Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Lar

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lar

 Support = 44;  Oppose = 2;  Neutral = 2; ... this request meets the 2 weeks running, at least 25 supports, at least 30 votes, at least 80% support margin. Request made at meta: [1] ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info about Lar: Lar (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) - his matrix of wiki accounts and activities

The recent past has brought a few examples of "attack" type material aimed at users among others here. From time to time personal information turns up on pages placed by IPs that probably should be considered genuinely to be private. I don't see this as a major problem but for a number of reasons including decency & legality it seems to be time to seek some users with oversight access. Commons is a relatively large wiki now and I feel it should be able to support having local users with those rights.

This is a user who I have the greatest of respect for. He communicates very well indeed (we even manage to understand one another sometimes, not easy given the language barrier :)). He is a calm presence in heated situations & thinks things through well. Despite the "badges" he now wears he is not one to take himself too seriously - something that is important in people seeking responsibilities. For those of you who do not know him well he is a Bureaucrat & Checkuser here as well as having those rights on Meta. In December he became a Steward and also holds rights as admin & Checkuser elsewhere - indeed he was the first Wikimedian to hold Checkuser rights on three Wikis). He also has OTRS access. The only fault I have been able to detect is a tendency to write rather long nominations which is not a trap I would fall into....

Since I offered to nominate Larry as a Commons CU early last year I have worked closely with him on many issues across projects. Personally I trust him completely & I believe he is rightly seen as one of the most reliable & trustworthy people on Foundation sites. I've been happy to nominate and support him before and I am delighted to be able to do so again. The fact that Lar is already identified to the Foundation both as a cross wiki checkuser and as a steward is an advantage. I hope these rights would be used rarely but I do now think Commons should have users with the rights & I hope the community will feel able to support this important request. --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support
  1.  Support - With minor qualm. 1) Lar must never oversight anti-Lego material (good luck with that...). :D — Giggy 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support even if I was beaten - as nom & with complete trust --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support --S[1] 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support Patrícia msg 13:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) because I'm afraid of his moose.[reply]
  5.  Support --Ahonc 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support Could be useful in several cases. --Christian NurtschTM 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support of course. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support I fully support this candidate. --MichaelMaggs 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support I trust this guy implicitly, and yes, I'm aware of more than one recent incident here on Commons that required oversight - Alison ❤ 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But that was for an image, wasn't it? -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Image or text, it still needed it. Majorly (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but one can't oversight images... except by sysadmins -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm oh yeah :/ Majorly (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not fully relevant to the RfA, but there should be a way to oversight images, if we're on the same page about the image incident mentioned above. Maxim(talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran this search and did not find anything yet. Someone maybe should open a bug. I will, if no one beats me to it! :) ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one here. Majorly (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then I guess this is a dup. and so is http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12552 (already marked as a dup). I have no idea why my search didn't find 8196. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support I'm sure most of us will agree that Lar is trustworthy and knows what he's doing. RedCoat 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support aboslutely. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support — As with the other candidate, I trust this user to do his work well. --Boricuæddie 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support there is a need for these privilege; I recall another relatively minor incident that required oversight here, and that request took longer than it should. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (GMT)
  15.  Support, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Lar uses his priveleges responsibly and responsively. He has done excellent work as a bureaucrat on Commons and if his work as a CU shows that there is a small, occasional need for oversight, I trust him and Herby to be the ones doing it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support, obvious. JzG (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is appreciated, but you must sign in to vote. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Feh, like it wasn't me! :o) JzG (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support — No disrespect to Majorly intended, but I find his oppose peripheral. A lack of activity in bureaucratic actions in meta has no connection with a request of oversight in Commons. The oversight tool is to be used only when strictly necessary, and I am doubtful he will neglect his duties with the tools. Steward actions are also to be used only as a last resort, and lack of use speaks more of a cautious and meticulous nature than a lazy person. — DarkFalls talk 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't read my oppose then. It's lack of steward actions I'm more bothered about. Majorly (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did address the issue with the lack of steward actions above. — DarkFalls talk 07:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support Larry seems to be doing a fine job managing everything else on his plate. He has done well in his other duties on Commons, so I have no doubts he will be excellent as an oversighter as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support Fair, very helpful. Kablammo 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support After reading over Lar's statement and the various responses, he seems like he'd be a good candidate for the job. Esrever (klaT) 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support --Szczepan talk 22:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support -- Cecil 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support I'm still hesitant about the actual need of oversights here. Oversight on Commons is frequently needed on images, but they can only oversighted by sysadmins. I think the need for text oversight on Commons is still rare enough to let it to the stewards. So until image oversight has been implemented their is not a real need for users with the oversight position. That said, I fully trust Lar and Herbythyme with these tools and they are the most obvious candidates for this position. