Stewards/confirm/2010/Redux: Difference between revisions

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

• Not anylonger active, no statement, sorry. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Also per Majorly.[reply ]
• Inactive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• basically inactive, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• As above... — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Now that there's a statement: Remove Remove. Redux says it best: "Yes, I've been inactive for quite some time now." Indeed you have. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• If indeed inactive, don't confirm Seb az86556 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remorseful remove as inactive. Kylu 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Inactive; no statement - remove. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Inactive. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Inactive. Doesn't need the tools -> remove. -Barras ^talk 12:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Hardly any activity and no statement, so I'm afraid I must say remove. --Erwin 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

  I would definitely like to see more activity. Taking Anonymous Dissident's comments and your statement and comments into account I wonder whether you will become more active, but in the end only time can tell. For now I say confirm per Oscar. --Erwin 14:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• inactive - so adios! We have too little active Stewarts but so much users think beacuase of Stewards like you we have enough. Marcus Cyron 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• sorry but remove , on the ground of inactivity --Mardetanha ^talk 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Basically inactive. Rights are granted for the benefit of the community, when they ceased to be used to any degree they can be removed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• very low activity, weak not-reconfirm --FiliP ██ 11:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Inactive, remove. Razor flame 07:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove. Last 50 edits stretch back to his attempts at last year's confirmations to convince us inactivity is not a good reason to strip people of access. —Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Reaffirming remove vote. I'm sorry, but you said very similar things last year, including that you had "begun returning to activities". You have not been active as a steward for more than two years now. —Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yes, and realistically speaking it is always a possibility that we might plan to do certain things (e.g., return to full activity, and so on) and in the end we can't quite make it. At this point, I predict I should be able to be more active in a couple of months, but that is not written in stone either. That being said, however, and as I mentioned in response to Carry's comment, it would be better if I, or any of us, could provide some kind of prior notice when we intend to take a leave of absence (or when we need to extend one). Beyond that, we cannot be worrying about filling quotas. The best and only promise I can make is that I never intended to leave or abandon my work as a Steward. But unintended absences are, at least for me, a fact of life. Redux 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Good faith Keep but please notify us when you expect to disappear again. We worry! bastique ^demandez! 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Indeed, I should at the very least have e-mailed the Foundation Office about this. But since those things are usually not planned, we can sometimes lose track of how long it's been since we were actually active. It might take comments like "remove per inactivity" for us to actually go back to the contributions history and realize just how long it's been. At least that is what happened to me. Duly noted. Provided I'm not removed now, I will make it a point to post notifications should I ever have to take prolongued leaves of absence in the future. Redux 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep after statement :)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep - clear statement. 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. please stay onboard by being/becoming sufficiently active (see current policy which sets the limits, but can use some updating as well imo). oscar 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• neutral, though comfortable with a wikibreak, as long as their is a serious self-review at a realistic timeframe of what their commitment allows, and is made for the community's benefit. billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Sorry, despite statement I have to say remove per inactivity. Finn Rindahl 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep per statement. Cbrown1023 talk 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. He's definitely trustworthy, and I would be happy on taking his word on his future contributions. Per Oscar as well. NW (Talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Absence explained satisfactorily and my experience with Redux is that I trust him in that as his life and work settle down, he will return to higher levels of activity. -- Avi 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep After statement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep. If what you are saying is true, we all should give you a second chance. I hope you enjoy here in Brazil. Be more active on pt.wikipedia too. Good luck.Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Next time, you should keep a satellite phone with yourself, so you can be prompt enough :P --Millosh 13:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep, for next time. —Innv {ru-ws} 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and wish you better connection :) --Aphaia 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Sorry, you're basically inactive and each year it seems we get empty promises of more activity. Thanks for your work, but I think it's time to move on. Majorly talk 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Reaffirm vote per this. Stewards do not overrule the community. Sj should have been removed last year, the vote was clearly in favour of that. For another inactive steward to overrule that is very inappropriate. Majorly talk 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Excuse me? Sorry, but I'll address this as if it was a question, although I'm fully aware that it wasn't. However, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of reconfirmation. It is not a reelection. It is the Stewards' job to take community input under advise in deciding how to proceed regarding the Steward body. Those were the rules last year, and I was doing nothing but abiding by them. Furthermore, the decision is hardly unilateral, and I did not overrule anyone. Any Stewards disagreeing with the interpretation I gave to Sj's case were free to, and indeed should have brought it up in discussion, and a consensus would have emerged. And should it have been to remove Sj, that's exactly what would have been done, and it would have been I who would have been overruled, rightfully so. If the Stewards, who were charged with evaluating the reconfirmation results from last year, had felt that I should not have had a voice in the discussions because of my level of activity then, I would like to think that they would have brought it up, and this would have been dealt with accordingly. In addition, a comment amounting to "I support removing you because I disagree with something you did in the past as a Steward" is precisely why the reconfirmation cannot be treated like a simple reelection. Obviously, people are going to disagree with any given decision I might make as a Steward. That is just part of the job. However, if the job requires that I make a decision, and in that case it did, then I will make it. In the case of Sj's thread, you may not recall this, but it was, along with a few others, left open for someone to make the final evaluation and close it. For one reason or another, there was no one making the judgement call that was required to provide closure to a process that had been going on for more than a month. So I made the call, which was in full accordance with the valid rules concerning the 2009 reconfirmation. And I closed a lot of the threads in that reconfirmation, I should add, and not only Sj's. If there is any criticism that might help me to better perform the job, I'm certainly all ears, and indeed I welcome it — as I did when I noted in response to Carry's comment, in this reconfirmation, that we should not take leaves of absence without some kind of notification. But what I would consider inappropriate is not to make constructive remarks when they could have been made in that spirit, and then wait until a perceived opportunity to retort by "voting" to remove, in a matter of speaking. Redux 03:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove My thoughs are that two years of inactivity is a very long time on the internets and that you might by this time be out of touch. Ceoil 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep After statement. Mwaldeck ^msg 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmations 2010