Stewards/Confirm/2013/Andre Engels

< Stewards‎ | Confirm‎ | 2013
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

Andre EngelsEdit

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

  • Languages: en
  • Personal info: My apologies for not making a statement earlier. I have indeed been mostly inactive as a Steward, except for doing some deletion that I came across in small wikis. I'd prefer to keep the status in case I find some time & job to do as a Steward in a few months time, but as there are no specific plans at this time I have full understanding if I get removed for inactivity now.
  • Idiomas: en
  • Información personal: Mis disculpas por no hacer una declaración antes. En realidad he estado muy activo como steward, excepto para hacer algo de borrado que me encontré en wikis pequeñas. Preferiría mantener el estatus en caso de que encuentre algo de tiempo y trabajo para hacer como steward en unos pocos meses, pero como no hay planes específicos en este momento entendería totalmente si se me remueve del cargo por inactividad ahora.
  • Языки: en
  • Личная информация: translation needed
  • Sprachen: en
  • Informationen zur Person: Entschuldigung, dass ich mein Statement nicht früher abgegeben habe. In der Tat war ich als Steward weitgehend inaktiv, abgesehen von einigen Löschungen, auf die ich in kleineren Wikis gestoßen bin. Ich würde es vorziehen, meinen Status zu behalten für den Fall, dass ich in den nächsten Monaten etwas Zeit und einen Arbeitsbereich als Steward finde, aber da momentan nichts genaues geplant ist, würde ich es vollkommen verstehen, wenn ich wegen Inaktivität abgewählt werden würde.

Comments about Andre EngelsEdit

  •   Remove --Vogone (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Andre has been inactive as a steward pretty much since last reconfirmation ( 13 edits on meta, 3 steward actions). Snowolf How can I help? 00:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    I see Andre has now made a statement. I suggest that perhaps, if he's still interested in doing deletion on small wikis, he should consider, in the event that he doesn't get reconfirmed, applying for a global sysop flag. Snowolf How can I help? 00:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove solely due to inactivity. --Rschen7754 00:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive. Thanks for your work. Érico Wouters msg 01:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove due to inactivity. --Makecat 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove White Master (es) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive steward--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You were desysopped on Commons in March 2008. After this you have on several occasions used your steward rights to delete pages on Commons outside of your remit as a steward. Please understand that having global rights is not a license for acting as a local admin in a wiki where you no longer hold the tools. As a separate note and per above, I would suggest removal due to inactivity. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • He also never had local sysop rights on de.WP, but locally blocked a user last year who was only active on de.WP and who was just two minutes ago being "announced" because of vandalism on the local VM twice, there wasn't any need for a steward to act. There are hundreds of local sysops who can do blocks there, especially at that time, a sysop would have done the same one or two minutes later, so I don't understand that at all. I would appreciate an explanation for that also. --Geitost diskusjon 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive. Thanks for the work you've done as a steward ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove - in the light of low activity and reluctance to make a statement, I'd rather remove the rights. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - too inactive for my taste. -Barras talk 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive, sorry--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove per inactivity. -Mh7kJ (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove --Travelour Talk E - Mail 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove: Personally I think any steward who fails to create a statement should be disqualified at this point, but there we go. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • A very sad   Remove as I really appreciate you and your help, but you were too inactive last year & didn't even create this 'statement'. Trijnsteltalk 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove --Waka Waka (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep Although it's not nice not to see the statement, Andre is formally active enough; thus inactivity is not a valid reason for stewardship removal. And I hope that he'll become more active. --Millosh (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No statement doesn't look very convincing even if he has the required log actions. Do you want to continue helping here? It would be appreciated. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Keep now that there's a statement & per Nemo and Ruslik0. I've thought about this and while you've been inactive compared to other users I'd not like to loose the good work you usually do and the background and good advice you provide. I think however we all would be happy if you could increase your activity. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Sorry but your too inactive to keep steward tools. Techman224Talk 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per inactivity.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 19:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Millosh and the fact that he now have the statement written. Bennylin 15:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep Barely active, but Active enough per policy. --Jyothis (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep it's up to you to state if you can be helpful as a stewie. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep Fəaliyyətini qənaətbəxş hesab edirəm. Qaydaları kifayət qədər normal səviyyədə bilir. Zərərsiz olduğu üçün ona etimad göstərirəm. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep has been around, more activity more useful — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive stewards don't need to keep their flags. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Weak keep One of the original stewards (only other current steward who was in the first "group" is Mav), therefore one of the most experienced. Besides, he'll be useful. πr2 (t • c) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep Inactive, but other than that, I don't see any reason to remove. Hurricanefan24 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd tend to keep given the experience and track of activity as steward and that I'd miss him: decrease of recent activity would not be a good reason alone IMHO, and even just his recent activity is comparable to the activity of other stewards who are passing. However, small activity is an issue if we can't assess his job, and while I trust him I'd like to see a response to Jafeluv above. --Nemo 06:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive --Herby talk thyme 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive stewards don't need the tools. Russavia (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep. Still chance to be more active.--Jusjih (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Inactive but I still do not want to lose the longest serving steward. Ruslik (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Remove Inactive -FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Keep trusted. MoiraMoira (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)