Meta:Requests for oversight/Lar

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Lar

Given there has been some desire to have locally-elected oversighters for Meta, there were a few names that came to mind, but Lar is easily my pick out of the lot.

Meta regulars are sure to recognize the username already, but for those who aren't familiar with this Wikimedian, some past nominations to review if you like: Wikisource admin, Meta admin, Meta RFCU, Meta RFB, Commons RFO, Commons RFCU, Steward. He also has OTRS access.

Lar is highly trusted on many wikis, already has experience with oversight at Commons and as a steward. Perhaps this nomination hasn't done Lar justice, but given the level of community trust shown in the past I feel little need to harp on the characteristics which qualify him for these tools, as they are readily evident.

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. I've done some oversighting here already, and have been thinking about what a shame it is that it seems we do need regular oversighters here... so I am honored by the nomination, and I accept. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support Support as nominator, I should say. I'm confident Lar is capable of handling the tools he has & I'm equally confident he'd relinquish those he's not, if that situation arose. I trust Lar to both use the tools well as he has in the past and to hand them back as appropriate. My experiences with Lar's CU and admin work has been excellent, though I'm not privy to any oversight stuff.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Support Frankly, he's got the trust (he's already a steward), the tools (same), and the job (He performs oversights on Meta already, but as a steward). This would simply make him our choice versus being one given by the greater Wikimedia community. Kylu 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Support. He is calm, competent & an able communicator. He is experienced with the tools & active. There are few that I would trust more than Larry. --Herby talk thyme 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy. 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Support Lar has experiences with the tools and is certainly a good candidate. --Thogo (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I know, but are necessary 4 oversights in meta? there are a lots of requests to hide revision? I trust in Lar and in all the candidate, but my question is another :-) --.snoopy. 12:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Any wiki has to have at least 2, or none. I think one of these 4 is very clearly already not going to succeed. Two are currently iffy, and one is on track to pass (This is a very early days rash prediction, mind you!!! ... and all that could change, of course). If only one passes, meta will have no elected oversighters, and stewards will continue to handle requests as needed. Perhaps another candidate is needed? Perhaps we're actually better off WITH stewards handling requests? There are more stewards than we'll ever elect here as oversighters, for sure, and thus, better coverage. As I said, I've run in the past to make sure that the "2" requirement was met, so I don't have a lot invested here, but I am happy to serve and if elected will do my level best to execute the office satisfactorily. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Support Lar already has the tools on Commons. That beeing said, I see no trust issue with Lar having the tools here.--Kanonkas 11:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Meta is probably the only wiki where trust is secondary to activity levels...--Cometstyles 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Mmm, well it certainly is a wiki where you believe trust is secondary to activity levels. However, I'm not convinced that you have yet persuaded enough people of this that you can simply declare it so. I think a lot of people here still disagree... WjBscribe 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I see no harm in trustworthy people taking on more work even if they aren't able to do all of it all the time. We trust them to not screw up when they do help out. That's my opinion anyway. —Giggy 05:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Support He's already a steward and does this stuff elsewhere that has higher traffic. MBisanz talk 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Support I think we can trust lar here. Kwsn01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Lar has my 110% trust. —Giggy 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support samþykkt, he is trusted, but as snoopy, I don't see much need for oversight on meta, however, if people think its needed, let them do it, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Support from neutral, per this. I think it is admirable that Lar plans to keep to his word now that his promise becomes relevant, and these are qualities I would like to see in an oversight, as it happens. An irony it be. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support John Vandenberg 00:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Lar's need for this right lead to this set of discussion. He is on meta often; He will serve well as a second; and having this right directly would actually reduce Lar's work, for then he would not need to use his steward tools. Hillgentleman 00:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Support A very reliable steward, so there is no sense not to give to him this permission locally, here. --Millosh 12:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Support He is eligible to do it --Mardetanha talk 15:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Support No doubt. --Obersachse 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Support Between activity and trust, I favor trust, which is damn-near synonymous with Lar in my dictionary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Support - I supported him from the first place. I just wanted to wait for him to accept this nomination, before adding my vote here. Huji 10:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Support No doubt. --Kiensvay 10:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Support, agree with Kylu. Cirt 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Provisional Support Support. Provided that stewards continue to check the oversight logs for cross checking and accountability until a second oversighter can be elected. I trust this user, and it is my personal belief that each local project (and in the sense that for the purposes of oversight and checkuser, I'll consider meta a local on in this context only, meta is actually projects coordination). note: that I have interacted with Lar via email before and he has historically been able to respond with a quickness. NonvocalScream 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Symbol support vote.svg Tacaíocht - per activity and trustworthiness. Works really hard as a steward and has a good eye on policy and how it applies - Alison ❤ 08:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Support--Marbot 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support Support, a great user who will not use the tools for evil (if you will). WBOSITG 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Support Maxim(talk) 00:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Support Sure --Fabexplosive The archive man 08:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. DarkoNeko 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose Oppose - probably on the basis that we actually need oversighters who are actually active for atleast 12 hours a day and probably always on IRC because with oversight, you really can't request it on usertalk pages of an oversighter that you need something oversighted and mailing an oversighter will also depend on how frequently he/she checks their mail and IRC is probably the quickest way, all the other candidates are IRC regulars, which is good, but can you be also...?--Cometstyles 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Well, despite being an IRC regular, I'm quite sure I haven't been on IRC for 12 hours in a day for a long time, if ever. Mail is certainly an acceptable alternative in my mind.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Respectfully, Cometstyles, it's not fair to ask anyone to be active for "at least 12 hours a day". That's several times more than what most people spend on Wikimedia a day. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
        • actually that was just an example, Lar shows up makes an edit and disappears and as Cbrown above mentions, why is he trying to have all rights on every wiki..whats the motive, its not like he is that active, right now the most active steward is spacebirdy and she has over 1000 user right changes, whereas Lar who was elected the same time as her, just about 100, so he is not active as as steward and he recently oversighted something which was probably not necessary really and he is neither active as a crat with only one renaming which was in October 2007, so to sum it up, he is neither active here as an admin, a steward, a bureaucrat and probably a checkuser, so why should I support him as an oversight ??? ..--Cometstyles 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Cometstyles:You are welcome to support or not support anyone as you choose but I think my activity record across all my permissions, while not necessarily the highest in any category, shows that I am quite active, and diligently so. I'm not on IRC 12 hours a day, to be sure, nor do i constantly refresh request pages, so there may be other people that have a higher activity level... but my role as a backstop and person to consult with has not been called into question. So I think this "shows up and disappears" statement is not quite accurate. This isn't a race to see who can pile up the most actions, after all. As I said before, if two other candidates seem likely to pass, I plan to withdraw, because I do have other tasks, but I want to clear up this point of confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
          • he recently oversighted something which was probably not necessary - How do you know that? Korg 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I was on IRC when it happened, and 'a' person that asked me that he wanted something oversighted on meat and the only active steward around at that time was Lar ;)..--Cometstyles 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok, thanks. Korg 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Use of oversight is a judgment call. The judgment involved requires knowledge of the potentially oversighted material to make an informed decision. When it has been possible to do so I have consulted with others (on Commons I almost always consult with my fellow Oversighter, Raymond) about what is appropriate, either at the time or afterwards. On Meta, the persons to consult with have been fellow stewards. I don't think I've oversighted anything inappropriately, and I don't think any of my fellow stewards have done so either. I suggest that perhaps Cometstyles doesn't have access to the same information I do. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose I agree with Cbrown1023 and above. It's too much. miranda 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose Per Cometstyles and Cbrown. He sure has a lot of rights, but barely uses most of them. It honestly looks like trophy collecting. Unlike Mike who tends to use tools everywhere he has them, and Herbythyme who gives them up if he doesn't, yours are left to gather dust. I'd prefer someone else who doesn't have lots of other tasks that they don't fulfil. Majorly talk 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose Nice guy, but too much on his plate. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose Oppose. On reflection I do not think there is much benefit to having local oversight on meta and that it could in fact be detrimental. At the moment we have over 30 stewards who could oversight edits here, and stewards regularly look in on meta. Creating a local oversight group will lead to stewards deferring to the locally appointed users, significantly reducing the pool of people willing to perform these actions. It seems to me the waiting time for oversight is more likely to increase than decrease (and no evidence has been provided that the volume of requests is such the stewards cannot handle them). I would rather the steward team continued to provide oversight cover for meta, which of course would mean Lar could provide oversight in that capacity. WjBscribe 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    I stand by my comments above - I would rather this task had continued to be performed by the stewards. I hope that Meta:Meta-Steward relationship gains consensus and it will alleviate my concerns. That said it seems that at least 2 candidates are going to be successful and I do not want my opinion to be the reason for Lar being unsuccessful given that I have no issue with him performing this task. WJBscribe (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose - Why is it needed? Emesee 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Comment Comment Do we want all of our eggs in one basket? Also, Lar has not even accepted this nomination yet... does he think he can handle being an Administrator, Bureaucrat, CheckUser, and oversight? Cbrown1023 talk 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • He has all those positions on commons too, and on enwiki minus oversight and bcrat... Majorly talk 01:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Enwiki arbcom has stated on RfP previously that stewards are welcome to grant themselves oversight on enwiki. I'm not sure how much the lack of that permission is simply technical. Kylu 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - while I have supported Lar in the past, there just seem to be too many accesses which Lar holds that he does not frequently take advantage of:

