Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar: Difference between revisions

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights, crosswiki logs & activity | translate: translation help, statement

Note: I've addressed some concerns raised here. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Helpful fellow. Please confirm. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. Seb az86556 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Even though there has been some problematic disputes between Lar and myself in the past, he has always shown that he is highly competent and a valuable asset as a Steward. Ottava Rima 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep — Jack Merridew 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  See below for further posts from me offering examples of appropriate stewardship efforts. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Active, helpful, and knows his building-bricks. Kylu 02:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  kewl Jack 03:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Confirm as Worstest.Steward.Ever. (j/k, now leg(g)o of my leg, oh that hurt!). -- Avi 03:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, Have never seen a steward related issue and definitely worth keeping around, to bad he's leaving for a year ;( James (T C) 06:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Good steward; no steward related issue as James says. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep MoiraMoira 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. Tiptoety ^talk 08:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Helpful fellow; best to have him around. Katerenka (d) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• I had something planned for this - what was it now (削除) useless (削除ここまで), (削除) unhelpful (削除ここまで), (削除) indifferent (削除ここまで) Nope it's gone - must be ok then I guess...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Good sense of humour. Keep Keep –Ejs-80 10:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. -Barras ^talk 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, of course --Church of emacs talk 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• outstanding ;)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. --Erwin 13:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• For me much too much jobs, sorry, no. Marcus Cyron 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm for sure --Mardetanha ^talk 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Against confirmation. Likes to act as judge, jury and executioner. Lycaon 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Against confirmation. Has consistently shown that he focuses on specific users whom he doesn't like. Causes drama and plays wikipolitics, seeing everything as his side verse everyone else. There are also other unresolved issues. JoshuaZ 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep.--Jusjih 04:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep --FiliP ██ 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Against confirmation, per JoshuaZ's "unresolved issues"; pattern of inappropriate behavior which creates a hostile environment for female contributors.Proabivouac 12:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose reconfirmation. Has extremely militant and unreasonable BLP views as expressed in recent RfC discussion at en-wiki[1]. I cannot trust his judgement. Nsk92 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  E.g. this comment here[2], where he says that removing a prod "without fixing" the article should be blockable. What if prod was placed incorrectly? Who decides if the article "is fixed"? And what about forwarding an article to an AfD for a substantive discussion? Basically, a narrow-minded militant ideologue, with a potential to drive off a great many long-term contributors from Wikipedia. Should not even be an admin, let alone a steward. Nsk92 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• comment - I see several grudges. Could you please back this up with more substantial information, and make a clear case so that it can actually be considered? The current wordings are mainly opinions and not substantiated. Effeietsanders 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Those editors who are active at en-wiki surely know what I am talking about. But here are some details. In mid-January of this year a small group of admins with particularly militant views regarding BLPs went on a unilateral deletion spree: they started a mass out of process deletion of "unsourced and unwatched" BLPs without any regard to deletion policy, without using any of the established tools, like CSD, PROD, and AfD and without any discussion with other users. There was a big bruhaha at en-wiki regarding this, with a big wheel-war, blocks, massive panic etc. See the details at these ArbCom pages:[3] [4]. Lar was a part of the group involved in these mass out-of-process deletions, see his deletion log for Jan 21:[5]. Later on he aggressively defended this position (see his statements in "BLP deletions" ArbCom request and his comments in the subsequent RfC[6]. Unfortunately, the ArbCom at en-wiki refused to reign in these mass out-of-process deletions and we are still dealing with the fallout of this affair. Anyone who is willing to engage in such reckless disregard of established process and of consensus, such as what Lar did in the mass BLP deletion episode, does not deserve any position of authority. Like I said, he should not even be an admin, and certainly not a steward. Nsk92 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Thank you for the information, I think most people here are not active enough on enwiki to get this kind of information from the top of the head. Just to be totally clear, this is an enwiki matter only? Are there any aspects that were affected by his steward tools, status or otherwise? Is there any indication this is likely something to play up cross-wiki when Lar remains steward? Do you think he would use his steward buttons/authority in that discussion? Or is it that you personally don't trust/like him any more, and therefore want his position removed? Effeietsanders 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Primarily the latter. I do not trust the judgement of someone who has abused his position of authority at en-wiki in such a reckless and disruptive way. Nsk92 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  See below for a cross-wiki example. Durova 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Confirmed - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Razor flame 07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. Greatly helped. Good luck w/ your new hat. --Aphaia 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Jyothis 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep restore post ombudsman. bastique ^demandez! 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep - also when low activity is expected: there is more to being a steward than just the technical actions, we need him as he is very valuable on the list as well. my view in general is that keeping onboard trustworthy people who have for some time been less active but are willing to continue using steward tools even when used very sparingly, will eventually lead to a greater evolutionary diversity in the stewards group. such diversity is essential, not only of talents or knowledge, but also variety of experience and number of years of service. with all respect, we don't want a uniform group of hyperactives solely, nor is there need of an overthrow of some sort of government, there is none here, since stewards do not rule. so let's keep such experience onboard where we can. in my philosophy, extended-rights communities should always be kept growing on a healthy wiki. oscar 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• remove - Steward is probably one of the positions that require the most trust out of any on WMF wikis. After the BLP fiasco explained above, and Lar's extreme and almost fundamentalist viewpoint regarding it, I cannot in good conscience say that I trust him with the position. I know of no instances of steward abuse, but he has already supported use of sysop tools against consensus (and with an air of contempt for the community) on en.wikipedia, so I can't rule out the possibility that he would use his steward tools in promoting that agenda. The Wordsmith 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose - reconfirmation per JoshuaZ and the BLP issues.