Stewards/Confirm/2013/Fr33kman

The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

Fr33kman

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

English:

Languages: en
Personal info: Whilst I know I have been absent for months I would like to remain a steward for another term. Part of my absense was army related, however the main reason was a series of heart attacks and then bypass surgery. I have been resting since then and now feel well enough to get back to normal activites.

español:

Idiomas: en
Información personal: translation needed

русский:

Языки: en
Личная информация: translation needed

Deutsch:

Sprachen: en
Informationen zur Person: Obwohl ich weiß, dass ich monatelang abwesend war, würde ich gerne für eine weitere Amtszeit Steward bleiben. Ein Teil meiner Abwesenheit hatte mit der Army zu tun, aber der Hauptgrund war eine Serie von Herzinfarkten und eine Bypass-Operation. Ich habe mich in der Zwischenzeit ausgeruht und fühle mich jetzt gut genug, um wieder mit den normalen Aktivitäten anzufangen.

Comments about Fr33kman

Remove --Vogone (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. Thanks for your work. Érico Wouters ^msg 01:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove solely due to inactivity. --Rs chen 7754 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Unfortunately inactive. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - lack of staement, low activity. Thanks for the good work you've done. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Sadly not really active anymore, I see no need for him having those tools. -Barras talk 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove sorry--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very sad remove; just too inactive. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely active, but meets the policy requirements. Last action was August 15th, which is within the minimum time frame. --Jyothis (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the policy, as it's currently worded, is going to be pretty much always met, see discussion on the policy talk page. Also, if he had been inactive per policy, we wouldn't be even holding this confirmation as we'd have removed the rights already. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have ruled over that Policy for years now and we havent made any change to that to say otherwise. I thought everybody loved policies around here? :) --Jyothis (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all stewards up for reconfirmation are not inactive per policy, else there wouldn't be a reconfirmation... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. reconfirmation is a stage for community to raise concerns as well. inactivity is an issue, but that is not the whole point of this exercise. --Jyothis (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Personally I think any steward who fails to create a confirmation statement should be disqualified by this point. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - but if this inactivity is work-related, then I sympathize and will support should he run for election again. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Peter above -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity and per PeterSymonds. Trijnstel_talk 22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I trust the explanation, and honestly both an army draft and a bypass surgery are not trifle. If he insists he can make it, I'd give the benefit of the doubt. Pundit (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor correction: it is not an army draft as far as I know. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove While it is understandable that this steward had other commitments, this is the second year in a row that he has failed to create his own confirmation statement in time, and hasn't been active in several months. I'm afraid I see a whole lot of userrights and not enough activity to justify their holding, as there's plenty of stewards around and this is a repeat of last year's situation, I am not in favour of retaining the steward tools. I mainly concur with Peter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreeing with Pundit. πr² (t • c) 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the record. He's formally active enough; thus inactivity is invalid reason. --Millosh (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct, the policy is one thing (and if one would satisfy its terms, immediate termination of the steward status would take effect, hence pre-empting the reconfirmation process) but the community is allowed to decide on its own what activity standards it feels are appropriate for stewards thru the reconfirmation process. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I suggest you be active for a year without the tools, and propose your candidacy in the next elections. One edit in four months is just too much inactivity, in my opinion, and this is not the first time it happens. For a user with many important rights, I frankly don't have the impression you have time to use them all. Sa vh ^ñ 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if ever there was a valid reason... no sense losing someone who's a good steward, and had a rough year. --Philippe (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (moral support), per Pundit and Philippe. ✒ Bennylin 16:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep İndiyə kimi göstərmiş olduğu fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. Baxmayaraq ki, son zamanlar passivdir. Amma etibarlı bir istifadəçidir. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not voting but want to note that your contribution has been valuable and your efforts appreciated. Sorry to hear of your personal challenges QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 09:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more activity is obviously better; stewardry isn't more important than RL, look after yourself and have tools that are required for where you expect to be active — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a certain level of respect by now after many issues in past dealings, mostly self-inflicted by myself. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Snowolf: we just don't have a track of activity, whether recent or rather old, to base this confirmation on (as Jyothis reminds us to do). --Nemo 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I think it would be better for you to take a break from the steward activities and stop worrying about losing your steward access. When you are ready you can return. Ruslik (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Billinghurst says it for me. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. Sorry. --N KOzi^Talk 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoiraMoira (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]