Global sysops/Vote

Global sysops (Vote)

العربية:

(ساعدنا في ترجمة هذه الرسالة)

جميع أعضاء مجتمعات ويكيميديا والذين يحققون المعايير التالية مدعوون للتصويت على مقترح المشرفين العامين:

• لدية أكثر من 150 إضافة في مشروع واحد على الأقل
• قد قام بالتسجيل قبل أكثر من ثلاثة أشهر على الأقل

وسيستمر التصويت من الساعة 00:00 1 يناير 2010 (ت.ع.م) حتى 23:59 31 يناير 2010 (ت.ع.م), وبعد وقت محدد سيتم استعراض النتائج وتطبيقها.

مصرى:

( ساعدنا فى ترجمة الرساله دى)
مشروع فكرة السيسوب العام "Global Sysops". هنا]

و تم فتح التصويت على الفكره و ينتهى التصويت فى 31 يناير.

جميع أعضاء مجتمعات ويكيميديا و اللى يحققون الشروط دى مدعوين للتصويت على مقترح السيسوب العام:

• يكون ليك حساب مسجل
• يكون ليك 150 تعديل فى مشروع ويكيبيديا واحد على الأقل
• يكون مر على تاريخ تسجيلك تلات شهور على الأقل

و هايستمر التصويت من الساعة 00:00 1 يناير 2010 (ت.ع.م) حتى 23:59 31 يناير 2010 (ت.ع.م), وبعد وقت محدد هاتتعرض نتايج التصويت و تتطبق.

Беларуская:

(дапамажыце перакласьці гэтае паведамленьне)

Усе сябры супольнасьці Wikimedia, якія адпавядаюць наступным крытэрам, запрашаюцца да галасаваньня наконт кандыдатаў у глябальныя адміністратары:

• 150 правак прынамсі ў адным з праектаў
• 3 месяцы з даты рэгістрацыі

Галасаваньне трывае з 00:00 1 студзеня 2010 (UTC) да 23:59 31 студзеня 2010 (UTC), пасьля чаго будуць прынятыя і абвешчаныя вынікі.

Български:

(помогнете ни да преведем това съобщение)

Всички членове на обществото Уикимедия, които отговарят на следните критерии, са поканени да гласуват в предложението за глобални сис-опове:

• Трябва да имат регистриран акаунт (регистрация)
• 150 редакции върху поне един проект
• Поне 3 месеца регистрация

Вотът ще тече от 00:00, 1 Януари 2010 (UTC) до 23:59, 31 Януари 2010 (UTC), след което ще се проведе безпристрастен очерк и резултатите от вота ще влязат в сила.

Bosanski:

(Pomozite nam sa prevodom ove poruke!)

Svi članovi Wikimedija zajednice, koji ispunjavaju navedene kriterije, su pozvani da daju svoj glas na glasanju o uvođenju grupe globalnih administratora:

• 150 izmjena na najmanje jednom projektu
• najmanje 3 mjeseca prijavljen

Glasanje traje od 1. januara 2010. u 00:00 sati (UTC) do 31. januara 2010. u 23:59 sati (UTC). Poslije glasanja, rezultate će objaviti jedna neutralna osoba.

Català :

(ajudeu a traduir aquest missatge)

Tots els membres de la comunitat de Wikimedia que compleixin tots els criteris que segueixen a continuació estan invitats a votar la proposta sobre administradors globals:

• Estar registrat
• Haver fet 150 edicions en almenys un projecte
• Haver-se registrat fa més de 3 mesos

La votació tindrà lloc des de les 00:00 de l'1 de gener de 2010 (UTC) fins les 23:59 del 31 de gener del 2010 (UTC), i serà seguida d'una revisió independent per a determinar el resultat.

کوردی:

( هاوکاریمان بکە لە وەرگێڕانی ئەم پەیامەدا)

هەموو ئەندامێکی دامەزراوەی ویکیمیدیا کە ئەم مەرجانەی خوارەوەی تێدابێت، بانگهێشتکراوە بۆ دەنگدان لەسەر ئەم پرۆژەئامادەکراوە global sysops :

• پێویستە هەژمارێکی خۆی هەبێت
• لانی کەم لەیەکێک لە پرۆژەکانی ویکیمیدیادا ١٥٠ بەشداری هەبێت
• ٣ مانگ تێپەڕیبیت بەسەر ئەندامەتییەکەیدا

ئەم دەنگدانە لە ڕێکەوتی ١.١.٢٠١٠ - کاتژمێر ٠٠:٠٠ بەکاتی گشتی بەردەوامە تاکوو ٣١.١.٢٠١٠ کاتژمێر ١٢:٠٠ شەو بەکاتی گشتی، پاش کۆتایی دەنگدان کەسێکی سەربەخۆ دەنگەکان دەژمێرێت و ئەنجامەکەی ئاشکرا دەکات.

Čeština:

(help us translate this message)

Všichni členové komunity Wikimedia, kteří splňují následující kritéria, jsou zváni k hlasování o zavedení uživatelské skupiny globální správci:

• Uživatel musí být registrovaný
• Musí být registrovaný 3 měsíce a déle
• Na jednom z projektů Wikimedia musí mít 150 editací a více

Volby startují 1. ledna v 00:00 (UTC) a budou trvat do 31. ledna do 23:59 (UTC), poté proběhne nezávislé vyhodnocení a výsledky vejdou v platnost.

Dansk:

(Hjælp os med at oversætte denne besked)

Alle medlemmer af Wikimedia-fællesskabet, som opfylder de følgende kriterier er inviteret til at stemme om forslaget globale administratorer:

• Skal have en registreret konto
• 150 redigeringer på mindst et projekt
• 3 måneders registrering

Afstemningen vil blive afviklet fra kl. 00:00, den 1. januar 2010 (UTC) indtil kl. 23:59, den 31. januar 2010 (UTC), hvorefter en upartisk gennemgang udføres, som vedtager resultaterne.

Deutsch:

(Hilf uns bei der Übersetzung dieser Nachricht!)

Alle Mitglieder der Wikimedia-Gemeinschaft, die folgende Kriterien erfüllen, sind eingeladen, an der Abstimmung zur Einführung der Benutzergruppe globaler Administrator teilzunehmen:

• 150 Edits in mindestens einem Projekt
• mindestens 3 Monate registriert

Die Abstimmung läuft vom 1. Januar 2010 um 00:00 Uhr (UTC) bis zum 31. Januar 2010 um 23:59 Uhr (UTC). Nach der Abstimmung wird von einer neutralen Person das Ergebnis bekannt gegeben.

Dolnoserbski:

(Pomagaj nam toś tu powěźeńku pśedłožyś)

Wše cłonki Wikimedijowego zgromaźeństwa, kótarež docynjaju wšykne slědujuce kriterije su pśepšosone na wótgłosowanje wó naraźenju ku globalnym administratoram:

• Musyš měś zregistrěrowane konto wót 3 mjasecow
• 150 změnow na nanejmjenjej jadnem projekśe

Wótgłoswanje běžy wót 1. januara 2010 00:00 goź. (UTC) do 31.januara 2010 23:59 goź. (UTC). Pótom neutralny wužywaŕ pśeglědajo a dajo wuslědki k wěsći.

Ελληνικά:

(βοηθήστε μας να μεταφράσουμε αυτό το μήνυμα)

Όλα τα μέλη της κοινότητας του Wikimedia που καλύπτουν τα ακόλουθα κριτήρια προσκαλούνται να ψηφίσουν την πρόταση για global sysops:

• 150 επεξεργασίες σε τουλάχιστον ένα εγχείρημα
• 3 μήνες εγγεγραμμένος

Η ψηφοφορία θα διαρκέσει από 00:00, 1 Ιανουάριος 2010 (UTC) έως 23:59, 31 Ιανουάριος 2010 (UTC), μετά την οποία θα γίνει μια μη-φατριαστική αποτίμηση και θα ανακοινωθούν τα αποτελέσματα.

English:

(help us translate this message)

All members of the Wikimedia community who meet all of the following criteria are invited to vote on the global sysops proposal:

• Must have had a registered account for at least 3 months
• 150 edits on at least one project

The vote will run from 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) to 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC), after which time a non-partisan review will be undertaken and the results enacted.

Esperanto:

(Helpo pri la traduko de tiu noto!)

Ĉiuj membroj de la vikimedia komunumo, kiuj plenumas la sekvajn kriteriojn, invitiĝas partopreni en baloto pri la enkonduko de la vikipediista rajto globala administranto:

• 150 redaktoj en almenaŭ unu projekto
• registriĝo ekde almenaŭ 3 monatoj

La baloto daŭras de la 1-a de januaro 2010 00:00 h (UTC) ĝis la 31-a de januaro 2010 23:59 h (UTC). Post la baloto la rezulto anonciĝos fare de neŭtrala persono.

Español :

(ayúdenos con la traducción de este mensaje)

Todos los miembros de la comunidad Wikimedia que cumplan los siguientes requisitos están invitados a votar en la propuesta de administradores globales:

• Tener una cuenta registrada
• 150 ediciones en al menos un proyecto
• 3 meses de antigüedad de registro

La votación comenzará el día 1 de enero de 2010 a las 00:00 horas (UTC) y finalizará el día 31 de enero de 2010 a las 23:59 horas (UTC), a partir de ese momento comenzará un estudio independiente de los votos para determinar el resultado.

Euskara:

(Lagun gaitzazu mezu honen itzulpenarekin)

Ondorengo baldintzak betetzen dituzten Wikimedia komunitateko kide guztiak gonbidatuak daude administratzaile globalen inguruko bozketara:

• Gutxienez 150 aldaketa proiektu batean
• 3 hilabete baino denbora gehiago izatea proiektuan

Bozketa 2010 urtarrilaren 1eko 00:00etan (UTC) hasiko da eta 2010eko urtarrilaren 31eko 23:59etan (UTC) amaituko dam une horretatik aurrera bozken ikaste independentea egingo emaitza determinatzeko.

فارسی:

(به ما در ترجمه این متن کمک کنید)
از تمامی اعضای انجمن ویکی‌مدیا که دارای شرایط زیر هستند دعوت می‌شود تا در رای گیری برای طرح پیشنهادی: راهبرسراسری سیستم شرکت کنند:

• کاربر تایید شده باشد
• حداقل 150 ویرایش در یکی از پروژه‌ها داشته باشد
• 3 ماه از زمان ثبت نام او گذشته باشد

رای‌گیری از یکم ژانویه 2010 ساعت 00:00 آغاز خواهد شد و در 31 ژانویه 2010 ساعت 23:59 به پایان خواهد رسید.نظر سنجی‌هایی که پس از پایان زمان مقرر ثبت شوند بی تاثیر خواهند بود.

Suomi:

(auta meitä kääntämään tämä viesti)

Kaikki seuraavat kriteerit täyttävät Wikimedia-yhteisön jäsenet kutsutaan äänestämään globaaleja ylläpitäjiä koskevasta ehdotuksesta:

• ainakin 150 muokkausta vähintään yhdessä hankkeessa
• tunnuksen rekisteröimisestä kulunut vähintään 3 kuukautta

Äänestys pidetään 1. tammikuuta 2010 kello 00:00 (UTC) – 31. tammikuuta 2010 kello 23:59 (UTC), minkä jälkeen suoritetaan puolueeton äänestyksen arviointi ja tulokset pannaan täytäntöön.

