Stewards/confirm/2010/Lar

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

• 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 ]
• 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 ]

• Steward confirmations 2010