Stewards/confirm/2010/Redux

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) [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 ]
• 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 ]
• Hardly any activity and no statement, so I'm afraid I must say remove. --Erwin 13:47, 7 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 ]

• Steward confirmations 2010