Français :

(Aidez nous a traduire ce message)

Tous les membres de la communauté Wikimedia ayant atteint les critères suivants sont invités à voter sur la proposition des administrateurs globaux :

• 150 modifications sur un projet
• Enregistré depuis plus de 3 mois

Le vote est ouvert du 1 janvier 2010 00:00 (UTC) au 31 janvier 2010 23:59 (UTC), après un décompte impartial sera effectué, et les résultats annoncés.

Frysk:

(Help ús dit berjocht oer te setten)

Eltsenien yn de Wikimedia-mienskip dy't foldocht oan de folgjende easken wurdt útnoege om te stimmen oer it foarstel foar globale behearders:

• Jo moatte in brûkersnamme hawwe,
• dêrmei op syn minst 150 bewurkingen op op syn minst ien projekt dien hawwe,
• en trije moanne as dy brûker registrearre wêze.

De stimming rint fan 1 jannewaris 2010 01:00 (CET) oant 31 jannewaris 2010 00:59 (CET), wêrnei't de risseltaten ûnpartidich beskôge en útfurdige wurde sille.

Galego:

(axúdanos a traducir esta mensaxe)

Todos os membros da comunidade da Wikimedia que reúnan os seguintes requirimentos están convidados a participar na votación de administradores globais:

• 150 edicións en, polo menos, un proxecto
• Rexistro desde hai, polo menos, 3 meses

A votación irá desde as 00:00 do 1 de xaneiro de 2010 (UTC) ata as 23:59 do 31 de xaneiro de 2010 (UTC); despois, farase un escrutinio imparcial e publicaranse os resultados.

Alemannisch :

(Hilf is bi dr Ibersetzig vu däre Nochricht!)

Alli Mitglider vu dr Wikimedia-Gmeinschaft, wu die Kriterie erfille, sin yyglade, mitzmache an dr Abstimmig fir d Yyfierig vu dr Benutzergruppe globale Ammann:

• 150 Edit in zmindescht eim Projäkt
• zmindescht 3 Monate regischtriert

D Abstimmig lauft vum 1. Jänner 2010 am 00:00 Uhr (UTC) bis zum 31. Jänner 2010 am 23:59 Uhr (UTC). No dr Abstimmig wird vun ere neutrale Person s Ergebnis bekannt gee.

עברית:

(סייעו לנו לתרגם הודעה זו)

כל חברי קהילת ויקימדיה אשר עומדים בקריטריונים להלן מוזמנים להצביע על ההצעה למנות מפעילי מערכת גלובליים:

• בעלי חשבון משתמש
• לפחות 150 עריכות באחד המיזמים
• בעלי ותק של שלושה חודשים כמשתמשים רשומים

ההצבעה תימשך מ-00:00, 1 בינואר 2010 (UTC) עד 23:59, 31 בינואר 2010 (UTC), אז תבוצע הערכה של התוצאות וההחלטה תיכנס לתוקף.

Hrvatski:

(Pomozite nam prevesti ovu poruku!)

Pozivaju se svi članovi zajednice Wikimedija koji udovoljavaju idućim kriterijima neka glasuju o prijedlogu uvođenja globalnih administratora:

• 150 uređivanja na najmanje jednom projektu
• najmanje 3 mjeseca prijavljeni

Glasovanje traje od 1. siječnja 2010. u 00:00 (UTC) do 31. siječnja 2010. u 23:59 (UTC). Nakon glasovanja neutralna osoba pregledat će glasove da bi se utvrdio konačni rezultat glasovanja.

Hornjoserbsce:

(Pomhaj nam tutu zdźělenku předłožić)

Wšitcy čłonojo Wikimedijoweho zhromadźenstwa, kotřiž spjelnjeja slědowace kriterije, su přeprošene na wothłosowanje wo namjeće ke globalnym administratoram:

• Dyrbiš zregistrowane konto wot 3 měsacow měć
• 150 změnow na znajmjeńša jadnym projekće

Wóthłoswanje běži wot 1. januara 2010 00:00 hodź. (UTC) do 31.januara 2010 23:59 hodź. (UTC). Potom neutralny wužiwar budźe wuslědki přepruwować a wozjewjeć.

Magyar:

(Kérjük, segíts más nyelvekre is lefordítani ezt a szöveget!)

Ez a szavazás a globális adminisztrátori jogosultság bevezetése felől hivatott dönteni. Minden szerkesztő – legyen az bármely Wikimédia társoldalról való – jogosult szavazni, ha:

• van felhasználói fiókja, és
• ehhez kapcsolódóan legalább 150 szerkesztése legalább 1 társoldalon, és
• a regisztrációja 3 hónapnál régebbi.

A szavazás kezdete: 2010. január 1. 0:00; vége: 2010. január 31. 23:59. Az összesítést független (a szavazáson részt nem vett) szerkesztők végzik majd.

Interlingua:

(adjuta nos a traducer iste message)

Tote le membros del communitate Wikimedia que satisface tote le sequente criterios es invitate a votar super le proposition de administratores global:

• Debe posseder un conto registrate
• 150 modificationes in al minus un projecto
• 3 menses de registration

Le voto essera aperte de 00:00, le 1 de januario 2010 (UTC) a 23:59, le 31 de januario 2010 (UTC). Postea un revision impartial essera interprendite e le resultatos promulgate.

Bahasa Indonesia:

Semua anggota komunitas Wikimedia yang memenuhi syarat berikut diundang untuk memberikan suara di proposal global sysops:

• Telah membuat 150 suntingan setidaknya pada satu proyek, dan
• Telah terdaftar minimal 3 (tiga) bulan.

Pemungutan suara akan dilaksanakan dari pukul 00.00, 1 Januari 2010 (UTC) hingga pukul 23.59, 31 Januari 2010 (UTC). Setelah 31 Januari tersebut, semua orang ternasuk yang tidak berhak suara, dapat melihat hasil akhir pemungutan. Hasil tersebut dapat dipertangungjawabkan dan akan ditetapkan.

Italiano:

(aiutarci a tradurre questo messaggio)

Tutti i membri della comunità di Wikimedia che soddisfano i criteri seguenti sono invitati a votare la proposta per gli amministratori globali:

• 150 modifiche su almeno un progetto
• 3 mesi di registrazione

La votazione si svolgerà dalle 00:00 del 1 gennaio 2010 (UTC) alle ore 23:59 del 31 gennaio 2010 (UTC), dopo di che sarà presa una decisione imparziale e il risultato verrà messo in atto.

日本語：

(このメッセージの翻訳を手伝ってください)

以下の基準を満たすウィキメディア利用者は、グローバル管理者の提案についての投票に参加してください:

• ログインユーザーであること
• 少なくとも一つのプロジェクトにおいて150編集以上
• アカウント登録後、3か月以上

投票は、2010年1月1日00:00(UTC)から2010年1月31日23:59(UTC)まで行われます。投票終了後、無党派（non-partisan）による投票チェックが行われ、結果が確定します。

ភាសាខ្មែរ៖

(សូមជួយបកប្រែសារនេះ)

សមាជិកគ្រប់រូបរបស់សហគមន៍វិគីមេឌាដែលបំពេញលក្ខខណ្ឌខាងក្រោមត្រូបានអញ្ជើញអោយចូលរួមបោះឆ្នោតនៅក្នុងសំនើសេវាភិបាលសកល៖

• អ្នកត្រូវតែមានគណនីចុះឈ្មោះរួចរាល់ហើយយ៉ាងតិច៣ខែ
• មានកំណែប្រែយ៉ាងតិច១៥០នៅលើគម្រោងមួយ

ការបោះឆ្នោតនឹងប្រព្រឹត្តទៅចាប់ពីម៉ោង ០០:០០ ថ្ងៃទី១ មករា ២០១០ (UTC) ដល់ម៉ោង ២៣:៥៩ ថ្ងៃទី៣១ មករា ២០១០ (UTC)។ បន្ទាប់ពីនោះបុគ្គលកអព្យាក្រិតនឹងធ្វើការត្រួតពិនិត្យរាប់សំលេងឆ្នោតនិងប្រកាសលទ្ធផល។

한국어:

(번역을 도와주세요!)

다음 조건을 만족하는 위키미디어 프로젝트의 모든 참여자들은 글로벌 관리자의 도입 제안에 대한 투표에 참여할 수 있습니다.

• 적어도 1개의 프로젝트에서 편집 횟수가 150회 이상
• 계정 등록 이후 3개월이 지나야 함

이 투표는 2010년 1월 1일 00:00 (UTC)에서 2010년 1월 31일 23:59 (UTC)까지 열립니다. 그 후에 적절한 의견을 종합하여 결과를 발표할 것입니다.

Македонски:

(помогнете ни да ја преведеме оваа порака)

Сите членови на заедницата на Викимедија кои ги задоволуваат сите долунаведени критериуми се повикуваат да гласаат по предлогот за глобални администратори:

• Регистрирана сметка веќе 3 месеци
• 150 уредувања на барем еден проект

Гласањето ќе трае од 00:00, 1 јануари 2010 (UTC) до 23:59, 31 јануари 2010 (UTC). Потоа ќе се изврши независен преглед и пребројување, и резултатите ќе бидат објавени.

Bahasa Melayu:

(Bantu kami menterjemah pesanan ini)

Semua ahli komuniti Wikimedia yang memenuhi semua kriteria berikut dijemput untuk mengundi cadangan penyelia sejagat:

• Mempunyai akaun berdaftar
• 150 suntingan di satu projek
• 3 bulan berdaftar

Undian bermula pada 00:00, 1 Januari 2010 (UTC) hingga 23:59, 31 Januari 2010 (UTC). Selepas itu kajian tak berpihak akan diadakan dan keputusannya dijalankan.

Nederlands:

(Help vertalen)

Alle gebruikers van Wikimedia projecten worden uitgenodigd te stemmen over het voorstel voor globale moderatoren, mits men voldoet aan:

• minimaal 150 bewerkingen op minimaal één project
• minimaal 3 maanden voor aanvang van de stemming geregistreerd

De stemming is open van 1 januari 2010 1:00 (CET) tot 31 januari 2010 0:59 (CET), daarna zal de uitslag door een neutraal persoon bekend worden gemaakt.

Occitan :

(Ajudatz-nos a traduire aqueste messatge)

Totes los membres de la comunautat Wikimedia qu'an atench los critèris seguents son convidats a votar per la proposicion dels administrators globals

• 150 modificacions sus un projècte
• Enregistrat dempuèi mai de 3 meses

Lo vòte comença a 00:00 lo 1èr de genièr de 2010 (UTC) fins a 23:59 lo 31 de genièr de 2010 (UTC), aprèp lo quel un contraròtle sera efectuat e los resultats anonciats.

Kapampangan:

(saupan yu kami king pamaglikas ning kapabaluan a ini)

Deng anggang kayanib ning comunidad a Wikimedia community a makibat kareng makatuking condicion o kapaliarian, agkatan lang magbotu king munikala dikil kareng global sysops:

• Kailangan, atin lang makarehistrung account
• 150 edit king e kukulang king metung a proyectu
• 3 bulan a makarehistru

Maliari ing pamagbotu manibat 00:00, 1 Enero 2010 (UTC) anggang 23:59, 31 Enero 2010 (UTC), at kaibat na niti, marapat ing metung a pamaniuring alang kakabiran (non-partisan review), at papaliari do reng resulta.

