Meta:Requests for oversight/Lar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:55, 9 July 2008

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support but it's necessary oversight in meta? --.snoopy.  07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lar has experiences with the tools and is certainly a good candidate. --Thogo (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Meta is probably the only wiki where trust is secondary to activity levels...--Comet styles 13:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Support He's already a steward and does this stuff elsewhere that has higher traffic. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we can trust lar here. Kwsn 01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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...?--Comet styles 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- - 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 Dissident^Talk 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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 ??? ..--Comet styles 06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Cbrown1023 and above. It's too much. miranda 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose Nice guy, but too much on his plate. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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)[reply]

- He has all those positions on commons too, and on enwiki minus oversight and bcrat... Majorly ^talk 01:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
Neutral - 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:
- Commons log - Lar's last 50 log actions go back to April, even while he holds the "full compliment" at Commons.
  - Commons deletion log - a little over 100 items long, stretching back to October 2006.
  - Commons user rights log - a little over 20 bureaucrat actions.
  - Commons bot flag log - Lar has promoted six bots.
  - Commons rename log - around 60 items long. This means that, in over a year of bureaucratship, Lar has made approximately 80 to 90 bureaucrat actions.
- Lar's log at en.wikisource, where he is an admin - less than 20 items long.
- en.wp log - granted, Lar is slightly more active here, with his last 50 actions stretching back to 19 April 2008.
- Meta-wiki log - going back to May, is not too bad.
  - deletion log - last 50 items trace back to Feb '07.
  - Lar's user rights log - As a steward and local bureaucrat, Lar has made little over 100 actions with both accesses combined.

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 Dissident^Talk 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 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. --<strong>[[user:Anonymous Dissident|<font face="Script MT Bold"><font color="DodgerBlue">Anonymous Dissident</font></font>]]</strong>[[user talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:30, 8 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. [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)