Con:

  • Too many jobs (Marcus Cyron) - see above for discussion
  • Likes to act as judge, jury and executioner. (Lycaon) - see above for discussion
  • Not inpartisan (JoshuaZ)
  • creates hostile environment towards female editors (Proabivouac)
  • BLP views (Nsk92) - see above for discussion
  • I do not trust him any more (The Wordsmith)
  • Drama monger (Guettarda)
  • Rude (Pohta ce-am pohtit)
  • active contributor to WikipediaReview - conflict of interest/security (Alex Bakharev)
  • Too much using his weight in discussions (Durova)
  • Used steward tools on home wiki (Durova)
  • Privacy concerns (OhanaUnited, Proabivouac, Lar)
  • Arrogant (Ruslik)

Dispute between Proabivouac and LarEdit

I have moved the follow dispute between Proabivouac and Lar from the content page as it has devolved into a personalized argument. Ottava Rima 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. Re: "Otherwise, the situation looks like that someone can't be a forester because of his behavior in supermarket at the moment when we don't have enough foresters." I'd submit that it's more like saying that someone shouldn't be a financial officer because of his behavior towards other employees in his firm, at a moment when we don't have enough good financial officers. Sure, there's an undeniable utilitarian logic to saying that all that matters is his performance, but it's a blatant violation of civil rights, and objectively bad insofar as we're driving an unknowable (though more than zero) number of contributors from Wikimedia projects. I certainly don't agree that whatever is most expedient for Wikimedia is inherently equal to the right thing to do.Proabivouac 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Except that your allegations are untrue, and remain untrue no matter how many times you repeat them or shop them around to people, or try to blackmail me with them, as you have repeatedly. Further, your actions here (on-wiki harassment and general unpleasantness, outing and threats of outing, intimidation and outright blackmail) are far more likely to drive contributors away than anything. Really, you need to stop, it's went on long enough now. ++Lar: t/c 11:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Allegations which your buddies oversight, so no one can see what they actually are.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Why don't you restore them, if you've nothing to hide? I've told nothing but the truth, and you know it.Proabivouac 11:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    All of your allegations were addressed here a year ago. You've told mostly lies, with a smattering of misrepresentation, and you know it. Really, you should stop. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Bullshit. Your blog post was intended to deceive User:Josette, while the rest of us were obliged to go along with it. You shamelessly lied in the relevant WR thread, and I can prove it. Doing the right thing to begin with is, in the end, a lot easier than doing the wrong thing and asking everyone else to pretend that you did the right one; why not try it?Proabivouac 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    What the hell? I have not been deceived at all! You don't know anything about me or the games I play. - Josette 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think your grasp of right and wrong is well formed at all, nor is your sense of proportion. You can't distinguish between consensual flirting and harassment, or between harmless banter and blackmail. Peddle your trash somewhere else. You're lying, you continue to lie, and everyone you've peddled this tripe to knows it, except those few taken in by your lies, or choosing to go along with them for their own motives of revenge or whatever. In deference to Nick1915, I'm done responding to you, although I'm sure you're not done trying to bring me down with your BS. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    OK, I think it's enough. These kind of situations have nothing to do with steward' activity, so, please, stop it!--Nick1915 - all you want 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    Strongly per Nick. Nothing here has any bearing on his behaviour as a steward. I guess if anyone who had screwed up in life were to be prevented from any such role there would be few (& in my opinion rather dull) people left. Our personal lives are just that & old stories are just that too. --Herby talk thyme 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A procedural questionEdit