Polski:

(pomóż nam przetłumaczyć ten komunikat)

Wszyscy członkowie społeczności Wikimedia, którzy spełniają poniższe kryteria, są uprawnieni do głosowania nad propozycją utworzenia uprawnienia globalnego administratora:

• wykonało się co najmniej 150 edycji w jednym z projektów
• posiada się konto zarejestrowane co najmniej 3 miesiące temu

Głosowanie rozpoczyna się 1 stycznia 2010 o godzinie 00:00 (UTC), a zakończy 31 stycznia 2010 o godzinie 23:59 (UTC). Po tym czasie niezależna osoba sprawdzi poprawność głosowania i zatwierdzi wyniki.

Português :

(ajude-nos a traduzir esta mensagem)

Todos os membros da comunidade Wikimedia que cumpram os seguintes requisitos estão convidados a votar na proposta de administradores globais:

• 150 edições em pelo menos um projeto
• 3 meses de registro

A votação começará às 00:00, 1º de Janeiro de 2010 (UTC) e terminará às 23:59, 31 de Janeiro de 2010 (UTC); a partir desse momento começará um estudo independente dos votos para determinar o resultado.

Русский:

(помогите нам перевести это сообщение)

Все участники сообщества Викимедиа, соответствующие нижеприведённым критериям, приглашаются к участию в голосовании по предложению о глобальных администраторах:

• 150 правок хотя бы в одном из проектов
• 3 месяца с момента регистрации

Голосование начнётся 1 января 2010 в 00:00 и будет длиться до 23:59 31 января 2010 года (UTC), после чего будут подведены независимые итоги и оглашены результаты.

Slovenčina:

(pomôžte nám preložiť túto správu)

Všetci členovia komunity Wikimedia, ktorý spĺňajú nasledujúce kritéria sú pozvaný voliť na návrh globálnych administrátorov:

• Mať registrovaný účet
• 150 úprav na minimálne jednom projekte
• 3 mesiace od založenia účtu

Volenie bude prebiehať od 00:00, 1. januára 2010 (UTC) do 23:59, 31. januára 2010 (UTC), po ktorom bude nasledovať neutrálny posudok a výsledky budú prijaté.

Српски / srpski:

(Помозите нам са преводом ове поруке!)

Сви чланови Викимедија заједнице, који испуњавају наведене критеријуме, су позвани да дају свој глас на гласању о увођењу групе глобалних администратора:

• 150 измена на бар једном пројекту
• најмање 3 месеца пријављени

Гласање траје од 1. јануара 2010. у 00:00 сати (UTC) до 31. јануара 2010. у 23:59 сати (UTC). После гласања, резултате ће објавити једна неутрална особа.

Svenska:

(Hjälp oss översätta detta meddelande)

Alla medlemmar i Wikimedia-gemenskapen som uppfyller följande kriterier uppmanas att rösta om förslaget globala administratörer:

• 150 redigeringar på minst ett projekt
• 3 månaders registrering

Omröstningen kommer att pågå från 00:00, 1 januari 2010 (UTC) till 23:59, 31 januari 2010 (UTC), varefter en opartisk översyn kommer att göras som fastställer resultatet.

ไทย:

(ช่วยเราด้วยการแปล)

สมาชิกของประชาคมวิกิมีเดียที่มีคุณสมบัติครบตามที่ปรากฎด้านล่างนี้ได้รับเชิญให้ลงคะแนนเพื่อเห็นชอบหรือคัดค้านการมีผู้ดูแลระบบสากล (Global Sysops):

• ต้องมีชื่อบัญชีผู้ใช้ที่ลงทะเบียนแล้ว
• มีการแก้ไขอย่างน้อย 150 ครั้งในโครงการใดๆ
• ลงทะเบียนมาแล้วอย่างน้อย 3 เดือน

โดยการลงคะแนนจะเริ่มต้นตั้งแต่วันที่ 1 มกราคม 2010 (พ.ศ.2553) เวลา 00:00น. (ตามเวลาสากล UTC หรือ 7.00น. ตามเวลาประเทศไทย) จนถึงวันที่ 31 มกราคม 2010 (พ.ศ.2553) เวลา 23:59น. (ตามเวลาสากล UTC หรือ 6.59น. ของวันที่ 1 กุมภาพันธ์ ตามเวลาประเทศไทย) หลังจากเวลาดังกล่าว คำวิจารณ์และการลงคะแนนจะถูกรับรองและจะดำเนินการตามผลคะแนนเสียงส่วนใหญ่

Türkçe:

(bu iletiyi çevirmemize yardımcı olun)

Wikimedia Topluluğunun aşağıdaki koşulları sağlayan tüm üyeleri küresel sistem yöneticiliği önergesini oylamaya davet edilmektedir:

• Herhangi bir projede en az 150 değişikliğe,
• 3 aylık üyeliğe sahip olunmalı.

Oylama eşgüdümlü evrensel saate göre 1 Ocak 2010 saat 00:00'dan, 31 Ocak 2010 saat 23:59'a kadar sürecek ve ardından tarafsız bir incelemeden sonra sonuçlar yasalaştırılacaktır.

Українська:

(допоможіть перекласти це повідомлення)

Усі користувачі спільноти Wikimedia, що відповідають таким критеріям, запрошуються до голосування з приводу кандидатів у глобальні адміністратори:

• не менше 150 редагувань в одному з проектів
• не менше 3 місяців з дати реєстрації

Голосування триває з 00:00 1 січня 2010 (UTC) до 23:59 31 січня 2010 (UTC), після чого будуть підбиті підсумки і оголошено результат.

Tiếng Việt:

(giúp chúng tôi dịch thông báo này)

Mời tất cả các thành viên cộng đồng Wikimedia thỏa mãn các tiêu chí sau tham gia bỏ phiếu cho đề xuất bảo quản viên toàn dự án:

• Phải mở tài khoản được ít nhất 3 tháng
• Có 150 sửa đổi tại ít nhất một dự án

Cuộc bỏ phiếu sẽ bắt đầu từ 00:00, 1 tháng 1 năm 2010 (UTC) đến 23:59, 31 tháng 1 năm 2010 (UTC), sau đó sẽ được một người trung lập duyệt lại và thông báo kết quả.

粵語:

(幫手譯)

參加全域管理員方案投票嘅用戶須要符合下列要求︰

• 喺至少一個計劃編輯多過一百五十次
• 註冊超過三個月

投票期：2010年1月1號00:00（UTC）至2010年1月31號23:59（UTC），之後就會覆核選票同埋公布結果。

文言:

(助譯之)

全域有秩方案票選，凡與者，

須編典，至少一部，且纂之多於百又五十，

並增簿迄今，三月有余。

票選始於己丑年十一月十七，終於己丑年十二月十七，爾後核之而不頗，並布其果。

中文（简体）：

(help us translate this message)

参加全域管理员方案投票的元维基维基人需要符合下列条件:

• 在至少一个计划，编辑次数不少于150次
• 注册超过3个月

投票时间：2010年1月1日00:00（UTC）至2010年1月31日23:59（UTC）。之后将会作出中立的方案并颁布结果。

中文（繁體）:

(協助翻譯)

全域管理員方案投票參與者須符下列要求︰

• 於至少一個計劃中編輯逾一百五十次
• 註冊逾三個月

投票期：2010年1月1日00:00（UTC）至2010年1月31日23:59（UTC），及後會覆核選票並公布結果。

Yes

Please place your vote at the bottom of the list.

1. NW (Talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Maximillion Pegasus 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Barras ^talk 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
4. James (T|C) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC) I think this is an important position that has long been needed to help the stewards, in the end those who get the bit need to be carefully chosen because of the sensitivity of working with small and growing communities but needed still.
5. msh210@enwikt 00:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
6. I don't see why not.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
7. vvv^t 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
8. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
9. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Care in choosing these folk is key but this is a needed and useful thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
11. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
12. --WizardOfOz 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
13.  Support This is a good idea. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
14. support. There are good reasons for it; individual wikis can opt out altogether; and problems with individual global sysops can be addressed as explained. Rd232 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Support Why not !!!

15. GSMR 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
16. --Bart0278 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
17. --MisterWiki (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    IRTC1015 03:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    I agree. --Awesong 03:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    You are ineligible to vote (registration before October 1, 2009 is required). vvv^t 21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

18. Help needed! Laaknor 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
19. Masrudin 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Kwj2772 (msg) 03:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

20. --Jivee Blau 03:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Yes. Wq-man 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    You are ineligible to vote (registration before October 1, 2009 is required). vvv^t 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

21. Durr. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
22. PeterSymonds 03:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
23. Nifky? 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ganondolf 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

24. YES. This facility to be provided only for 3 years. Further, after 3 years also, if no one want to become a Administrator within the Project, then it means that there is no real responsible person in the project. So, if it happens like that then the project should be closed down and no help should be provided from outside the project. --TRYPPN 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
25. The proposal adequately addresses the main issues I had, and will result in large benefits for our smaller wikis. It should be implemented sooner rather than later.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
26. Definite necessity for our smaller projects. –blurpeace ^(talk) 08:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
27. All help is welcome, and any project can opt-out if the community feels that they don't need (or want) it. –Ejs-80 08:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
28. A fine proposal in favor of our smaller wikis. IShadowed 08:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
29. Per my comments at Talk:Global sysops. Tiptoety ^talk 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
30. Those small projects would benefit a lot from this. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
31. Long overdue --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
32. Yes BejinhanTalk 12:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
33. 3s 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
34. ZorroIII 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
35. LeinaD (t) 14:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC) cross-wiki patrollers are very helpful and part of them should have GS priviliges
36. Ulflarsen 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

     Support --Ellysse 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    You are ineligible to vote (registration before October 1, 2009 is required). vvv^t 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Bjoertvedt 14:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Please log in to vote (diff). vvv^t 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

37. --Kjetil_r 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
38. Would definitely be helpful. --Erwin 16:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
39. I'm a bit skeptical about global blocks, but the rest of the permissions seem fine. --FiliP ██ 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
40. Same as dungy. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Longer German explanation: w:de:Benutzer:DerHexer/Blog#Global_sysops
41. Jon Harald Søby 16:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
42. Multichill 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
43. Atluxity 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
44. (moved vote) - Some users said vandalism etc. on small projects is a bigger problem than I thought. The proposal seems to be fine. Lolsimon 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
45. Petter Bøckman 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
46. Vigorous action 18:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
47. Fruggo 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sustructu 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Please confirm that you are actually nl:User:Sustructu. vvv^t 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

48. Per Mike.lifeguard--Vito Genovese 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
49. Coffee (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
50. Seddon 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
51. iAlex 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
52. Mezelf14 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
53. -- Prince Kassad 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
54. --DaB. 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Why not. As long as they don't interfere in middle and big wikis.
55. --StG1990 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
56. -- smial 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
57. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
58. --ZaDiak 02:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
59. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
60. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
61. Yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
62. -Harrywad 11:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
63. — putnik 12:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
64. --MF-W 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
65. Cumulus 14:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
66.  Support lightening the load on stewards with this supporting role. ~ Ningauble 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
67.  Support Sounds good. Glacier Wolf 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
68. A333 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
69. --Peroxwhy2gen 08:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
70. EdBever 08:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
71. Red 81 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
72. Lampak 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
73. I think we have to help small projects, because they can’t help themselves and vandals can very easily kill them at the beginning of their ‘life’. Tajniak2 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
74. Taketa 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
75. Beany 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
76. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
77. Robotje 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
78. Mhaesen 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
79. Good idea! Aku506 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
80. Erik1980 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
81. Herr Kriss 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
82. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
83. ken123 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
84. Ency 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) pl why not
85. EMeczKa 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
86. Merdis 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
87. Aotearoa 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
88. Trivelt 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
89. Willking1979 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
90. RubiksMaster110 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
91. Angela 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
92. Phantomsteve 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
93. --The Evil IP address 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
94. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
95. – Innv | d | s: 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
96. Karol007 ✉ 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
97. -- Avi 04:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
98. - miya 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
99. --Bsadowski1 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
100. -- Razorflame 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
101. Gdarin | talk 10:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
102. Cycn 11:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
103. --Kaganer 13:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
104. Diegusjaimes 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
105. --Jan eissfeldt 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC) of course

     User:8BitHero 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

     ineligible to vote (not enough edits) James (T|C) 00:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

106. --Thunderhead 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

     94.224.94.149 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

107. Kafziel 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
108. --Taichi - (あ！) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
109. Frank 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
110. NativeForeigner 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Valicore 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

     ineligible to vote (not enough edits) James (T|C) 00:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Odehammar 01:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC) The stewards must need help, as this proposition has been made. Granting more users stewardship is complicated, as they are already too few. Ergo, this proposition seems to be a solution, at least for now.