--Sandahl 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose - Drama monger—almost all of his edits are outside of the main namespace; largely inactive, very few mainspace edits—little evidence that he's really there to contribute to building an encyclopaedia; engaged in disruption in the recent BLP kerfuffle; carries old disputes into new venues—his response to my criticism about his disruptive deletions was to attack intelligent design and global warming editors; misrepresents himself—despite his attacks on an AGW-cabal, he still passes himself off as an "uninvolved" admin in the current climate change probation. Not suitable for such a position of trust. Guettarda 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. One of the most rude people I've met on enwiki. Also, commonly ignores policy and pursues his own vision of Wikipedia instead. Pohta ce-am pohtit 17:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Per request below, here are the kinds of articles Lar has been deleting on sight or proposing for deletion after the community outcry put an end to the former practice: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The argument is that they are "unsourced", but most external links in those articles work, and many are en:WP:RS. Note that all these diffs are selected from an extremely narrow time window. Check his logs for way, way more, and also see the evidence of Nsk92 above, who is a very respected editor on en:WP:WPM. Here is an admin commenting that "those deletions are clearly out of process" (emphasis his); this comment refers to a different set than those above, but in similar circumstances. Following deletion procedures is now "policy wonkery" according to Lar. After being cautioned that some of those articles did have sources, his reply was "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." To another user that points out that a source was listed as "further reading" instead of "references", Lar replies: "Improperly sourced, then, and a valid deletion, wasn't it? Did you want me to undelete it to your user space so you can fix it? I bet you can fix it in less time than 3 years... if you set your mind to it." Later on en:WP:ANI, he pretends that was never an issue: "All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit." Obviously, the usual en:WP:DEL deletion process is now replaced by an admin who decides by himself what sources are acceptable. Presumably, he should just decide who gets the admin bit and who loses it; why bother with such an ineffective community?! Pohta ce-am pohtit 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support Totally trustworthy; note that any of the bad-faith-looking opinions opposing above should be ignored unless accompanied by diffs. --Guinnog 19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support, strongly. An extraordinarily helpful and clueful member of the community, a real asset. Some of the opposes may say more about the opposers than about Lar. --Tryptofish 20:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. BLP views are irrelevant to stewardship, despite what the opposers of the BLP movement may argue. Give an example of abuse of stewardship. Hmm, don't think there are any. Lara 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. BLP issue shows Lar has a poor understanding of policy, consensus, and when and where he can use the tools. All of these are critical for Stewards. Plot Spoiler 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm: Don't see any issues with his stewarding. I've always thought the steward-only vote for reconfirmations was rather silly, but some of the comments on this page make it pretty clear why it's necessary. --MZMcBride 02:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm Fine with me. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. Excellent record as a steward. Cla68 03:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Dalibor Bosits ^© 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep, despite the wild animals that he keeps. Civil, helpful and considerate. billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  How did you know I was a wild animal? ;) - Josette 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Confirm -- CactusWriter 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• mreow ! mreoow DarkoNeko 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose per JoshuaZ and Guettarda. Also he is a very active contributor to WikipediaReview, I remember in the past there were allegations of conflict of interests and security concerns... Alex Bakharev 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm BLP has nothing to do with sterwardship, go fight your inclusionist fight elsewhere. Coffee (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm - Lar is doing a fine job. Jamie S93 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose reconfirmation, per Joshua and Nsk92 and the fact that I simply no longer trust Lar. He was once someone I considered a trusted wiki-friend but I've seen way too much inappropriate behaviour, back-rooming and wikipolitic games in recent years and do not trust him with positions of trust. It's really just boils down to a simple matter of trust. Sarah 06:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose reluctant oppose due to being brought before arbcom, and BLP issues. I, personally, would never stand for Steward because I am a divisive and controversial figure; such people should not be stewards even though - on the whole - their actions are to project benefit. It is, regrettably, a position where one must be above and beyond suspicion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. A good example of Lar's unsuitability is his comments here (at oppose no. 2): not just out of step with the community, but conveying an ominous tone at odds with open consensus decisionmaking.[13] We need stewards who refrain from using the weight of their position to suggest that reasonable dissenters discuss policy "at their peril". People who carry big sticks should speak softly. Durova 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  A cross-wiki issue surrounded the publication of an open letter last summer. The subject was mainly about Commons, included significant input and examples from the German WMF chapter, and was published at the en:wiki site newsletter. Shortly after publication Lar contacted me with a request to add his name to the authors, although he had no part of the actual authorship and was not involved in the institutional outreach which the letter discussed. None of the coauthors felt that Lar's request to add his name was appropriate. I conveyed our decision to Lar, who suggested following up by starting a supportive petition for the open letter--which seemed to be a very good and appropriate compromise solution. Instead of pursuing that productive path, though, shortly afterward Lar initiated a quarrel with another editor in my userspace.[14] Throughout that period it was quite awkward to interact with Lar. Afterward he followed none of my suggestions to join our efforts; I would have gladly provided assistance if he had contacted museums and historical societies in his region. Everyone has dealt with the kind of person who is more interested in taking credit for useful work than in actually doing good work; the episode left me wondering whether Lar is such a person. Durova 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  The BLP issues are not a steward-related issue (and note that I support Lar, others, and the en:AC on this issue).
