Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee‎ | CheckUser and Oversight‎ | February 2009 election

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giggy (talk | contribs) at 10:34, 6 February 2009 (oops.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lar

Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I expect most folk know who I am... I've been an en:wp admin since May 2006, an en:wp CU since August 2007 (also holding CU, by election, on Commons and Meta), a steward since December 2007 (I'm currently up for reconfirmation, by the way), and an oversighter on Commons since January 2008. (Herby and I were the first, and we've subsequently lost Herby's services and added Raymond and Rama). I briefly held elected Oversight on Meta, but the community has since decided to allow all stewards to perform oversight as needed. I've performed oversights on many other wikis in my role as a steward as well.
I'm asking for oversight partly because I want to help out, time permitting (although I have a lot of other tasks I focus on as well, I know I will be able to help, especially with crosswiki matters) and partly because I think oversight of oversight is a good thing. On Commons, we implemented a "always review each other" policy, every request is shared with the other oversighters when (or before if it's at all unclear what the right thing to do is) it's handled and that has worked well. Perhaps en:wp is too big for telling every oversighter about every oversight as it happens, but some review is a good thing. The review panel proposed is goodness but more is better.
I believe I have the sensitivity and discretion necessary to be a good oversighter at en:wp, as I am elsewhere already. I hope you'll consider giving me your support. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Lar

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a hard nut for me. Lar is obviously trusted, IMO. However I supported Lar, because of his approach, and that I believe oversight is something that requires a calm balanced person, not taking actions too quickly, and sensitivity. Lar has it all. Having a cross-wiki oversighter, and previous experience makes me support. My only concern would be having too many tools, and not using them. Though Lar resigned as a Wikisource admin because of inactivity issues. All these factors up makes me want to support. --Kanonkas :  Talk  01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, Lar is one of the few candidates in this election who has actually spent some serious time writing a top-quality article. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lar was one of the admins who was willing to touch WP:SRNC. Also being a steward, this reflects that he is more than qualified for the position. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The others above say it well. Lar is an obvious support for me - highly civil, responsible, and competent. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question: Don't stewards get automatic oversight privileges on -en, if an oversight or checkuser is not immediately available? miranda 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Majorly talk 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Majorly is correct. More detail: It has to be temporarily flipped on using m:Special:UserRights. And it has to be an emergency. And unless there were no other stewards about who aren't "homed" here, and it was dire, it would not be me. The en:wp specific policy in this area was previously somewhat ambiguous, if I recall correctly, but it was properly tightened. As I said in my statement, I'm standing partly because there's a stated need that I think I can fill, and partly because I have Oversight just about everywhere else, but would like to explicitly have it on my home wiki, for the review purpose I gave. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing whatsoever against Lar, and I hope he doesn't take this personally, but I am opposing. He's already a checkuser and steward. As a matter of principle I'd rather have separation of powers, rather than a few who do everything. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I'm not at all offended that you're concerned about separation of powers, (you should talk to Commons:User:Marcus Cyron some time :) ). It's a valid concern although I don't see it as really pressing in this particular case, as I explained above, However since I think there are some very eminently qualified other candidates in the running... should the community decide they'd rather I didn't have OV, the wiki will still be OK and so will I. (I think it likely I will vote for all the other candidates, if only to show I'm in full support of their candidacies) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to excess number of roles. Lar knows what I think of him in general. Giggy (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question from User:Sticky Parkin

Before/if you are given the oversight facility, will you make an email address you will use solely for this purpose or for checkuser and admin purposes, as what was your previous email address is not secure for people to write to, as several people including the arbs themselves well know?:) Either that or make sure your current email address is no longer being checked/read, as you know it is or was? We shouldn't be dismissive of user's desire for privacy and confidentiality, so if you are elected to this, or even if you simply continue as a checkuser/admin, you should have an email address which isn't being checked by someone who hasn't been elected by the community and that those writing to you don't know may be reading what they think they are telling you privately. I'm not talking about the previous arbcom case, but in general. People writing to you in a checkuser or oversight capacity especially should be able to be as certain of this as is in the CU/Oversighter's power, that people's info isn't knowingly risking being read by someone they didn't think they were writing to, or who isn't in a similar level of elected/employed wikiauthority, at the very least. It's not too much to ask. :) Sticky Parkin 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Lar

  2. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Hermione1980 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Ty 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BJTalk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Chick Bowen 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --S[1] 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — neuro(talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mr.Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ViridaeTalk 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Majorly talk 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kuru talk 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. rootology (C)(T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. J.delanoygabsadds 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Prodego talk 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support GlassCobra 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Avruch T 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Noroton (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Joe 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. DGG (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Wronkiew (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. John Reaves 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Completely trusted --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Lar

  2. Oppose--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gurch (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RMHED. 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Everyking (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Sandahl (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Grace Note (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Giggy (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election/Oversight/Lar&oldid=268892095"