Stewards/confirm/2009/Oscar

Oscar

• Who? 3 rights changes in an entire year isn't the kind of dedication I want to see. I'd prefer removal. Majorly ^talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Agreed - he's basically disappeared. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Inactivity is a big concern here, IMO. --Kanonkas 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove because of inactivity. --APPER 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• please remove. Marcus Cyron 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Rmv for inactivity I think. Prodego ^talk 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• I have to say, I agree with Oscar's statement in principle though... I'm not sure why a still-trusted member of the community (former board member, etc) should automatically lose their tools because of a period of inactivity. phoebe 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• I think I do too, Phoebe, well said... I am sympathetic to those who want complete or near complete inactivity to be a gate, and yet, if Oscar is not reconfirmed, we will miss his counsel. We have had 2 stewards already decide to stand down, which saddens me, and yet also fills me with respect for their putting the desires of the community above their own, as a good steward should. I think if, in the end, the community decides they do not want the rest of us benefiting from Oscar's comments, he too will put that desire first, above his own. But I hope he is reconfirmed, so mark me in the keep column. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• I would prefer to have Oscar stay as steward b/c of his Wikimedia experience and language ability. I'd just like to be exposed to that experience and ability more often. :) COI - I'm also up for confirmation. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
  One doesn't need the steward tools to talk. The steward tools are intended to be used. 220.142.9.239 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

  Please log in to comment if you would be so kind. Since this is a discussion, and is input to the stewards, who will decide this matter, it's not like the stewards won't take your words into account when evaluating what to do, but it's polite. As for talking, you are correct. However, as a note, being a steward is required for access to the steward mailing list, or access to the stewards private IRC channel, because of the sensitive nature of much of what is discussed. Much discussion occurs in those two places and we would lose the opportunity to hear Oscar's counsel there if he was not a steward. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Was considering what I thought of this and then noted what Phoebe had to say. And I agree. —Sean Whitton / 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Confirm -- I don't see why not. — Dan | talk 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support.--Jusjih 03:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support ---Zyephyrus 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support oscar is more than qualified to remain steward. I'd like to encourage him to help out a bit more though :) bastique ^demandez! 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• He's been a help to the stewards so far, and it'd be a shame to lose him. Kylu 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Oppose - Remove, Oscar is not necessary as steward, and has too many functions, and is too inactive. 82.74.166.225 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) aka User:Tjako [reply ]

  Why don't you login/use your real name, T? Annabel 15:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Done - Tjako 16:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support Support. Annabel 15:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Experienced and trustworthy. Please confirm. - Wutsje 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support Dolledre 02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support reconfirmation. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support - after reading your personal commentary: support, if you want this Oscar. I know you're not the authoritarian type, you will know when the time comes to step down. —unsigned by Woudloper on 11:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC).[reply ]
• Oppose Oppose - He doesn't seem to know anymore what he is doing now - Quistnix 15:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Não mantem, too inactive. Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support Completely agree with Oscar's statement. Furthermore, Oscar has had a very difficult year as mentor to a very troublesome user on nl-wiki, who even threatened to press legal charges against him. ArbCom fully supported Oscar's actions (for the record). I'd say that he deserves some time off and I'm confident that he will come out of this phase even better and wiser. Full support. Errabee 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Remove Remove Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support to confirm, Nemo 09:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral Neutral aleichem 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support per phoebe. Alefbe 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support MoiraMoira 16:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep Formally active enough. Too significant to let him leave us as a steward. --Millosh 13:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Keep--Shizhao 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• don't know what to do. Good-faith-ness vs inactivity. --FiliP ×ばつ 17:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]