  I worked with Lar early last year in an attempt to get us a whole museum's collection. I spoke with you, too, about some of this (+thanks). The museum is the w:en:Museum Puri Lukisan and their curator is w:en:User:Swidagdo, whom I've met. This didn't prove fruitful, but it was not for lack of trying. Lar got us an OTRS ticket and worked through the bumpy process of sorting that the user really was who he was asserting he was. The reason this did not bear fruit was that it was simply too much work for Soemantri and the museum to bother with and he had been badly bitten over misunderstood licensing. Basically a lot of his uploads were deleted and his talk page flooded with templates. By the time I noticed and tried to get help fixing everything, Soemantri had largely moved on. Lar was very helpful in all this. Most will not have heard anything about this as it quietly occurred on a few talk pages and emails. I don't see him touting his efforts, rather I see him as mellow fellow quietly doing what is right. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Actually the particular issue he was debating at en:wiki is irrelevant, which is why I didn't name it. The serious matter here is appropriate steward demeanor. Healthy functioning of the Wikimedian consensus model makes it imperative that stewards avoid the appearance of in-group cliquishness. This particular steward has serious problems in that regard, and probably would not have been elected to stewardship if certain behaviors had surfaced before his election. Processing one OTRS ticket very different from the outreach that made the WMF Netherlands-Tropenmuseum partnered exhibit an outstanding success: they held a show about the cultural history of Suriname that made national news in The Netherlands and received a head of state visit from President Ronald Venetiaan of Suriname. The Tropenmuseum is an anthropological museum with a special focus on former Dutch colonies, which of course includes Indonesia. Your work with Indonesian culture, Jack, has been admirable and I'd gladly follow up with you there. But answering one OTRS ticket hardly merits coauthorship on an open letter he didn't help to write or plan, and his surrounding conduct on that matter was disappointing. Durova 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  You're misrepresenting matters here, Durova. It's not about taking credit for anything, because that's not my style. I offered to sign because I thought it was important to support a good effort. Most of what I do happens behind the scenes and I'm OK with that. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  If there's any misrepresentation it certainly isn't deliberate. It came as a surprise Lar's subsequent actions were at odds with his stated intentions. Surely someone who holds the position of steward should be more careful about avoiding that type of confusion. If another example is necessary, see this discussion and the conversation with a fellow steward:

  Lar, doesn't "your capacity as a steward" also obligate you to not take such action on your home wiki? This isn't the first time you've used steward permissions on Commons, but that doesn't make it OK. — Mike.lifeguard 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  I considered that factor, as well as many others, in weighing what to do, yes. But remember that our practice is not an absolute prohibition on taking action on wikis we frequent, it is a reminder to use our judgment. This action is not irreversible. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  So it comes down to the assertion that you're right? If that's the bottom line, then that's what I'm looking for and also why I asked you in public. Thanks for your answer. — Mike.lifeguard 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  Durova 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  I've looked at this, too, and find Lar's actions quite appropriate, as did the admin whose bit was removed temporarily. I had not read of this NPG issue before and consider Lar's actions to be absolutely in line with my view of a steward's role. This was about doing what was right for a good user who found themselves in a bind, and defending the foundation's goals (and ass;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Well, you did link to the BLP issue. The relevant issue *is* the consensus model and the fact that it is quite broken on en:wp regarding any issue of scale; too many shrill little voices pushing many discussions to an inconclusive megabyte of bickering. Anyway, it's another project. The help provided by Lar re the Museum Puri Lukisan was far more than processing a ticket. There were several dozen emails involving myself, Soemantri, Lar, Indry (administrator @ the museum), Ketut (the museum's webmaster), and a few others. You were involved in *one* skein of threads, but missed the core of it. I am aware of your issue with Larry and mostly kept you two out of the same threads.