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth reviewing bug 8196 to see if there are additional things that should be mentioned about it, or about the two dups. I'm not sure that a lot of votes actually result in increasing the priority so I'm not advocating that everyone vote for it but hey, I ain't stopping you either. And I sincerely hope Bryan is right and that we don't need this. But Herby convinced me and I'm usually dubious of his harebrained schemes, for the most part. ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support. If Lar can be fully trusted, which most people seem to think, then it's better to have him with this tool when he's not needed than not to have him when he is. In an emergency, someone may want to contact an admin who's there rather than try to find a steward. Cowardly Lion 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out, I am a steward so I could technically do it even if the community did not approve of this request. But I never would, except in direst emergency, because this is a home wiki for me, and I would tend not to do things on home wikis that I didn't have explicit community approval for. So yes, I agree, we'd need to find another steward to ask. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support, weakly. The fact that oversight applies only to text and not images makes it of limited use on Commons. There are plenty of stewards who could peform this functions if necessary. It seems odd that local oversight rights might be need here, but that not no Wikipedia other than en.wiki has had a local consensus to appoint such users. That said, I weakly support this request as I trust Lar and have no reason to think he would misuse the tool. WjBscribe 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mildly puzzled  Support per WJB. No chance of misuse, but I just don't see much chance for any use at all ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support--Bapti ✉ 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. with some stomach ache. First Problem I see is, that normally it's enough to SysOp-delete. Second is, that I normally don't like that few people have too much jobs here. On the other hand both nomenies are really two of the few (maybe 5, 6) very active Users here. Marcus Cyron 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting revisions of a page would still allow administrators to see sensitive material (i.e. credit card numbers, etc.). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:44, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
  30.  Support Same as WJB. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support--Filnik 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support WJB has it, as almost always he does, quite right. Jahiegel 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support - the reasons are obvious. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support --Johney (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. trustworthy and levelheaded user - certainly a need for the tool.--Doc glasgow2 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support -- Lycaon 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I definitely trust Lar. Arria Belli | parlami 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support / Fred J (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Support Maxim(talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Support Patstuart (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Support --Polarlys 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42.  Support - One of the good guys. Adambro 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. weak  Support Trustworthiness is not the issue so I support, but my preference would have been to spread the administrative type tasks to more users in order to help the Commons thrive and grow. We are regularly getting more admins from a large number of wikis so this should not be an issue. Being a multi-lingual project, I think we need to encourage more participation from users with broad language skills from a broader group of Projects than our current active CUers have. If the volume of oversight requests are high enough to require local oversight, then I think that Lar may be too busy to do the job and other users with oversight access will be needed. In addition to the actual removal of requests the job also requires spending time referring users to the correct venue as many users contact oversight when they need regular deletion or OTRS assistance for general concerns about content. So, I support with the hope that additional users will be quickly recruited to have this access. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44.  Support After all, as a Steward he could just give himself the right.--Londoneye 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a home wiki for me, so I wouldn't do that, even temporarily, unless no other steward could be found. See my answer to Cowardly Lion. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1.  Oppose You have a lot of responsibility, but you currently aren't making much use of it. I would consider supporting you if you dropped one of your roles, or at least became more active in the roles you have. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's rather an odd reason for an oppose. I'm either the most active or the second most active 'crat here, and it's not for want of trying that I'm not active as a 'crat at meta, you're a veritable dervish, which is good, but also somewhat puzzling. I'm as active as circumstances allow me to be in most of the roles I have. When requests get handled within 3 minutes of their being made, it's hard to get to them within 2, you know. I think instead of racing to handle them as fast as possible, a bit of contemplation of whether they should be fulfilled and where is warranted, balanced against keeping a sense of urgency for urgent matters in mind, of course. I watch the pages where stuff comes up pretty rigorously, for the most part. What you really should be focusing on is, do we need oversight here or not, and am I likely to not be there when it's needed, or misuse it, or fail to keep a good eye on Herby when he uses it, not some arbitrary activity metric. You seem to have a habit of opposing people for fairly odd reasons which I've never quite understood, frankly. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are probably the second most active 'crat here, after Eugene. Now, to my oppose. I think it odd to request bureaucratship when no more bureaucrats are required, but each to his own opinion. I also think it odd that you find it frustrating that you don't get to do much 'crat work on Meta - have you ever thought why that might be? I happen to be a lot more active there than you are, so I process requests as I see them. I don't see the point in keeping people waiting unnecessarily. In fact I find it rather rude, but each to his own opinion. I've done the most renames ever on Meta-wiki, over 50 now, compared to your one usurpation. I was on a break for most of December, but you still did nothing then. If you want stuff to do, stop accepting new bureacrat nominations and keep a closer watch on the request page - that's what I do.
    I also feel you're asking for more jobs, when you don't do the jobs you have already. For example, stewardship. You've made barely any changes at all (none since 4th January). There's always stuff to do there, but you don't seem to be doing it. Why is that? I am sure this isn't the case, but I think you are asking for hats just for the sake of asking for them. My opinion.