     Jeffwang16 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     ineligible (not enough edits) James (T|C) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

111. Addihockey10 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
112. Stinging Swarm 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
113. Emrahertr 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
114. Geni 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
115. ZooPro 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
116. Bradybd 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
117. Please, this will be helpful. Ceranthor 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Andrew Petersen 17:54, 6 January 2010 (PST) Alright, then!

     Ip vote, claimed account not eligible James (T|C) 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

118. Guettarda 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Deehh 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     User is ineligable (not enough edits) James (T|C) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

119.  Support I see no reason why not, as along as the right people are chosen for the role. Argyle 4 Life 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
120. —§ stay (sic)! 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
121. Syohei.A(talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
122. Blodance 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
123. Saebjorn 02:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
124. Sander Fraga 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
125. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
126. oscar 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
127. DrNegative 02:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
128. Maxima m 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
129. Evalowyn 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
130. Mind the gap 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Gravedig2 2:31 7 January 2010 (UTC)

131. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
132. On en-wiki we have many admins that can quickly respond to problems. There are not nearly as many admins on other projects and there is huge potential for pressing matters to get incredibly backlogged. Having global admins will help alleviate this problem. Valley2city^‽ 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
133. Even the little projects should have people looking out for them. AP1787 02:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
134. Tarheel95 02:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
135. As primarily an en user, and the only other language I understand is Malay, it is unlikely I will ever be involved in a project needing global sysops, but it sounds like it will be a good idea for those that need it Nil Einne 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
136. Editor182 13:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     OurDigitalVision Please be more responsible

137. I don't see why not. Bloodmerchant 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
138. Yes, but there is potential for serious misunderstandings caused by language issues Thparkth 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Yes Mimar77 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Darkbluesun 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) As wiki gets bigger, this could be the answer to make sure the information stays accurate and clean. On the other hand, this move could seriously slow progress couldn't it? I'll have to trust the stewards. They do a lot of the dirty work.

     user ineligible (not enough edits) James (T|C) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

139. billinghurst 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Absolutely.
140. Carl 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
141. --Taweetham 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
142. Commander Keane 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     This has tremendous potential to improve the capacity of smaller projects, and to encourage a sort of broad-based community. I look forward to seeing how this will operate Steve Joseph 03:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

143. Perey 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Makes perfect sense to me. Clearly the stewards need the help, or else this would have been a non-proposal.
144. This change is long overdue, as experience with chr wikipedia demonstrated a few years ago. Wikiacc (§) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     iSquishy

145. Yes. Teinesavaii 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
146. Zwilson14 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
147. Shooter16101 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
148. Yes. --The New Mikemoral 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
149. DerAndre 04:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Yes, Fully support --Bentoman 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Adi4094 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     User ineligible (must have registered before October 1st) James (T|C) 02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     --§Triple.Rhu 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

150.  Support Shivashree 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
151.  Support Calebrw 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
152. Yes, --Sarumo74 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

     Mr. Anon515 04:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

153. --Bellayet 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
154. --Atu 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
155.  Support As long as it's not abused, it's a good idea. For.--Maximz2005 04:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
156. Yk Yk Yk 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
157. Yes. Magnefl 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     --Fischy 04:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

158. Terence 05:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
159. Yes. Logical proposal providing necessary help. Ezratrumpet 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
160. Juan Miguel 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
161. --J Hazard 05:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
162. If help is needed then we should help Chaosdruid 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
163. Yes. We need a way to quickly stop vandalism. Eric Scubeesnax 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
164. Yes. Seablade 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
165. Jamesjiao 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
166.  Support Yes Noraft 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
167. Alvaro qc 05:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
168.  Support Yes --Delivi 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
169. Because the projects are allowed to opt-out. -- kh80 05:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
170.  Support. It is very good idea. Mondalor 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
171. Geanixx 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
172.  Support I think it goes without saying that Global sysops should be chosen very carefully from a pool of multi-lingual users with considerable experience in several different wiki's. Considering the brutal scrutiny local sysops candidates undergo, I don't think quality control and carefree sysopsing on a global scale is a concern. Angrysockhop 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
173.  Support IlyaHaykinson 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
174.  Support Aldo samulo 06:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
175. Nixón 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
176.  Support The wikis that are this small need the extra help, and as long as the Global sysops are picked carefully, I think that the idea is an excellent way to make sure they get that help. Trinity507 06:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
177.  Support IVP 06:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --84.60.37.89 06:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Ip vote, please login to vote James (T|C) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

178.  Support nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
179.  Support --Labant 06:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
180. Kv75 06:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support'd. perhaps wikis on external sites elect to be included in this list, if they feel that they would be better off with the aid of these obviously-ver--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)y-qualified editors. I assume wikis about specific topics are not under Wikimedia's administration, but if they are being overrun with vandals or have administrators fighting, these sites could issue a metaphorical call for help through whatever medium we set up. The next version of the wiki software could include a tag of whether or not to allow these people power, and they (the external wikis) could add themselves to the privilege list. Sompm 06:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

181.  Support--Shizhao 06:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
182. --Heiko 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
183. Hohohob 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
184.  Support - Wysprgr2005 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
185. --Djlordi 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
186.  Supportמתניה 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
187.  Support Dovi 07:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
188.  Support --Caponer 07:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
189.  Support CaribDigita 07:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I read through many of the "No"s and I believe Global sysops might be able to guide new upstart projects in the right direction until they get more established. As it was stated, if it just simply deleted because it is small, then nothing new will ever obtain the chance to become firmly established.

      Support seems to be a good idea, to support understaffed wikis --Nickaat 08:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

190.  Support Kimchi.sg 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
191.  Support - seems like a good idea--Pianoplonkers 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support CntRational 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Sure.

192.  Support --Petri 08:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
193.  Support - if a project still has the right to decide if global sysops should have admin rights in their project, then yes. Cavernia 08:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support -- Clamiax 09:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

194. Great idea! —what a crazy random happenstance 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
195. --DS-fax 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
196.  Support +1 I think that this would avoid SURP and other cross wikis problems. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
197.  Support Merlissimo 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
198.  Support In the early stage of the project, someone who don't know project's language may get admin right for maintenance. After the project grow enough, that admin right might be questioned by newcomers, as they don't have neither consensus nor RfA. Global sysop can avoid those situation, I think. If it was mandatory for all project, I might say No. --Peremen 08:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
199.  Support Kenrick95 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
200.  Support --Wvk 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
201. --Treublatt 08:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
202.  Support VMS Mosaic 08:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
203.  Support --Lutz Terheyden 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
204.  Support --Faizhaider 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
205.  Support, I like this idea. --Mercy 09:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
206.  Support --Ragimiri 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
207.  Support good idea for small projects --Tlusťa 09:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
208.  Support Reduction of Steward - workload by distributing "simple" admin tasks on adminless wikis. --Guandalug 09:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
209.  Support While I have grave reservations about adding in extra levels of hierarchy (K.I.S.S.), after carefully reading through this I can see the point of it so I support it. Mathmo 09:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
210.  Support --Vigilius 09:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
211.  Support - Very efficient way to improove the organization of "understaffed" projects. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
212.  Support I have personally been part of many small-languages Wikipedias where a shortage of admins doing trivial (ie. non-controversial) tasks has slowed the project's growth. DaGizza 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
213. --Euku 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
214. --Fschubert 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
215. Weak support. Generally a good idea but I have a queasy feeling about global blocks. According to Global blocking, such blocks would extend to all WMF wikis, even those outside the global sysop scope. Which is OK as long as a global sysop's main task is combatting massive blatant vandalism on very small projects, so I'd say give the proposal a try and see how it works out.--GrafZahl (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
216.  Support Makes sense. rursus 10:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
217.  Support -- Klaus Eifert 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
218.  Support Yes/Kyllä --Jepse 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
219.  Support Seems sensibly bounded by parameters. --Dweller 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
220.  Support--Rsmn 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
221. {{Support} --Harald Haugland 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
222.  Support Very sensible idea for projects just getting started. --Clarince63 10:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
223.  Support --Wedderkop 10:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
224. Great idea. Pitke 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
225.  Support A well-thought-out way to give small wikis the boost they need to get their act together. Freederick 10:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
226.  Support A Very Good Thing, especially for the small wikis, especially since any that wish to opt out can do so. Andrew Dalby 10:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
227.  Support Seems like a good idea. Alan16 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
228.  Support A stimulating way to get admins of small wiki's who don't want to be "overruled" to do their work. Rmeoung 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
229.  Support I like the idea very much that small projects get more help in the beginning and can more easily grow. :-) There are so many languages in this world, we don't have just these few that have already a Wikipedia. --Geitost ^diskusjon 11:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
230.  Support Sahmeditor 11:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
231.  Support ThorJH 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
232.  Support Razimantv 11:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
233.  Support There seem to be enough restrictions, like ability of projects to opt out that I think there are enough checks that this will be net good. Jbolden1517 11:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
234.  Support notafish }<';> 11:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
235.  Support --თოგო ^(D) 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
236.  Support Support blindspots can create significant problems for the project as a whole. SamJohnston 11:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
237. Working on a small wiki myself I can see this being something of a Godsend for most. Garden 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
238.  Support Daniel (‽) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
239.  Support Seems good to me. I am a Sysop on the Wikis I have, I know how hard it is to keep them "clean" Knee427 11:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
240.  Support Absolutley WilliamF1two 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
241.  Support I agree with the folks who say that a small wiki without enough admins shouldn't be shut down. It may someday grow into something great. JulieSpaulding 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
242.  Support. The ability to hit vandals across the various language wikipedias will be a net positive. Mjroots 12:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC) ( Admin Mjroots on en.wiki)
243.  Support. Very useful for our job at SWMT. --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
244.  Support we'll be very useful for the little project (even on the french wikisource, we're short of admin sometimes !). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
245.  Support --ThT 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
246.  Support Vladimir.frolov 12:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
247. --alexscho 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
248.  Support Tomatoman 12:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
249.  Support Trdsf 12:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
250.  Support--Cyrillic 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Seems like a good idea.
251. --Nemo 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
252.  Support Mheart 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
253.  Support --Pitlane02 12:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
254.  Support Doktorbuk 12:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
255. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
256.  Support --BokicaK 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
257.  Support - As much as I despise most of the janitors on the English Wikipedia, I do recognize that their existance is necessary. This proposal seems perfectly rational and unlikely to cause strife for the small projects it will effect given its opt-out clause. Nutiketaiel 13:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
258.  Support - While it would probably be preferable to have a larger, more active stewards corp (which if it existed would negate the need for this proposal), we don't. Chrism 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
259.  Support - Proposal seems rational and for the betterment of the entire Wiki community. --Mwilso24 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
260.  Support J-L Cavey 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
261.  Support I agree, small wiki have problems to get sysop. Vasiľ 13:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
262.  Support Will help us get at cross-wiki vandals who use small wikis to create malicious accounts. NawlinWiki 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support 194.41.152.158 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     • IP ineligible to vote. John Vandenberg 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