To be honest, it seems to me that Lar has a lot of access that remains largely unused, and I don't see any reason why this should be different with oversight should Lar be promoted. I'll need time to think. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • You know, that's a fair point, and thanks for the detailed analysis, Mr. Dissident :). When I stood for some of the roles I have taken on over the years, it was to make sure there were two candidates (where it was required that there be 2), or to act as a check or balance, or to make sure something was covered, rather than because I intended to be the primary user of that right. I don't think sheer numbers tell the tale, at least not the complete one. I'm an administrator of the CU mailing list, and (recently added) the Steward mailing list, and quite active behind the scenes in shaping discussion, I think. Still, if two candidates present themselves for this task that seem to have community trust and are likely to pass, I'd gladly stand aside. I have plenty of tasks. But this task needs doing I fear, and I'm not convinced we yet have two other candidates that will sail through to confirmation. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It seems Mike and Drini will pass this. I honestly don't think we need three oversights for a project where it's done very rarely. Will you stand aside like you said above that you would? Majorly talk 10:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, when it's clear they are going to pass, and when the misconceptions floating about, including some you yourself have propagated, have been satisfactorily addressed. It's not yet clear they are going to pass but it does look quite promising, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As en.ws has been included in this analysis, I would like to put this in context. At the time that lar initiated his RFA on Wikisource, we needed admins, he recognised it, and realised that his experience meant that he would be trusted enough to take on the role sanely. He strongly suggested that I become an admin, and I strongly recommended that a lot of people became admins, so after the first month or so of lar being an active hand on deck filling the void, his admin capability was no longer necessary. The number of admins has at least doubled since he become an admin. His contribs there will show that as the number of admins increased, he fell into a roll of being an active voice within the community, doing a lot of boring archiving and tidying up, and also guiding the new admins. The en.ws term of adminship is 12 months, and even at his currently level of activity, he is more active than some of the admins that were elected before him and have retained their adminship. John Vandenberg 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While I trust Lar without doubt but I'm not sure whether he hasn't already enough to do. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_oversight/Lar"