Stewards/confirm/2010/Effeietsanders: Difference between revisions

Effeietsanders

• Has to be confirmed, too. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• may not be the most active but Effie is often our conscience (or naysayer, if you like) on the mailing list. I think not having him around to benefit from his views and insight would be a loss. Reconfirm. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• I count at least nine (depending on how you count them) rights actions, more if you also count cross-project actions such as oversights and checkusers, and a handful of adminless-project deletions. Keep per minimum activity requirements. Kylu 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Not very active; but sufficient activity for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Has very limited activity two actions in last couple of months, perhaps could focus on policy making better as his outspoken views sometimes hamper work that needs to be done. MoiraMoira 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep, though I hope to see him more active again. Davin 08:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• As I see him often around on IRC, I think he's available enough. Reconfirm. -Barras ^talk 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• confirm --Church of emacs talk 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• yes! ;)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 12:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm − Elfix ×ばつ talk (fr) 13:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. I agree with Lar. --Erwin 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. Active enough. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• OK. Marcus Cyron 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• indeed the best guardian of the principles , definitely confirm --Mardetanha ^talk 17:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep.--Jusjih 04:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep, but get more active (and less bureaucratic :P) --FiliP ██ 11:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  One of these two requests is impossible to achieve; I won't say which one :D guillom 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Well, considering the above statement the second request wont make it :) And considering the time Wikimedia is already eating up right now, I doubt the first as well. Effeietsanders 11:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Keep Razor flame 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Do not support - Waerth 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) - The most ultra bureaucrat you can meet. Only sees rules and doesn't show any compassion. Stabs you in the back to if it fits him.[reply ]
• Keep Keep --Jyothis 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - Dust Spinner 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep reconfirm bastique ^demandez! 23:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep without a shadow of a doubt oscar 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - ※(注記) JéRRy ┼ 雨雨 ※(注記) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, and thanks for serving. Finn Rindahl 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• available and proficient. Keep billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Congrats on your nomination for the most ultra hyper Wikimedia bureaucrat of 2009. So Keep Keep. Although I'm convinced no one could beet me in this field. --Aphaia 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Excellent steward. Durova 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - I specially liked this recent non bureaucratic action [1] - Taketa 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep - Eats, breaths and lives Wikimedia. Fontes 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Highly involved Wikimedian. --Millosh 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm. Annabel 07:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Anthere 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --FollowTheMedia 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Weak keep. Although I don't see enough steward activities for the last year, I hope he does well with the second term.--Caspian blue 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep of course, one of the few persons with a noticeable sense of (data) privacy protection --:bdk: 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Raymond 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove rights. (POV pushing, infringement Stewards policy#Don't decide Steward_requests/Permissions/2010-02#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity) SergeyJ 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  lolwhut? NonvocalScream 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  I do not understand SergeyJ 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Возможно Вы желаете более развернутого пояснения. Заранее извиняюсь за размер. Моя заявка на бюрократа была отклонена. Не подумайте что меня это сильно расстроило :) Нет, я просто считаю что была нарушена процедура принятия решения. Несколько стюардов решали это на основании личного мнения. (Кто-то более корректно, кто то в приказном порядке.) Хотя это прямо запрещено правилом Stewards policy#Don't decide. Было объявлено, что есть некое мнение о минимальном числе голосов в этом случае. Не смотря на то, что месяц обратно на это совершенно не обращали внимания. При акционировании на этом внимании произошло обсуждение Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes. Но результата никакого не последовало. Никаких новых ограничений не было выдвинуто. Поэтому я считаю, что тут действовали не согласно правилам, а согласно личному мнению, наверное обо мне, в чем и проявляется (POV pushing), правда не одного, а нескольких стюардов. Я лишь по прежнему настаиваю, что данное требование о минимальном числе голосов - должно быть официально записано. Хотя лично я не считаю это необходимым, но нужно это спросить у сообщества, а не только у стюардов - и только тогда такие решения, которые были приняты в моем частном случае, могут быть легитимный. Без этого были нарушения о которых я говорю. SergeyJ 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

  Autotransfer. Probably you wish more developed explanatory. In advance I apologise for a size. My demand for the bureaucrat has been rejected. Do not think that it has strongly upset me :) Is not present, I simply consider that decision-making procedure has been broken. Some stewards solved it on the basis of personal opinion. (Someone it is more correct, who that in the form of an order.) Though it is directly forbidden by a rule Stewards policy#Don't decide. It has been declared that there is a certain opinion on the minimum poll in this case. Despite that back at all did not pay month attention to it. At the strengthened reference on it of attention on this attention there was a discussion Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes. But result any has not followed. Any new restrictions it has not been put forward. Therefore I consider that here operated not according to rules, and according to personal opinion, probably about me in what it is shown (POV pushing), the truth not one, and several stewards. I only on the former insist that the given requirement about the minimum poll - should be written officially down. Though personally I do not consider it necessary, but it is necessary to ask it community, and not just at stewards - and only then such decisions which have been accepted in my special case, can be legitimate. Without it there were infringements about which I speak. SergeyJ 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

• Confirm Thank you for continued service. NonvocalScream 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove rights. I confirm the words of SergeyJ. Bolo1910 08:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm, per Lar. LeinaD (t) 17:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep. Lolsimon 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]