263.  Support Muro de Aguas 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
264.  Support Tostan 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
265.  Support Conaughy 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
266.  Support I think this is a good way to improve small wikis -- HF cars and sets 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
267.  Support Good idea. Raychut 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
268. Yes. Tgkprog 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
269. Yes. Swatjester 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
270.  Support Evet! --Goktr001 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
271.  Support I support. Albertus Aditya 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
272.  Support Linedwell@frwiki 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
273.  Support --FischX 14:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
274.  Support--VincenzoX 14:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
275.  Support --амдф 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
276.  Support --TheGrimReaper NS 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
277. --Sanbec 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Joe N 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Vote made by an IP -Barras ^talk 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

278.  Support A sensible extra layer of defense against mass vandalism attacks. Durova 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
279.  Support --Frank schubert 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
280.  Support I have no reason not to vote on this good idea... A idea that helps wikipedia, why don't vote? SunProj3cT 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
281.  Support -- small wikis need some help. Renata3 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
282.  Support Taking a hit for the little guy sounds good to me. Neelix 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
283. Sandstein 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
284.  Support. Since trust is not a matter of languages -- Vwm 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
285.  Support Christian Giersing 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
286. Don't agree with the silly support templates but chalk this up as a support Spartaz 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
287.  Support --Engelbaet 15:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
288.  Support IF handled with care, it's worth a try. Especially potentially useful for small Wikip-projects --ArchiSchmedes Talk 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
289.  Support for small wikis only, where stewards were (and still currently are, I suppose) performing such anti-vandalism tasks. --Paginazero - Ø 15:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
290.  Support --ゆきち 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
291.  Support This is an important tool to help moribund languages or ones whose users are not very net-savvy to get a leg up. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 16:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
292.  Support Carolfrog 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
293.  Support Neeters 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
294.  Support Juliabackhausen 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
295.  Support -- zur887 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
296.  Support --Morten Haan 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support robaco 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

297.  Support --Lépton ^✉ 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
298.  Support --Transmissionelement 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
299.  Support 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
300.  Support Sensible approach to solving a real problem. FloNight 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --TheBestPilarYouWillEverSee 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

301.  Support –neurovelho 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
302.  Support. JamieS93 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
303.  Support Kubłok31 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
304.  Support /Poxnar 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
305.  Support Tpt 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
306.  Support Tuvalkin 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
307.  Support Hosiryuhosi 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
308.  Support --FlügelRad 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
309.  Support Fantastic idea, as long as they are not annoying and act "the hard man". Conay 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
310.  Support --Anthony Ivanoff 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
311.  Support this idea. Actually it has already been tested in Wikia (helpers), and it works. Wassily Steik 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
312.  Support Hrcolyer 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
313.  Support Catherine 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Jyka 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

314.  Support With caution, as per Kimdino. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
315.  Support Kaldari 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
316.  Support Arkuat 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC) The opt-out by local consensus is very important to me; it looks as if a project with 10 administrators, 3 of whom are active at any given time, can opt-out by consensus. Otherwise I wouldn't support.
317. Laser brain 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
318.  Support Ateria 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Braveheart09 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

319.  Support The Anome 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
320.  Support Migt be useful for small african wikis JAn Dudík 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
321.  Support Will be good for smaller Wikis. But let´s see if is it working or not. --Chmee2 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
322.  Support SBC-YPR 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
323.  Support --DieBuche 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
324.  Support Why not? Clearly, many smaller projects need this. Innotata 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
325.  Support Stefaniak 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
326. Support. -AlexSm 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
327. Support --M/ 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
328.  Support Rajiv Varma 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
329.  Support --Amrum 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
330. Very yes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Pattiz 18:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

331.  Support Yo creo que esto es algo bueno para la wiki ya que hay muchos vandalos--Moms10 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
332.  Support Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
333.  Support --Krdan 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
334.  Support Raysonho 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
335.  Support --Toobaz 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Dunshocking 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Happy to support the majority vote; thanks for the vote!

336. --Thalan
337. Seems useful. No such power than stewards --Sargoth 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
338.  Support Sebk. 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
339.  Support --Amir E. Aharoni 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
340. Izno 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Skamecrazy123 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

341.  Support - Eric-Wester 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
342.  Support -- Cozzycovers 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
343.  Support Good idea. I believe it can help the projects. --egg 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
344.  Support Seems a good idea - Lnegro 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
345.  Support I wonder about knowledge about local languages (and of the sustainability of a project with less than 10 admins over the long term). There are good practical reasons stated in the oppose section below (such as the need for global admins to exercise sensitivity with respect to allowing smaller wiki to develop autonomously) but in essence this seems quite practical. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
346.  Support - Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
347.  Support GameOn 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support - Armageddon11 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

348.  Support - Rainmonger 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
349.  Support I think this will be a very helpful position for developing the smaller Wikipedia projects and it seems like very little harm can come from this, so I support it. I Feel Tired 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
350.  Support --Alterego 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
351.  Support – ClockworkSoul 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC): This seems like a good idea in principle, and I'll be interested to see how it develops.
352. Shii 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
353. --Osd@ruwiki 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
354. --Philippe 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
355. --Enemenemu 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Looks like a solution for a problem
356.  Support Sole Soul 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
357. --AFBorchert 21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I assume that small wikis will profit from this solution. Most vandalisms or spam postings are in English or other major languages, not necessarily in the language of the small wikis. Similarly, copyright violations can be in many cases handled without knowing the wiki's language.
358.  Support – Lumos3 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Small Wikis need the protection of the whole community or they may be vunerable to disruption which in turn will reflect on the reputation of the whole of Wikipedia.
359.  Support Gkarpljuk 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
360.  Support Wikipedia is big; around 3 million articles by 20 million users. However lots of the amount is vandalism which should be reduced if the idea comes true. Jeremjay24 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
361.  Support Pschemp 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
362.  Support Knuddel8 22:21, 7 January 2010 (CET) I support that. I don't think the volunteers will abuse their rights and I don't think that their will be any volunteers chosen who aren't serious enough.
363.  Support Absolute power corrupts absolutely; it's a Good Thing this isn't absolute power. Dhatfield 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
364.  Support IzzyReal We as a collective entity need to protect the smaller articles. So Heck yeah!
365.  Support --Dreaven3 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
366.  Support --cslatlantis 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Totally great idea. Too many people have been screwing up the facts.
367.  Support --Gereon K. 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
368.  Support --Daemorris 21:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
369.  Support --Ding1dong 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
370.  Support As long as we are admitting that this is a work around until the smaller wikis can better handle the scourge of internet flaming. I think that inter-wiki cooperation is part of the core of the Wikipedia spirit.--Adam in MO Talk 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
371.  Support --Abaumg 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
372.  Support Nbarth 21:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
373.  Support Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
374.  Support - Vinvlugt 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support -  Kaltxì Na'vi!  22:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (registration before October 1, 2009 is required). --Church of emacs talk 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

375.  Support -- Sounds interesting and worth a go. DD2K 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
376.  Support -- All Wikipedias bear the same logo, while quality is varying. Global sysops can support the local stewarts, esp. blocking of vandals etc. -- Vertigo Man-iac 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
377.  Support – This sounds like a very good idea. We desperately need more structures for inter-wiki communication and coordination, as well as filling a role that the stewards are unable to manage through shortage of numbers. I would be keen to see proposals for meetings of the GSs every ?three months or so, possibly with the stewards. Tony1 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
378.  Support I like this idea --Adrille 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
379.  Support --Zinnmann 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
380.  Support ok -Kacembepower 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
381.  Support G8crash3r 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Great idea. I think I can help out if given the opportunity.
382.  Support I support the motion Endo999 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
383.  Support - Much needed. -- Avenue 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
384.  Support --ysangkok 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
385. Majorly talk 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
386.  Support I agree with the idea behind this as long as the opt-out is there. Woody 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
387.  Support --Pelz 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
388.  Support - I support whatever will provide help for smaller wikis. -- Atama頭 23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
389.  Support - We need effective ways and tools against vandalism. I hope this will help! --Ulanwp 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
390.  Support --Computerjoe 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
391.  Support -- Montgomery 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
392.  Support I agree with Paginazero. --Fredericks 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
393.  Support Makes sense to me.-LtMuldoon
394. Yup. Makes perfect sense. BG7 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
395.  Support --MoRsE 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
396.  Support --Schmendrik881 23:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
397.  Support Adambro 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
398.  Support --Something12356789101 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
399.  Support Royalbroil 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
400.  Support --Emes 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
401.  Support Fetchcomms 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
402.  Support --Rab777hp 19:32, 8 January 2019 (EST) This is necessary because it helps keep the level of control up, and also deals with the question of allowing more stewards in or not.
403.  Support I think this is a reasonable way to maintain a level of nessacary controll, and continue to foster an productive environment for the free exchange of ideas. Rampant unicorn 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
404.  Support I'm not convinced this will solve all the issues it is supposed to, but it's certainly worth a try Wefa 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
405.  Support AndrewRT 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable and positive, with the greatest potential for harm neutralised through allowing opt outs. In practice I think it's naive to think the idea that global sysops will remain strictly limited to "urgent abuse and non-controversial maintenance" and would not end up with the same power structure attributes that en-wp admins have. Likewise, I'm not positive about asking stewards to make the decision (they should be strictly implementing community decisions only). Nonetheless, still support. AndrewRT 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
406.  Support bonne idée --Ofol 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
407.  Support --St. Alex 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
408.  Support --E020613 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
409.  Support Definitely a good idea. —MC10 (T•C•L•EM) 01:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
410.  Support Sneaky 013 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
411.  Support -- Wesha 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
412.  Support --Ukexpat 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
413. Support, sounds like a good idea--Jac16888 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
414.  Support --Giants27 Talk to Me 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
415.  Support --Wikitiki89 02:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC) The only thing I have to say is that I think the requirements for number of admins should be changed because I feel that ten admins or three active admins is not nearly enough admins.
416.  Support Themfromspace 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
417. --Jodoform 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
418.  Support--Christian Lindecke 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
419.  Support GreenReaper 02:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
420. Yup, but we need to be sure that these people are unequivocally and completely trusted before appointing them to a position like this. Ed (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
421.  Support Slark 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
422.  Support --Patar knight 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
423.  Support Seems sane enough and commensurate with the problem. --Kay Dekker 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
424.  Support Nothing I can think of that would make this a bad idea. --Shirik 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
425.  Support Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
426.  Support ~fl 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
427.  Support Bouchecl 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
428.  Support BfPage Hey can I be one of those sysops?
429.  Support — a very good idea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Jamie314 02:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC) This is fine, provided there is adequate moderation. As others have said, we don't want to create power issues or invite abuse.

      Support--Personplacething 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I strongly agree with this proposal.

      Support--9548coolgirl 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This is the best idea I've heard of. I for one support this cause. Oh, and my vote is yes.