    Now I suppport Herby - I disagreed with his RFB on Meta, but at least he has done some work in that area. I don't know how active he is as a CU, but I hardly see you on the checkuser request page for Meta. I assume he's using his tool there. I also see you are barely even active as an admin - although your opinions on discussion pages are highly appreciated. Majorly (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove your supporting vote on mine (indeed oppose if you wish). I have no interest in being supported by someone who so denigrates the considerable work of a fellow Commoner. If you have issues on other wikis with Lar then please sort them out there not here --Herby talk thyme 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I oppose you? Anyhow, I don't have issues with Lar on other wikis. I have issues on here. You mentioned his Meta work in the nomination, so I mention it here in my oppose. I'm probably making more enemies as I write this, but I'm not going to be pressured into switching. I have strong opinions on the issue of power distribution and activity, as you well know. Lar has a lot on his plate already, and I am of the opinion you should make use of the tools you have already before requesting even more. I even said I'd switch if he'd even make the notion he'd be more active where he has extra priveleges already. Instead, I got my oppose thrown back in my face as an "odd habit". If someone requesting something as sensitive as oversight right dismisses someone's good faith oppose as an "odd habit", I'm not sure I want them with that position. If Lar will at least give some sort of notion he'll use the tools the community has already given him (particularly steward rights), then I will of course reconsider. But, as of now, I have the feeling both of you are ganging up and trying to say my oppose is incorrect. Well, it isn't. I'm not even sure of the need for oversighters here. Majorly (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have every intention of using every tool, every right I have asked to be given, and if the situation changes, to where I do not think I will, I have every intention of asking that the priv be removed. You seem to harp on my not using my privs but, again, it is hard to use them if it's a race to see who can answer first. I view all the request pages on meta, and here quite regularly. Here, we do things deliberately and with some forethought, and we try to stick to process when it makes sense to do so. But consider, for example this rename request... that was on your talk page. I see no sign that you asked for a crosslink. It's also not archived on the archive of m:Meta:Changing_username, near as I can tell. Or consider this one... that one was active for 6 minutes before you handled it. Again, you didn't ask for a crosslink. I've raised that with you before and you agreed that crosslinks are important and we should ask for them. I'm sorry but if the standard is "answer all requests, even if they're not where other people can see them, and do it within 6 minutes, and don't worry about the exact details or validating them properly, or archiving them for posterity and traceability" then I won't be able to meet that standard. We have a serious difference in philosophy, I think getting things right is more important than doing them quickly. Now, is your oppose going to derail this? I don't know. I hope not. I'll repeat my offer, if someone else as well qualified as me wants to be the second Oversighter, I'm all for it and I will withdraw. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the examples you cite are from users I am familiar with... one was from a meta admin, who surely would have not been promoted the first time round if they weren't who they said they were. The other user I'm familiar with from Simple English Wikipedia. There's no point in asking for a crosslink when I know very well they are who they say they are. I don't believe in making the process slower pointlessly. I've done things via email and MSN too. Anyhow, I've asked you to remove my flag, as I'm obviously such a dreadful bureaucrat, and I don't want to stand in your or Herby's way as I'm obviously doing everything wrong. Majorly (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The crosslink is for accountability, not just for you, so asking for it benefits everyone, not just you. You agreed when we discussed it before. I've seen your request for me to turn off your 'crat flag on meta and declined it. That misses the point entirely. You are not a dreadful 'crat, you just sometimes act too fast. There is no deadline. Asking that your flag be turned off because you are annoyed is exactly what I am talking about when I say you sometimes act too fast. It's a rash action that I am certain you will regret later, and Meta would be worse off without your services, so I asked you there to reconsider, and I will ask you here as well. Please do not resign. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Oppose I really cannot see the need for oversight on Commons, selective delete/restore is that is needed. I think this would still apply even if the image bug is fixed. Other wikis have higher editing rates, so material needing removal is more likely to survive multiple edits. As long as we trust our admins, I see no point to oversight here. The stewards can handle any WMF requests. Even if need can be demonstrated I would still oppose. With all respect to Lar and Herby, who both have my trust, I'd much prefer to see oversight given to people are from significantly different segments of the community. If the point of a second user is to oversee the first, then only one really need be a checkuser. A trusted admin without CU rights can provide oversight auditing just fine.--Nilfanion 11:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Moralist and censorship issues. 82.199.102.55 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but unregistered users may not participate here. --Boricuæddie 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user may not want to register and comment, as they are the user that shared with us Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg, Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg and Image:Foxie color.jpg... the very existence of those images is a cause for some at other sites to cast aspersions on WMF projects. (not in any way a reason to delete them, mind you, but I don't think those images are widely used). ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is very interesting. Could you please name some of such sites? 82.199.102.55 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1.  Neutral As others have said, I'm not sure we need/want oversights here and I somewhat oppose having "levels of deletion" in general. However, if anyone should be appointed these rights it should be Lar and Herbythyme. They have my utmost respect, complete trust, and I believe they are two of Common's Wikimedia's most valuable contributors. Rocket000 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There'll be a little something deducted from your next pay packet for that blatant brown-nosing. Now go edit COM:MELLOW :), I created it partly at your urging. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe.. well it's true :) Rocket000 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Neutral See comments on herby's rfo for rationale. Mønobi 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

