Stewards/Confirm/2014/Jusjih

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

• Keep Keep Only concern is a lack of activity, but he's still active enough to do a good job. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Lack activity. --Alan ^(talk) 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Activity levels throught the year have been incredibly low, not even one month with more than 10 actions. Sorry, but I see no need for the steward toolset. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove inactive as steward.--DangSunM (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep no issues with their actions taken, language skills useful — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove He opened de-adminship request on ko.wikisource (see s:ko:위키문헌:관리자 선거/Caffelice (De-adminship)), and then he requested removal of this user's Admin and Crat access on Jan 2013 (See here). At that moment, AAR was not a policy, and he should have communicated with kowikisource community first before filing De-adminship request or requesting other stewards to his rights to be removed. —레비 Revi 04:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

  I don't see the problem. He filed a request for de-adminship, and then requested it to stewards. Inactivity policies were not involved, but rather the community decided to desysop (I think). PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

  All support wothout 배우는사람 were not an active contributor of kowikisource(they had -50 contributions as of now and when the vote started), but an active contributor of kowiki. Because they are not actively contributing to kowikisource, it cannot be real community decision. —레비 Revi 05:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

  But does kows have criteria for voters in there? --Base (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

• Remove Remove, Inactive. --Wiki13 _talk 10:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep, for his work on en.wikiquote, though I don't always agree with his positions. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Inactive at enwikiquote. --Golden _{burg 111} 16:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep per DanielTom. However, if removed, thanks to this steward for his efforts. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep support --►Cekli 829 19:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Inactive. Érico Wouters ^msg 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral, low activity level, but at least do a few actions every month. --Zerabat (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove – Barely active with the steward toolset. T C N7JM 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove I know you're 3rd Chinese Steward, however you're too inactive. BTW how about sysop of PhiLiP.--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Inactive steward = useless steward. Useless steward = remove. Sad. --Base (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Guycn2 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove. AGK [•] 19:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral Jusjih focuses on user rights requests. That's why he has not as much actions as stewards locking tons of spambots. As far as I know there were no problems with the actions taken. Like most people in favour of removal, I'd like to see Jusjih more active, but I'm not opposing at this stage. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 23:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral per Quentinv57. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral per Quentinv57 Trijnstel _talk 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Armbrust (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Jianhui67 ^{talk ★contribs} 12:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep. I see no inactivity, but low activity. If that is the ammount or work he want to give us as volunteer, I wouldn't even require more activity from him as all I see is a benefit from having him as a stwward.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S} ˲» 15:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral --Midnight Gambler (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep I agree with Teles here. Vogone talk 14:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove inactive Courcelles 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep to compensate Base's quite rude comment. People are never useless. No matter if they are inactive or just rarely active on Wikimedia. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep -jkb- 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC) full trust[reply ]
• Keep Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Concerns with limited recent activity. -FASTILY 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral. Quentinv57 put it quite well. Concerns about activity level, but not enough to oppose confirmation. Jafeluv (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep because he has continous activity over the year, while others are absent for months and still get nearly only confirm votes. --MF-W 18:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep. I see no inactivity, but low activity. That is the amount of work as volunteer,--KhabarNegar 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward confirmation statements 2014