      Support --Plommespiser 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

430.  Support--jmans25 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This is good, as long as they get a lot less privileges than anmins. We DON'T need another group with the same privileges than admins.
431.  Support --Deanmullen09 21:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC) In the word of the hopi indians "those who cannot accept change will fall dead with their own fear of that change" so why not?
432. Tentative  Support Shoefly 18:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This change should not create any power monopolies.
433.  Support Christopher Pritchard 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC), I support as I feel that it will allow for more people to focus on editing, with less people needing to be sysops (as the global ones can take care of this)
434.  Support User: Gullit Torres, I support because I think it'll get better the the Wikipedia's jod, chosing the best people and increasing the articles.
435.  Support Carptrash 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'll try anything . . . . ...... once.
436.  Support (Wiki id2 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
437.  SupportKimdino 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Care needs to be taken on appointment of these people though. I believe they will need to operate with a light touch. They must also realise that they are subsidiary to the wiki 'owners' and only providing a supporting role. Certainly, as stated elsewhere, no hitlers.
438. Template:Orion11 Yes, thats good
439.  Support I think this is a great idea, provided care is taken in choosing the right person for thejob. It will go wrong if we recruit people who are likely to go all superior and start being nazi on editing.
440. TomBeasley 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
441.  SupportFindiver13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I like the above wording : "start being nazi on editing"
442.  Support DarioAlvarez
443. --Teepoet 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Yes.
444. James Brian Ellis 08:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
445. WngLdr34 04:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I for one support our new Sysop overlords (seriously though there are too many mods we need supermods, hells yes.
446.  Support with obvious need for careful thought in the selection process. Kafka Liz 03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
447. --Closedmouth 03:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
448.  Support I think this is a good thing as long as one is qualified and this does not start an issue of power abuse. Canyouhearmenow
449.  Support A vandal can run wild on a smaller wiki with only rollbackers around to control them. Any viable project has enough local privileges to close deletion discussions, run RfA's, etc. But, as I understand the proposal, global sysops are for blocking vandals, removing obvious spam/attack pages, etc- things that need done ASAP, not when the stretched thin local admins are online. Bradjamesbrown 03:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
450.  Support Good idea. Roberto de Lyra 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support I like this idea, it will hopefully further prevent vandalism on the wikis. --Thejetset1 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

451.  Support Steven Walling (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
452.  Support Seems like a good idea. Can't see why this wouldn't be beneficial to the smaller wikis. --FlyingPenguins 03:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
453.  Support Seems to be a very reasonable proposal to me. Basket of Puppies 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
454.  Support I'm not entirely sure whether its really necessary to give them global blocking rights, but that's not enough to make me oppose. The removal process is close to zero-tolerance, which is good. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
455. Llakais 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
456.  Support If the admins go berserk, we kick them out. Meanwhile, if it promotes efficient use of our human resources aka fellow users, I'm all for it. Paradoctor 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
457.  Support Hopefully will reduce vandalism, and I trust that the selection process will be thorough enough to ensure this isn't just another title people try to rack up.--BaronLarf 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support I think this is a great idea. I see no reason to oppose this motion. Rintaminator 04:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

458. EMPHATIC  Support. This is a long overdue solution to the abuse of small projects. Grandmasterka 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
459.  Support. I hope that this will reduce vandalism, while protections mentioned will prevent abuse. Tigerhawkvok 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
460. Very much in  Support of this proposal. This way, there would be less spam and suspicious activity in the wikis. wishfulanthony 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
461.  Support Jclemens 05:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
462.  Support Tm93 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Small wikis need experienced "sysops" to help them grow.

      Support Rudyramjet I am relativly new to the Wiki experiance and I appreciate it when I'm questioned. The steward has always told me why something is supect and what steps are needed to unblock or validate information. I contribute but certainly don't want this project tainted. The reason I contribute is because I believe in the free exchange of solid, verifiable information. We should try this out gang. If it turns into what is "feared" than do like what we are doing now and change it again! To do nothing is not the answer. 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

463.  Support Sensible way to help small wikisJohn Quiggin 05:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
464.  Support nice practise for small wikis --Sirozha 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
465.  Support Ozob 06:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
466.  Support My own experience with Mediawiki-based projects has taught me that some projects require time to reach the critical mass of volunteers needed to sustain it. These fledgling projects require careful care and watchfulness to grow into mature ones. To abandon the small wikis would be analogous to deleting all stubs. Dcoetzee 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
467.  Support As long as projects can opt-out, I think there is little damage that can be done and a lot of help that could be offered. -- Onee 06:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
468. Quiddity 06:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
469. Support only purpose is to assist. Graeme Bartlett 06:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
470.  Support -- Brücke-Osteuropa 06:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
471.  Support -- Worapon B. ^talk 06:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
472. Easiest choice I've made all day. Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Tholau Definitly YES 087:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC) :)

     Only 1 edit (this vote). Erik Warmelink 09:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

473.  Support --.snoopy. ✉ 07:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
474.  Support --Orderinchaos 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
475.  Support --JohnMarcelo 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
476.  Support --newspaperman 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
477.  Support Makes sense -- this will help the smaller projects. --MCB 07:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
478.  Support Needed it for years. Biem 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
479. --Revvar 07:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
480.  Support Main opposes seem to be: "they won't know the languages" and "will abuse power". I'm impressed with how confident people are that a few people can control several wikis without having any of the language skills. Clearly a steward and maintenance type role that will benefit smaller wikis and hopefully help them grow; and responding to opposes about focus taken from larger projects: I'm quite ready for en wikipedia and other large wikipedias to take a back seat to other parts of the Wikimedia Foundation; as I see it, greater involvement in the smaller projects naturally enhances the quality and quantity of information lacking from the larger projects anyway. Maedin\^talk 08:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
481.  Support --2thuriel 08:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
482.  Support --Klaws 08:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
483.  Support --Starwiz 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
484. Suppport Ged UK 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
485.  Support -- Gabriel Kielland 08:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
486. --Eriklindroos 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
487. Support Clem23 08:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
488.  Support -- Andre315 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
489.  Support Pipedreamergrey 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I'm all for anything that will foster a sense of community among the smaller wikis.
490.  Support Leolaursen 08:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
491.  Support Physchim62 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
492.  Support There's no reason to deny it. - Ellif 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
493.  Support Don't think this needs to be a different permission than the existing ones, but someone should get those rights, I agree. -- Windharp 09:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
494.  Support --Redagavimas 09:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
495.  Support Stifle 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
496.  Support --Patangel 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
497.  Support Mpadowadierf 09:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
498.  Support Murgh 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
499.  Support --Jan Luca 09:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
500.  Support Altenmann 09:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Bschandramohan

      Support Ahmad87

501.  Support Cryngo 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
502.  Support--Vladimir Solovjev 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
503.  Support Yes, it's a good idea. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
504.  Support --Akkifokkusu 10:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
505.  Support--Bdell555 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
506.  Support Nobbipunktcom 10:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
507.  Support Archandha 11:10, 8 January 2010 (MET)
508.  Support BabelStone 10:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
509.  Support Looks like it is opt in (for larger wikis) or opt out (for smaller wikis). As such, I can't see a reason to oppose - if your local wiki doesn't like it, just opt out of it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
510. --Michail 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
511.  Support Gz260 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Lemiffe 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Go for it!

512.  Support TraxPlayer 11:57, 8 January 2010 (MET)
513.  Support --SVL 11:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
514. --Boivie 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) It's a good proposal.
515.  SupportYeah, I'm OK with this.--Mktsay123 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
516.  Support MichaelSchoenitzer 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
517. Seems sensible, if you only have two or three admins on a project you can't expect them to be online 24/7, especially if the vandals are english speakers who don't necessarily operate in the same timezone. WereSpielChequers 11:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     And what happens if there are only one or two admins, who only check the project on a daily basis, or even less - many only dedicate a few hours each weekend. global sysops will do all the work because it "needs" doing, except during the time those admins are around. The result is that the local admins will not be able to shape their project, and without the sense of responsibility to tend to the garden, they will walk away from the project leaving it to the global sysops who probably dont understand the language. Or, they will opt out. John Vandenberg 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     That would be a sound argument if global sysops did more than anti-vandalism. I hardly think blocking rampaging vandals, which is likely to be 99.9% of the work (even nonsense pages are tagged for local evaluation today rather than given to the stewards to handle), will annoy the local community. NW (Talk) 12:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     blocking rampaging vandals does not need global sysops with all of the rights of local admins and global blocking.

     The proposal currently says they will be doing "non-controversial maintenance", which is the vast majority of a local sysops duties on a small wiki. John Vandenberg 12:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     A few anti-vandal experiences that I have seen while doing SWMT work. These all require tools in addition to the block button: An editor on the Greek Wikipedia who uses multiple IPs and a script to vandalize on page over and over again. Temporary semi-protection is often used to stop this. Multiple IPs go on a mass vandal page creation, creating pages with solely obscenties. Is there really any reason to for those pages to stick around? Page-move vandalism still occurs on small projects. I would go on, but I probably shouldn't. In any case, these are not isolated incidents. These happen every week, and stewards are not always there to stop it. NW (Talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