  • Lar, aren't you a steward now? Is taking on more responsibility at Commons a wise idea? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm a steward and I am actively engaged in doing things related to that role, as well as other roles elsewhere. I remain engaged here though. I realize that taking on more responsibility here is not something to be considered lightly but there are two reasons why I, at Herby's urging, accepted this nomination despite that valid concern. 1) I strongly feel that whoever has this should also have CU and admin here and be active as a CU and as an admin and moreover, active in the community. That makes the pool of candidates very small. (see [2] ... realistically, the people that fit that set of criteria well are Bryan, Herbie, and myself) I am hoping to see another CU added soon but Herby convinced me that we don't want to wait. 2) As Bryan alludes to, the actual number of times that oversight will be needed is small so the incremental workload is likely to be small as well. Further, I expect that Herby will be doing more of the work than I do, just as he runs more CUs here than I do, I serve as a check. So since there are few candidates and the anticipated work is slight (but non zero, if it were zero we would not need oversighters) I adjudged the impact as acceptable. Note that this is not the only role I would have where I'm a backstop rather than the primary person. Hope that clarifies. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS, all that said, I do have plenty to do and I'm not trying to collect more badges for the sake of having them. I stood because Herby convinced me there was a need. I would be willing to stand aside in favour of Bryan's candidacy, assuming he can be convinced to stand (and convinced why it's needful that we have oversighters here. :) ) ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need oversights here? Have there been events before where the use of Oversight was necessary (I understand that no details can be given, just "yes" or "no") and if so, is it something we regularly see? As far as I know oversight is only possible for text. Images can only be oversighted by developer intervention, so I don't know whether oversight is for much use on Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extremely rarely I hope. However when it is needed, it is needed I guess. On RC I do see "personal" info placed by IPs - some of it comes under the heading of I "think this should not be here". I've done "admin delete & selective restore" in the past. --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Herby's, this nomination should be kept open longer than usual due to the stricter oversight requirements. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The margins and vote requirements for Oversight and CU are the same I think. We previously only ran CU's for a week. I'm not opposed to these going two weeks, but as I asked on Herby's, should we change CU's to two weeks going forward as well? ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Statement

Thank you everyone for your comments. I appreciate the support and will use this permission only as necessary. ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Lar&oldid=21281810"