Apparently Lar has been now selected as an Ombudsman for that committee. If there are sufficient objections to his retaining Stewardship (which it looks like there may be) will he retain that a position that is effectively overseeing of the Stewards? The answer seems to be no, and frankly this seems like an attempt to run-around the many objections to his continued position of responsibility. If he can't be a Steward, he certainly shouldn't be an ombudsperson. JoshuaZ 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"overseeing of the Stewards" - from Ombudsman commission - "investigates complaints about violations of the privacy policy (in particular concerning the use of CheckUser tools)". They would not deal with Steward abilities except CU. They also put together reports and don't seem to make any final decision. None of what has been stated would show an inability to perform this job (as it requires reading, the ability to understand CU use, and some other things which are highly technical) while the job strips away other functions. Ottava Rima 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary. One of the primary objections to Lar has been his politicization and turning everything into his own wikipolitical fights. It doesn't take much to see him using that to influence conclusions and reports about checkusers, defending those he likes and being overly negative and assuming the worst about those he doesn't like. JoshuaZ 05:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Stewards are overseen by the board, the ombudsman's commision oversees checkuser abuse, and to be frank, there isn't often a great deal of work for it to do. You should also realise that ombudsmen are appointed by WMF, there is no input, or even nomination, from the vaious WMF wiki communities. Hope this helps clear it up for you. :) fr33kman t - c 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I said anything indicating any confusion about how the ombudsmen are selected. Er, maybe where I wrote "seems to be no" which really should be something like "seems like it should be no". While the Foundation has the ability to appoint whomever it wants, it would seem obvious to me that if the community isn't happy with someone in a position of trust the Foundation shouldn't be forcing him on it in a larger capacity. JoshuaZ 05:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's up to the board. We can like it or not! Personally, I have no issues with it. fr33kman t - c 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The ombudscommittee is independently appointed. If you have issues with Lar's appointment in that committee, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. This is no community issue. Effeietsanders 10:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Joshua, it is pretty apparent that the objections to Lar are based on petty-minded grudges rather than real, good-faith doubts about his suitability for the post. Nobody can be an admin for a good while without making enemies. Consider how mean-spirited your line of questioning looks to us neutrals; if you have real and substantive reasons to oppose Lar's membership of that committee, I suggest you present them now. If not, I suggest you withdraw it. --Guinnog 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Guinnoq, instead of making accusations of "mean-spiritedness" I suggest you read what I've wrote, and what others have linked to. It is interesting to note that none of the other Stewards who are primarily based on .en are producing nearly as many objections, so the notion that this is merely because Lar has been an admin for a long time is clearly without basis (although I acknowledge that there are a non-zero number of opposes that are retaliatory in nature. Lycaon's would be the most obvious example). Moreover, multiple points have been made that directly connect to Lar's stewardship. Consider for example what Durova pointed out where Lar used his Steward capabilities on Commons which is one of his home wikis. JoshuaZ 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledging what is said here abouts as I've just posted above, I see little that reflects on Lar's behaviour as a steward which is the issue here. Equally I don't really see where the "sufficient objections" objections are coming from even. While there are issues (& I agree with Guinnog) there are plenty of folk who are happy enough. --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So you don't think that using his Steward tools on his home wiki is a problem? Interesting. JoshuaZ 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Herby's home wiki is Commons, and it's his primary home rather than a secondary home, as it is for me. I daresay he understands Commons better than you. In particular, you don't have all the facts about why I did what I did in the Dcoetzee matter, and neither, at the time, did Mike.lifeguard. That was a delicate situation and there was reason I was the one that did it, rather than a steward that didn't have the Commons context I do. The guideline about home wiki actions is just that, a guideline, not an inviolable principle regardless of circumstance, and we stewards are supposed to be selected for our judgment. I'm not shy about expressing my opinions about matters of public import (which is a surefire route to getting opposition) but you will find me reticent about discussing matters that are best kept private. Perhaps that's why I'm a steward (as well as an elected admin, 'crat, oversighter and checkuser at one wiki or another) and you are a former admin. The Dcoetzee matter will nevertheless be a topic of discussion among stewards, I'm sure, as unlike the rest of what's been raised, it actually has relevance. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So you think that you do a good job at keeping private what should be private? Right, and I'm sure the fact that your wife has gotten details on multiple checkuser related matters is a real sign of your ability to keep private what should be private. Incidentally, the fact that you try to make this about me (saying it has something to do with my status on en.wp) is precisely the sort of problem people are talking about when they say you politicize and personalize everything. Making irrelevant ad hominem attacks is just par for the course. JoshuaZ 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll say it because it needs to be said: there are a lot more people supporting than opposing here, so this talk about an "end run" is either completely silly or rather premature. Or both.
It's also more than worth noting here that some of the people accusing Lar of "political behavior" are deeply entrenched in the peculiar politics of en.wp, and (thankfully) those politics are local politics.
Lar's appointment as ombudsman has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion: he's a trusted volunteer that the foundation felt comfortable appointing to this position. And even if it did matter, it would only be in his favor. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we're through here. Joshua, isn't there a 'pedia somwhere that you could be helping to write? Cla68 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing fully with Cla68's comment (no idea where it is tho ;)). If I had concerns with the actions of any stewards anywhere they would know about it. If I did not get satisfactory responses others would know about it. Commons is my home wiki & I know a bit about it. I have no concerns with any actions of Lar (or any other steward) there. --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussionEdit

This has become a bit more threaded than intended. Moved for clarity from the main page. Durova 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A good example of Lar's unsuitability is his comments here (at oppose no. 2): not just out of step with the community, but conveying an ominous tone at odds with open consensus decisionmaking.[8] We need stewards who refrain from using the weight of their position to suggest that reasonable dissenters discuss policy "at their peril". People who carry big sticks should speak softly. Durova 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • A cross-wiki issue surrounded the publication of an open letter last summer. The subject was mainly about Commons, included significant input and examples from the German WMF chapter, and was published at the en:wiki site newsletter. Shortly after publication Lar contacted me with a request to add his name to the authors, although he had no part of the actual authorship and was not involved in the institutional outreach which the letter discussed. None of the coauthors felt that Lar's request to add his name was appropriate. I conveyed our decision to Lar, who suggested following up by starting a supportive petition for the open letter--which seemed to be a very good and appropriate compromise solution. Instead of pursuing that productive path, though, shortly afterward Lar initiated a quarrel with another editor in my userspace.[9] Throughout that period it was quite awkward to interact with Lar. Afterward he followed none of my suggestions to join our efforts; I would have gladly provided assistance if he had contacted museums and historical societies in his region. Everyone has dealt with the kind of person who is more interested in taking credit for useful work than in actually doing good work; the episode left me wondering whether Lar is such a person. Durova 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    The BLP issues are not a steward-related issue (and note that I support Lar, others, and the en:AC on this issue).
    I worked with Lar early last year in an attempt to get us a whole museum's collection. I spoke with you, too, about some of this (+thanks). The museum is the w:en:Museum Puri Lukisan and their curator is w:en:User:Swidagdo, whom I've met. This didn't prove fruitful, but it was not for lack of trying. Lar got us an OTRS ticket and worked through the bumpy process of sorting that the user really was who he was asserting he was. The reason this did not bear fruit was that it was simply too much work for Soemantri and the museum to bother with and he had been badly bitten over misunderstood licensing. Basically a lot of his uploads were deleted and his talk page flooded with templates. By the time I noticed and tried to get help fixing everything, Soemantri had largely moved on. Lar was very helpful in all this. Most will not have heard anything about this as it quietly occurred on a few talk pages and emails. I don't see him touting his efforts, rather I see him as mellow fellow quietly doing what is right. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    Actually the particular issue he was debating at en:wiki is irrelevant, which is why I didn't name it. The serious matter here is appropriate steward demeanor. Healthy functioning of the Wikimedian consensus model makes it imperative that stewards avoid the appearance of in-group cliquishness. This particular steward has serious problems in that regard, and probably would not have been elected to stewardship if certain behaviors had surfaced before his election. Processing one OTRS ticket very different from the outreach that made the WMF Netherlands-Tropenmuseum partnered exhibit an outstanding success: they held a show about the cultural history of Suriname that made national news in The Netherlands and received a head of state visit from President Ronald Venetiaan of Suriname. The Tropenmuseum is an anthropological museum with a special focus on former Dutch colonies, which of course includes Indonesia. Your work with Indonesian culture, Jack, has been admirable and I'd gladly follow up with you there. But answering one OTRS ticket hardly merits coauthorship on an open letter he didn't help to write or plan, and his surrounding conduct on that matter was disappointing. Durova 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    You're misrepresenting matters here, Durova. It's not about taking credit for anything, because that's not my style. I offered to sign because I thought it was important to support a good effort. Most of what I do happens behind the scenes and I'm OK with that. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    If there's any misrepresentation it certainly isn't deliberate. It came as a surprise Lar's subsequent actions were at odds with his stated intentions. Surely someone who holds the position of steward should be more careful about avoiding that type of confusion. If another example is necessary, see this discussion and the conversation with a fellow steward:
    Lar, doesn't "your capacity as a steward" also obligate you to not take such action on your home wiki? This isn't the first time you've used steward permissions on Commons, but that doesn't make it OK. — Mike.lifeguard 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    I considered that factor, as well as many others, in weighing what to do, yes. But remember that our practice is not an absolute prohibition on taking action on wikis we frequent, it is a reminder to use our judgment. This action is not irreversible. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    So it comes down to the assertion that you're right? If that's the bottom line, then that's what I'm looking for and also why I asked you in public. Thanks for your answer. — Mike.lifeguard 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Durova 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    I've looked at this, too, and find Lar's actions quite appropriate, as did the admin whose bit was removed temporarily. I had not read of this NPG issue before and consider Lar's actions to be absolutely in line with my view of a steward's role. This was about doing what was right for a good user who found themselves in a bind, and defending the foundation's goals (and ass;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well, you did link to the BLP issue. The relevant issue *is* the consensus model and the fact that it is quite broken on en:wp regarding any issue of scale; too many shrill little voices pushing many discussions to an inconclusive megabyte of bickering. Anyway, it's another project. The help provided by Lar re the Museum Puri Lukisan was far more than processing a ticket. There were several dozen emails involving myself, Soemantri, Lar, Indry (administrator @ the museum), Ketut (the museum's webmaster), and a few others. You were involved in *one* skein of threads, but missed the core of it. I am aware of your issue with Larry and mostly kept you two out of the same threads.
    I did not mean to compare this to the Tropenmuseum initiative, which I mostly know of from you; I'm seeing a lot of useful images that emerged from that, so it seems a worthwhile effort. Thanks, btw, re my efforts; I'll touch base with you about all that and the Photoshopping when I have time to focus on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This "discussion" seems to have ended three days ago. Is there any particular reason for moving it here now? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep all the threaded stuff here? I'm in favor of that, with links from the comments page, but I leave it to others to make the final call. I did suggest it though, at the same time the first one was moved. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Return to "Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar" page.