518.  Support. Not a bad idea, I think. — Qweedsa 11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
519.  Support maxkramer 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
520. --Conti 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
521.  Support MacCambridge 12:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
522.  Support --Clpo13 12:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
523. Lukas9950 12:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
524.  Support--Spartanbu 13:27, 8 January 2010 (MET) Good idea!
525. --NoCultureIcons 12:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
526.  Support Great idea. We do need to be careful who we elect, though. Elium2 12:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
527. Tim Ross (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
528.  Support Hut 8.5 12:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
529.  Support ...and hopefully this will be the last of any dealings with this matter. LessHeard vanU 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
530.  Support --Carkuni 12:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
531.  Support Good idea -- DieterEg 13:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
532.  Support--Olaf2 13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
533.  Support sounds like a flexible tool to me. Pauli133 13:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
534.  Support--Usien 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
535. Per J.delanoy's comment below. AGK 13:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
536.  Support --Samyn97 13:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
537.  Support Tinucherian 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
538.  Support Dprabhu 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
539.  Support --Vajotwo (posta) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
540.  Support CillanXC 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
541. --Bahnmoeller 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
542.  Support Shaktal
543.  Support--Иван Прихно 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
544.  Support : We need men of good will to protect small projects. These small projects, viable or not, are useful to readers. Stephane8888 13:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
545.  Support. Yes indeed! -- OlEnglish 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
546.  Strong support That'll be good for smaller Wikis --231013-a 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
547.  Support. Anything to slow vandals -- comindico 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
548.  Support --Jpfagerback 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
549.  Support Makes sens. skagedal^... 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
550.  Support --Lankavatara 14:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
551. sounds reasonable to me -- pne 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
552.  Support Certainly would help the smaller wiki's. -Djsasso 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
553.  Support -- Tehbing 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
554.  Support --Maha 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
555.  Support -- There are concerns with this, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages I think. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
556.  Support --Professor Muttonchops
557.  Support --Oneiros 15:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
558.  Support Lineplus 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
559. Diyan.boyanov 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
560.  Support There are global vandals so why not admins and difference to stewards seems somewhat sufficient. --Usp 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
561.  Support Yes, I reckon it's needed, مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
562.  Support Mulad 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
563.  Support - Colin dla 15:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
564. Good idea. --Dimitris 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
565.  Support yes--Alexander Timm 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
566.  Support We need to be as coordinated and flexible as our attackers -Drdisque 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
567. Convinced that it has its place; also, the fact that wiki's can opt out of global access list makes it less likely that the bigger wiki's will have problem with global blocks. (I can't see enwiki be used on global access list, for example.) Penwhale 16:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
568.  Support Jes / Yes -- Kelkaj enesperantaj projektoj bezonas tian uzulon. / Some projects in Esperanto need these special users. -- Fernando Maia Jr. 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
569.  Support Perfect iniciative. --Rolf Obermaier 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
570.  Support - Taqi Haider 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
571. ×α£đ^es 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
572.  Support About time that this happened. Woollymammoth 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
573.  Support but the group should be diversified and consist of people representing different countries and ideas. Otherwise, it will be the dominance of US community Alexbouditsky 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
574.  Support 51% support, 49% no support. A bit concerned with power abuse --Rochelimit 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
575.  Support --Emericpro 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
576.  Support Think it's definately necessary! --NorthernCounties 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
577.  SupportWe need more anti-vandals.Zoravar 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
578.  SupportDefinitely.Lewis82 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
579.  Support At first I was going to come in an say hell-no, but then I read the proposals, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do (individual projects opt-in, and they have to be small). So hell-yes. Headbomb 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
580.  Support Jacoplane 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
581.  Support --Feudiable 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
582.  Support Danielkueh 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
583.  Support Kanman 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
584.  Support MMS2013 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
585.  Support --Teufli 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
586.  Support even though we should always be sceptical about sysops and their behaviour I support the effort in consolidating sysop's work like blockage of vandals as way to more efficiency and therefore more ressources to support our initial project goal - creating an encyclopedia --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 17:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
587.  Support - seems reasonable to me (Madapakar 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC))
588.  Support - useful and reasonable --Jfblanc 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
589.  Support - seems to be a good idea, to support understaffed wikis --NPunkt 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
590.  Support - Ike9898 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
591.  Support --Mordan ( talk - de - de-talk ) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
592.  Support. I think the ability of each project to opt in or out satisfies any concerns I would have had. --Tryptofish 17:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
593.  Support -- Wikimedia needs as many able-bodies, responsible sysops in place as possible, and this plan seems to cover all eventualities thought of so far. I am in favor of the proposal, thanks for the opportunity to vote. -- Erredmek 17:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
594.  Support - Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m
595.  Support Ironholds 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
596.  Support I agree with Headbomb. --Charlie Rrose Selavy 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
597.  Support Galessandroni 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
598. --Density 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
599.  Support - It's very good idea! Misiek2 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
600.  Support simonexxx83 17:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
601.  Support Mlaffs 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
602.  Support—I discuss my decision here--ArthurOgawa 17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
603.  Support —LarryGilbert 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
604.  Support would make wiki so much better! akshayrangasai 23:23, 8 January 2010 (IST)
605.  Support agree Mathmo Fulldecent 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
606.  Support I have become mostly inactive, due to rampant Wikipedia abuse --Gesslein 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
607.  Support One problem is: if a global-admin account is hacked, or someone can using it for vandalism (example: forgotten to logout, then someone use global-admin account to global-vandal) --Love Krittaya 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
608.  Support Demonwhip 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
609.  Support I think it is a very good idea Jan Keromnes 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
610.  Support Great idea. --Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
611.  Support Half price0 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
612.  Support --Epiq 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
613.  SupportThe Magnificent Clean-keeper 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
614. Annabel 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
615.  Support--Germannoiseunion 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
616.  Support--User:Tag101 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
617.  Support--Bartiebert 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
618.  Support--Mike Linksvayer 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
619.  Support--Charles F Ross
620.  Support Let's try it out --Tschips 19:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
621.  Support —Paul Erik 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
622.  Support —Longbow4u 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
623.  Support Cowtung 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
624.  Support Sins We Can't Absolve 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
625.  Support --BradPatrick 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
626.  Support --Firilăcroco ^{discuție / talk} 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
627. Nothing controversial, really. --Mormegil (cs) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
628.  Support -- Pbsouthwood 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
629.  Support --Thekaleb 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
630.  Support --Dougcard 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
631. Nakor 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
632. Weak  Support. On the one hand, there are editors like EVula who are dead impartial, a good trait for an admin on so many wikis. On the other, there are people who feign goodwill just so they can get the tool and proceed to abuse it. Plus, it's extremely powerful, which could either do good or bad, depending on whose hands it's in. I'm putting up a weak support because I'm assuming there are enough honest editors on the project to keep things under control. --Gp75motorsports 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
633.  Support So long as the right candidates are selected, I believe this to be a positive initiative that will support the development of smaller projects. Rje 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
634. --habakuk 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
635. --Jeroen 20:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
636.  Support Absolutely a necessity, given the volume and scope that the wikimedia projects have evolved into! Soren42 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
637.  Support — The Earwig @ 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
638. --Nro92 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
639. --Matthiasb 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
640.  Support Bob bobato 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
641.  Support --Item 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC) of course :-)
642. → crazytales 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
643.  Support - so long as it remains the privelege of a few, and not the right of many. GeeJo
644. XenonX3 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
645.  Support --Hercule 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
646.  Support --Sens8 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
647.  Support --Todtanis 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
648.  Support --AnRo0002 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
649.  Support --TK-CP 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
650.  Support Per proposal. --Millosh 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Gaumond 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)(My account is active on Wikipedia FR)

     IP vote, login to vote pliz --Dalibor Bosits ^© 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

651.  Support Jarkeld 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
652.  Support --Jnthn0898 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
653.  Support --Malafaya 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
654.  Support --MichaelMaggs 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
655.  Support --Ondokuzmart 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
656.  Support HistoryStudent113 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
657.  Support --Mark Nowiasz 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
658.  Support --Woodstock1 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
659.  Support --ZX81 ^talk 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
660.  Support - I see a need, and while I see this as an imperfect solution, I have not seen a superior proposal. - Sinneed 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
661.  Support --Tone 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
662.  Support -- Yaztromo 22:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
663.  Support -- Btphelps 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
664.  Support -- Rotsee 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
665.  Support --ST ○ 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
666.  Support --Church of emacs talk 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
667.  Support --Kjetil1001 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
668. --Tinz 23:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
669.  Support Beccaviola 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
670.  Support --Alexanderaltman 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) elegant
671. Template:Co-firm --  verdanarch!  THE LOGISTICS FOR OVERIDE SEEM REASONED. Harmonic unsubverted education for all is a legacy and our future. As we grow wiser so some of us step fore and ward.
672.  Support -- Pistnor 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC) seems reasonable
673.  Support -- CristianCantoro 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
674.  Support - Seems like a good idea. - NeoAC 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
675.  Support Hportfacts5 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
676.  Support Acer 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Weblaunches

677.  Support Sure! Why not? If the doomsayers are right and a new breed of uber-wikinazi emerges as a result of this, surely our ever-watchful stewards can give them a thorough stomping. I think that people who are sufficiently interested and experienced to nominate or be naominated are unlikely to have these antisocial tendencies anyway. As in life, the bulk of the work on wiki is done by a minority of people, so more power to those that have the time and motivation. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
678.  Support Blahma 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
679.  Support It sounds usefully. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
680.  Support --Evangelivm 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Publicly Visible 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Most of the naysayers seem to be either misunderstanding the proposal (e.g. the oft-overlooked "opt out") or misguidedly shouting about tyranny when many small wiki users are voting "yes". As far as I can tell, this proposal has almost everything to do with cross-wiki vandalism, and these cries for assistance from users helpless to stop cross-wiki vandals while the stewards are unavailable fill me with righteous rage! A global sysop group that doesn't have the power of stewards but can deal decisively with these insolent whelps is definitely a great idea.

681.  Support --Hormold 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
682.  Support--Unionhawk 01:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
683.  Support Saemikneu 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
684.  Support There seem to be plenty of checks and balances and though there's opportunity for mistaken actions there's very little for abuse. As the Wiki projects grow so does the number of vandals and also the motivation for interested parties to play dirty tricks: we need the tool to cope. --Simonxag 01:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
685.  Support Hi878 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
686.  Support Wiseguy007 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
687.  Support MikeLacey 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
688. Weak  Support. On the one hand, there are editors like EVula who are dead impartial, a good trait for an admin on so many wikis. On the other, there are people who feign goodwill just so they can get the tool and proceed to abuse it. Plus, it's extremely powerful, which could either do good or bad, depending on whose hands it's in. I'm putting up a weak support because I'm assuming there are enough honest editors on the project to keep things under control. --Gp75motorsports 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
689.  Support Sure! Why not? If the doomsayers are right and a new breed of uber-wikinazi emerges as a result of this, surely our ever-watchful stewards can give them a thorough stomping. I think that people who are sufficiently interested and experienced to nominate or be naominated are unlikely to have these antisocial tendencies anyway. As in life, the bulk of the work on wiki is done by a minority of people, so more power to those that have the time and motivation. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
690.  Support -- VanderGomes I support this project. I believe a big project like Wikipedia is necessary to consider not only the quality but also quantity to fully achieve the results.
691.  Support -- Tawker 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support -- Buckeyetigre 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Bctrainers 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

692.  Support — It can be useful. Here's hoping its used for the described purposes.—DMCer 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
693.  Support, gives better fine tuning of permissions, plus there's always a place to take complaints if necessary. --Sigma 7 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
694.  Support -- Njrwally 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
695.  Support -- Jtico (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
696.  Support -- Lenitha 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
697.  Support: small wikis are vulnerable to attackers, since too few people watch them if ever. Now, this would be a way to increase their defenses. Alexius08 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
698.  Support -- Based on review of the previous comments and consideration of the effects on current and future users, I support the proposal to establish global sysops in effort to provide efficient and complete protection of wikis that opt-in. JShenk 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
699.  Support -- William915 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
700.  Support Ottava Rima 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
701.  Support -- Allen4names 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
702.  Support Supraphonic 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
703.  Support-Not entirely sure about some things, but I'm basically in support — The preceding unsigned comment was added by NativeTexan55 (talk)
704.  Support Xam123456 03:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
705.  Support - I think it's a good idea
706.  Support This is a great idea, since certain administrators (examples: Juliancolton, PeterSymonds) help out all they can on multiple wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation. Since I read/heard about the shortage of Stewards, the global sysop group would benefit those users. DivineAlpha 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
707.  Support Sounds like a normal delegating of responsibilities Firefight 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
708.  Support. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
709.  Support. I am an admin at the English Wikipedia under this same username, but I can't help with adminstrative tasks at, say, Simple English. I would greatly enjoy the opportunity to assist in theadministrative tasks of other Foundation projects. --PMDrive1061 04:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
710.  Support --Joejoe92 04:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
711.  Support. The major benefit appears to be the small wikis hits by cross-wiki spammers/vandals—given that Stewards would be delegating this responsibility, the Stewards will also be in the position to remove it if the extra powers are misused. —Sladen 04:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
712.  Support to deal with spam. --Banana 04:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
713.  Support --Werdan7^{T @} 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
714.  Support, I don't anticipate objections to sysop actions, since I doubt there will be much dispute resolution--just vandalism/spam cleanup and the like. My only concern is that this will be a tedious and unrewarding job, and no one will want to do it very long. Chick Bowen 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Danshil 04:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

715.  Support Will enhance the fight against inter-wiki vandals... ARUNKUMAR P.R 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
716.  Support --Leuqarte 05:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
717.  Support--Jusjih 05:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support It is a large responsibility that will prevent far more irresponsibility. --ChrstphrChvz (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

