Stewards/confirm/2009/Cspurrier

The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Cspurrier

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

English:

Languages: en, de-2, fr-1
Personal info: I have been a steward since Dec 2006. I started grad school this year, which has reduced my activity a good bit. I am still about and I regularly follow the mailing list, and keep an eye out for new requests on wiki (though they are almost always done before I see them, some of the other stewards are doing too good of a job :) ). I expect to be much more active in the next few months and I will always be available for emergencies.

português:

Línguas: en, de-2, fr-1
Informações pessoais: Eu venho sendo steward desde Dezembro de 2006. Eu iniciei meu mestrado este ano, portanto minha actividade diminuiu bastante. Ainda verifico a mailing list, e sempre dou uma olhada nos novos pedidos (apesar que alguém sempre os atende antes que os veja, temos óptimos stewards fazendo um trabalho muito bom :) ). Eu espero estar bem mais activo nos próximos meses e sempre estou disponível em casos de emergências.

русский:

Языки: en, de-2, fr-1
Личная информация: Я был стюардом с декабря 2006 года. В этом году я поступил в аспирантуру, что сильно снизило мою активность. Но я продолжаю работать, регулярно читаю рассылку и слежу за новыми запросами (хотя, когда я их вижу, они уже почти всегда выполнены, некоторые стюарды очень хорошо работают :) ). Полагаю, я буду более активен в течение следующих нескольких месяцев и всегда буду доступен в случае острой необходимости.

Comments about Cspurrier

Few edits this year, and none since August before you wrote this. Not sure you're active enough to warrant continuing. Majorly ^talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too inactive, I think. --APPER 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see APPER. Marcus Cyron
Too inactive for my tastes. Prodego ^talk 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too inactive, per Majorly. The Helpful One 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COI - I'm also up for confirmation. No actions in the last six months but more than 10 actions in the last year. Not technically inactive per our definition. I think we need to change our definition of inactivity after this election so everybody is aware of what is expected (simply changing and to or would suffice). But any definition change should not be applied retroactively. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't consider you active enough to continue. Steward tools are meant to be used. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
when he says that he keeps an eye out for requests but they're usually done before he sees them, it seems a little hypocritical to revoke access based on "inactivity" -- I think there's a place for more "inactive" stewards that can serve as backup. Dedicated to the projects. -- phoebe 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imho a bit too inactive, sorry! —DerHexer (Talk) 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity is not a compelling reason to remove stewardship. We do not have a limited number of stewardship positions. Everything else is in order. I see no reason not to reconfirm. JoshuaZ 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inactivity per a number of the above. Tools are for using. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --oscar 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The stewards policy considers "inactive" as no steward action in the past 6 months and less than 10 steward actions in the last year. 100 rights' change look fine to me.--Jusjih 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove taking on an advanced role means that you are actually willing to do it; your inactivity in stewardship seems to indicate you don't want it; therefore you shouldn't retain it. fr33kman ^{t - c} 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Não mantem, as Herbythyme says. Alex Pereira ^falaê 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removenot convincing.--RudolfSimon 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without formal conditions for inactivity, one more year may make a space to see is he really inactive. --Millosh 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove - inactivity --FiliP × 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]