  I did not mean to compare this to the Tropenmuseum initiative, which I mostly know of from you; I'm seeing a lot of useful images that emerged from that, so it seems a worthwhile effort. Thanks, btw, re my efforts; I'll touch base with you about all that and the Photoshopping when I have time to focus on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Confirm. Strange issues on en.wp don't have do to anything with his good work as a steward. --MF-W 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm - tired of irrelevant allegations that have nothing to do with him being a steward. - Josette 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --Vituzzu 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, no major issues with use of steward tools. enwiki actions are unrelated to stewardship and I don't see Durova's issues as a big deal. NW (Talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, as one of the most solid people on the project. Larry is truly one of the good guys. Also, the fact that several people I hold in quite low esteem don't like him speaks well of his character as well. As NW states, Durova's "issues" just aren't that big of a deal. Unitanode 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Lar is one of the few true grownups I can count on in wiki, he may ruffle some feathers on occasion, but that's because he does the right thing and he's usually right far more often than he's wrong. Lar is very trustworthy, I have not ever seen him abuse his position (most people that he has to discipline in some fashion have thoroughly deserved it, IMHO!) plus he has a level head and a good sense of when to use a carrot and when to use a stick. If he speaks critically of someone's behavior, it usually means that person needs to take a good look at themselves. The drama folks above really only illustrate my point; Lar will do the right thing even when it isn't the thing that makes him popular. That is always needed in any leadership position. Montanabw 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per BLP. And I vaguely recalled some privacy concerns caused when Lar was using the Checkuser tool. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  So there were; see (for example) the last version of Talk:SlimVirgin-Lar before blanking:[15] Proabivouac 08:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Ah, thanks for the link. Couldn't keep track of many things in detail with so many issues and dramas around. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 20:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  The more relevant link, of course, is this one: en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar, particularly the findings of fact and remedies, in which SV was admonished for stirring up trouble in inappropriate ways, and I was exonerated of any wrongdoing. But of course, that's a less useful link if (like Proabivouac apparently does) one has the goal of continuing a smear campaign after one's blackmail attempts fell flat, because it undercuts one's narrative rather inconveniently. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Lar, I have kept away from this, but if you're going to misdescribe what happened, then obviously I'll have to correct it, so you might want to reconsider your summary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'd invite anyone to read the link I gave to the case summary, and draw their own conclusions. You were admonished, I was cleared, and Proabivouac continues to try to libel and blackmail people to this day. I'm open to rewording, feel free to mail me a suggested change if you like, but those are the salient points. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep, of course. Besides being the steward, his active meta-steward involvement is very important for other stewards. --Millosh 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove per BLP concerns, Wikipedia Review involvement, and issues raised by User:Durova. —Ynhockey 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment - I am not sure what to say here... A lot of people are clearly having personal griefs and give arguments that don't seem relevant to me. However, it also seems some of the arguments actually make sense. I don't know yet what to think of this. I hope everybody will give relevant arguments, and no more "per XX". Also, make clear what exactly the arguments are and what the relevance is. Thanks. --Effeietsanders 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. Against confirmation - due to serious concerns about demeanor and inappropriate behavior, as raised above in comments including those by Ynhockey, Alex Bakharev, Sarah, Durova, Pohta ce-am pohtit, Nsk92, Lycaon, and JoshuaZ. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm - has performed well as steward. Let's not use grudges from other roles to poke at someone. Stanistani 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm - I don't see any connection between steward duties and BLp activities on enwiki. Kevin 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment - Over time as a steward Lar has proven helpful, very effective and (as others have said) a solid user and a mainstay. I have not seen complaints about his activities as a steward. I was on the committee that looked at the alleged misuse of tools (from 1st half 2008) and I do not have any current residual concerns nor have I heard substantive claims of any of it happening in the nearly 2 years since the actions took place (apologies to those who hold strong views on it, and declining to rehash the debate here). Regarding the more recent issues over BLP and general interaction/conduct, whether Lar was right or wrong, it's worth noting the local ArbCom endorsed his and others' recent actions on BLP. That aside, I have not been tracking Lar's conduct nor do I know how much general conduct traditionally speaks in steward reconfirmations. But in terms of pure trust to perform the steward functions and use the steward tools, my impression is that any lessons have long since been learned and do not seem to provide reasons for concern as of 2010. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove. His arrogant behavior is unbecoming for a steward. Ruslik 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmations 2010