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

Lar

I am being blackmailed by User:Proabivouac. There really is no other word for it. It started last year, when I refused to assist him with a block he had received, and has escalated. He's apparently shopping various insinuations around (as I have been told by more than one person who has received them or seen them). He's mailed me making threats, veiled, and not so veiled, and he has mailed my wife as well. He spread the material around during the recent arbitration case, and on February 7th, he tried to spread the same innuendo and rumor on this page.

I got a note yesterday from someone I trust that was contacted, relaying a threat (from Proabivouac, as before) that if I didn't drop out, Proabivouac was going to continue trying to publicise his allegations. I have not directly seen them myself but I have some inkling of what they are.

There is a lot of falsehood, innuendo and distortion in what he appears to be alleging. But the allegations are built around a grain of truth: I've met Wikipedians. I travel a lot, and I make it a point to meet as many people from my hobbies as I can. I did this in my LEGO hobby and I do it in this hobby too. That much is true. But his insinuations are damaging because they allege more than innocent meetings, because they add the whiff of scandal, and because one cannot prove the negative. I had hoped that with the conclusion of the recent arbitration case, that he would stop, but he has not.

I do not give in to blackmailers. However, while I think this nonsensical innuendo about my personal life is just that, nonsense, and has no real bearing on my ability to effectively carry out the oversight role on en:wp, as I already do on many other wikis, it erodes trust.

The position of oversight requires a great deal of trust. If a significant segment of the community does not have trust in an oversighter, whether the reasons for that are valid or not, the oversighter cannot be effective in their role. Alison changing her vote made me think long and hard about this. It is apparent to me that there are those I respect who do not have this trust, and I would rather not serve in this role if I do not have it from the vast majority of folk.

Trust in this role is paramount. Without it, the role is purely ceremonial and I have no interest in that, I didn't request the role to collect flags. Therefore, while I would like to thank everyone who supported or opposed me and everyone who took the time to comment, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration for en:wp oversight at this time. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

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)

Comments and questions for Lar

• For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • No. Majorly talk 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • As someone who has both CU and OS rights (normally!), it is a great help in some CU investigations to have OS rights. Indeed, I would give everyone who has CU the OS right for this very reason. I don't see them as separate roles but as complementary ones. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose due to excess number of roles. Lar knows what I think of him in general. Giggy (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• And here I am. Sorry Lar - you know my opinion. You will be elected as Steward in some days. My vote will you're election here not prevent. And I understand it, you are a good man. But - you know. In my opinion you have enough power. Even the best of us could break under too much power. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
  • I treat all WMF related matters with the appropriate level of confidentiality. Always have, always will. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How about your wife, no offence to her, I can completely understand her reasons, but plenty of people know she can check your/what was your primary or sole email account whenever she wishes, and read any mails that reach there which she chooses to read. No offence to anyone but those sending you communications will not be expecting that it will be read by anyone else except other individuals in the wikihierarchy at the most. So please will you make an email addy solely for oversight, checkuser or admin matters as well as your other one, or in some other way remedy that situation so user's correspondence about oversight matters are more likely to be read solely by people they believe they're talking to about what might be very private details? Sticky Parkin 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • You know, asking about sending him very private details that his wife shouldn't see could be misconstrued... just saying. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Lol, if you are joking ha ha :) but I don't think it's a matter to joke about when I was talking specifically about oversight and checkuser and that people should expect their private info to go only to the person who has been voted by the community to deal with it, and other wikihierarchy members on a need to know basis. The more leaks, regardless to whom, of such info, the more chance of the process not being secure.Sticky Parkin 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Sticky: My wife's honesty, integrity, and discretion are beyond reproach, and the aspersions you appear to be making are entirely unwarranted. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, in your opinion, but others may not share your opinion on that, and thus SP has a valid point. Giggy (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Whenever a community elects a married person, there is a certain level of trust they have to, unavoidably, extend. They have to trust that information doesn't get improperly disclosed. That's what it really comes down to. I have been married longer than some of the folk commenting here have been alive. I could set up a new email, but then the community would be trusting that I could keep that email a secret. And that's just not workable. We have a large number of folk who are married, folk who are in long term committed relationships, and the like, holding various roles with more responsibility than editor within WMF. Hundreds, if not thousands, across all the wikis, and they all are in similar situations. This same trust question exists for each and every one of them. If this community does not trust me, that is their perogative, and their right, and I will accept that decision. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • In theory, Sticky has a point. But if Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, I damn sure hope it isn't the CIA either. ^_^ These aren't matters of national security we're talking about... they're matters of who edited what, when, why, and how many socks they were wearing at the time. If Lar ever has a CoI wrt this role in a matter that affects his wife, I have complete faith that he would recuse himself. I find it hard to imagine a case where more than that would be needed. arimareiji (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Separately, I vote to clone Lar. arimareiji (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Lar should not be striking out votes on his own nomination. Someone else should deal with any invalid votes. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I struck a support. I'll leave striking opposes to others but really, dinging me for striking a support? That's a bit of a stretch. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Lar is untrustworthy and two faced, hence my oppose. (as contrasted to the "love-in" above, from editors whose fawning over Lar is deeply concerning and who evidently have not done their homework on this, shall we say, "character".) Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Lar

2. Support - Tiptoety ^talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
6. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
7. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Hermione1980 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Ty 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
13. BJ^Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Chick Bowen 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
16. --S^[1] 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
17. — neuro^(talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Mr.Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Viridae^Talk 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Majorly talk 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Kuru ^talk 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
24. rootology (C)(T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
25. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Prodego ^talk 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support GlassCobra 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Avruch ^T 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
29. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Noroton (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Joe 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
33. DGG (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Wronkiew (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
39. John Reaves 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support: -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Strong support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
43. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
45. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
46. —Ruud 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
47. — Jake Wartenberg 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
48. — Aitias // discussion 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
49. --Conti|✉ 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Tex (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
52. لennavecia 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
54. arimareiji (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
55. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
56. SF3 ^(talk!) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
57. Support --B (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
58. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
59. LittleMountain5 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

    RoscoHead (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    User does not have 150 mainspace edits prior to 31 January 2009 per requirements of election and thus is not eligible to vote. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support - switching to 'oppose'. Sorry, Lar - Alison ^❤ 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

60. Support -- Dycedarg ж 03:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
61. CComMack (t–c) 04:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
62. AniMate^talk 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Geogre (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
65. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
66. shoy (reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Strong support. Has my esteem and trust. I like the idea of oversight of oversight. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Synergy 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Agathoclea (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Hobartimus (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to Lar

2. Oppose--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Gurch (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
4. RMHED. 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Everyking (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
7. —Sandahl (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Grace Note (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Giggy (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
10. --Aqwis (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
11. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
12. THE GROOVE 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Davewild (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Regretfully --Caspian blue 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Sarah 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
17. — CharlotteWebb 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
18. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
19. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Alison ^❤ 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Icewedge (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.