718.  Support Zscout370 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
719.  Support while I haven't personally logged 150 edits, I've run a nonprofit community ISP & have been teaching a bunch of college students how to edit for the first time. This makes a lot of sense to me. --DrMel 06:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
720.  Support Kira-san 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
721. Hesperian 06:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
722.  Support Lear's Fool 06:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
723.  Support Sheepunderscore 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
724.  Support — Аурелиано Буэндиа 06:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
725.  Support --Nn123645 06:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
726.  Support --Guugolpl0x 07:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
727. --Fg68at 07:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
728.  Support - I can see how this would be a useful stopgap for under-visited wikis and the "OMG 1 ADMIN WAS BAD SOMEWHERE!!11!!1" arguments don't realy resonate with me. --J.smith 07:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
729. —Dark ^talk 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
730.  Support Barefact 07:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
731.  SupportScooteristi 07:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
732.  Support Calaka 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
733.  Support --Chadwickschool 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
734.  Support --Gaeser 08:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
735.  Support Local wiki project have a safety break in their right to disavow/reject one or all Global sysops. If it's happen meta-project and higher up have better to abide their decisions. --KrebMarkt 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
736.  Support Sheitan 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
737.  Support Pheines 08:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
738.  Support Astonvilla91 08:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Kevin j morse 08:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

739.  Support Absolutely necessary for small wikis. --FocalPoint 08:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Pyrdacor-Cyberdragon 09:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

740.  Support Catgunhome 01:11, 9 January 2010 (PST)

      Support NeoCreator 12:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC +3)

741.  Support Good to see Wikipedia taking action towards increasing reliability of its contents. Subh83 09:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Good idea User:ulrichteich7 10:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

742.  Support Wild mine 09:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
743.  Support — JamesR ≈talk≈ 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
744.  Support Biathlon 10:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
745.  Support --Vantey 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
746.  Support --Ratzer 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
747.  Support Niesy74 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
748.  Support --Joe-Tomato 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
749.  Support --TimppaKoo 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
750.  Support Cody escadron delta 10:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
751.  Support because…
     • (a) It is possible for someone who doesn't speak the language on many wikis to detect vandalism and other blatant forms of abuse. Can conflict of interest, weasel words, and other forms of subtle vandalism, be detected? Probably not. But I regularly visit and do contribute to sites in languages I don't speak. Languages in a non-Arabic alphabet or that are markedly different from English would not be a place I could help much, but that's the smaller portion of the total number of wikis. (I am not a local sysop and would not want to be a globabl one; I'm just sharing my experiences as a frequent cross-wiki visitor and contributor).
     • (b) The "powers" being given to the global sysops are essentially the same as they would have if they were local sysops. No biggie there. They are just assisting the local ones. Maybe the name for the role should be changed to "Global Assistant Sysops" to make that point more clear?
     • (c) For the people who don't see how this "helps Wikipedia", you're living in a monoculture with blinders on. "Wikipedia" is a vast multilanguage project with several related sites. While English encyclopedia articles may be your interest, someone in Laos may be much more interested in the Laotian Wikinews site. If the person goes there, and the site is all fouled up due to obvious vandalism or other serious maintenance problems, that person will have a very poor view of "Wikipedia". If that person is a journalist, blogger, or otherwise well-connected, his or her low opinion of "Wikipedia" will spread. Negative feelings for non-profit organizations keeps donations down, makes major contributors nervous, and harms the overall project. "Wikipedia" is a complex organism, and damaging even small parts of it (i.e., smaller projects in uncommon languages) harms the larger, more visible parts, too.
     • For those reasons, the reasons already voiced above, and more that I can't think of, I support this proposal (and would strongly support it with the name change to "Global Assistant Sysops"). —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)
752. --Mbdortmund 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
753. Shraktu 11:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
754.  Support --Mohanjith 11:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
755. Greudin throws a shoe towards spammers, vandals Greudin 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
756.  Support --Goldzahn 11:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
757. Didicher

      Support --Insinbad 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

758.  Support ----Roquefeuil 11:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC), judicious / judicieux, allows to block obvious vandalisms, with limited resources (not to too much time or complexity demanding)

      Support MirekDve 11:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

759. Yes. Seems helpful on balance. Ucucha 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
760.  Support Needed. Surprising this does not already exist. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
761.  Support Michalwadas 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
762.  Support, but having looked through the oppose section - provided that they're elected by means of really stiff criteria, in order to prevent possible misunderstandings.--Microcell 12:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Sparkiegeek 12:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

763. OK Stef48 12:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support make sense to me

764. --ThierryNicollin 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
765. --Rutja76 12:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
766.  Support Cysioland - Talk with me 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) - Why not? It can be useful.
767. Btd 12:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
768. Kallerna 12:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
769.  Support Automatic seeing is good, but this sounds much better! Keep that idea up! (User: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Andy_E (German))
770.  Support--Capucine8 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Be bold, as they say. --Innerfish 13:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     User not eligible to vote. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

771.  Support I am clearly supporting this decision, which is a very good idea in order to make the most little wikis more dynamic. Indeed, I think that is a great piece of new for the whole community, which will by this way certainly win a great dynamism.

     Je pense que nous avons là une excellente idée pour accroître le dynamisme et la pertinence des projets wikis les plus modestes, et que cette mesure aidera peut-être à crédibiliser Wikipédia. En effet, les actes de vandalisme sont réellement un problème dans les plus petits wikis, donc cette nouvelle catégorie d'administrateurs comble bien un "manque" dans le mille-feuille administratif wikipédien. Artemis Fowl 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

772. Wammes Waggel 13:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
773.  Support strongly. Having tried to help out with cross wiki vandalism, it is very hard to help with small projects that have few sysops. The stewards have too many other things to do to deal with all of this as well. Additionally the set of projects where global sysops will have rights is reasonable and allows opting out. - Taxman 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Penso che possa essere utile per combattere i vandalismi. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.gavardi (talk)

     Oldest account (on it.wiki) was created 12:31, 06 December 2009. Erik Warmelink 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

774.  Support Mystori33 -- I think its a great idea.
775.  Support Plani 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
776.  Support --FritzG 14:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
777. -jkb- 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
778.  Support--ZERBERUS 14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
779. Carlitoslemon 14:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Yo creo que esto si es una buena idea
780.  Support --S.Didam 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
781.  Support Kyro 14:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
782.  Support --Tpa2067 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
783.  Support Esp since any wiki can opt out. We have way too many inactive admins on small wikis and admin backlogs are big on those wikis. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 14:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
784.  Support As a general rule, I think more flexibility in dealing with emergencies or chronic understaffing is a good thing. PauAmma 14:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
785.  Support --Ken-Z! Talk 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
786. DarkoNeko 14:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support --Drwhapcaplet 15:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

787.  Support; this is a sound subset of the Stewards' rights which can be safely given to a larger group of editors for the good of all. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 15:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
788.  Support Fernbom2 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
789.  Support --Orci 15:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
790.  Support Стаканчик 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
791.  Support Untitledmind72 15:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
792.  Support. We have people we can trust with this responsibility, and we have persistent vandals who jump from wiki to wiki across projects and languages, and need to be stopped by someone able to do so in this manner. BD2412 T 16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
793.  Support JackOL31 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Sueli.f.lima 16:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

794.  Support That's a very good idea! FalconL 16:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
795.  Support Banning notorious vandals from all wiki projects at the same time and helping the admins of small wiki projects to maintain their wiki does make sense in my opinion --Sylvain2803 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
796.  Support Dewet 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
797.  Support Qui1che 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support darklordoftime 16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

798.  Support, vandalism is evil. If an experienced sysop knows the language of project, its support is important. --Jackie 17:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
799.  Support, no reason not to. Timmeh 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Evox777 17:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

800.  Support, Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
801.  Support --Mghamburg 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
802. Роман1989 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
803.  Support --Trixt 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
804. This is a good idea. Earle Martin 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support Rafael Rodrigues Troiani 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

805.  Support I agree, --Réginald (To reply) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
806.  Support Chrisvomberg 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
807.  Support --Srborlongan 17:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
808.  Support--Héctor Guido Calvo 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
809.  Support Isidore 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support as long as those chosen do not abuse their power Railpunk 18:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

810. Halut 18:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support User195 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

811.  Support Pic-Sou 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
812.  Support Promking 18: 45 Jan 9
813.  Support Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
814.  Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Yes, Oui, Ja, Si ! Ce nouveau statut pourrait être très utile ! Nougatdugardemanger 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

815.  Support Secret 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
816.  Support --Explodicle 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
817.  Support asia234
818.  Support --Plasmie 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
819.  Support There is way too much vandalism. --Brandon5485 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
820.  Support Blue Elf 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
821.  Support Mramz88 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
822.  Support --Duschgeldrache2 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) There are so many small Wikis. It would help to manage them.
823.  Support --Gestumblindi 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
824.  Support --Gaumond 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (My account is active on Wikipédia (fr))(My vote was strike #666 for IP reason, if your'e going to strike it again please tell me more about the reason)
825. Дзей Ковуй 17:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
826. --Sfcongeredwards 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
827.  Support Johnnyjoe23 20:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
828.  Support Jón 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
829.  Support Gohe007 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
830.  Support Happy‑melon 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
831.  Support Shadowrouge99 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support BernAdrian 22:04, 9 January 2010

     User is not eligible to vote. --Bsadowski1 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

832.  Support --Cirdan 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
833.  Support --Devin Murphy 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Looks good as far as I can see.
834.  Support --Alvestrand 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Makes creating new wikis a less dangerous activity for the community.
835.  Support --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 21:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
836.  Support --IvanStepaniuk 21:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
837.  Support --Dthomsen8 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
838.  Support --Aqwis 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
839.  Support -- Inhumandecency 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Many of the concerns raised by opponents of the proposal seem reasonable, but I consider them less serious than the problem of vandals running wild because no one on a smaller project is available to shut them down. Hopefully we can count on responsible behavior from global sysops and those with the ability to discipline them.
840.  Support Sembra una buona idea, vediamo cose ne esce.--Topolgnussy 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
841.  Support -- Anne-theater but there must be the posibilty to opt out! 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
842.  Support Si les administrateurs ont ressenti le besoin d'un tel aménagement, faisons leur confiance. Si jamais, les droits de blocage global amenaient une censure excessive, il serait toujours temps de faire marche arière. BTH 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
843.  Support Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
844.  Support Good idea to help small wikis. But the preventions of abuse should be controlled very strictly by Stewards. Eventually a regular re-election should take place. But support in general. --PsychoKim 23:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
845.  Support AlexKazakhov 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
846.  Support I share the initiative VivaU--VivaU 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
847. --Jabala 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
848.  Support -- JB82 23:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
849.  Support Rather strong vote "yes" for now, hope it lasts! ;-) CielProfond 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
850.  Support Under the assumption that such sysops will be chosen from a small list of trusted, multi-lingual users. —Josiah Rowe 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
851.  Support --Grebenkov 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
852.  Support -- Vik-Thor 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
853. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
854.  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
855.  Support -- Eric.LEWIN 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
856.  Support --Cephas 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
857. Szwedzki 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
858.  Support The main is opportunity to switch ths option on and off. If smaller wikies agree - it will just help. --Antioctopus 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
859.  Support --Denverjeffrey 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
860. Collect 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
861.  Support --Gobonobo 02:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
862.  Support This sounds like a great way to assist with the propogation of Wikipedia. Scottperry 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
863.  Support -- Jeffmister 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
864.  Support These people may be crucial in stopping mulitilingual vandals. OCNative 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. --Badbread 03:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   --User:patsfanczar

2. If a project can't find enough volunteers to accept admin rights on their own, there would have to be some question as to whether that project is viable. -- Robster2001 03:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   The alternative POV is that the projects may one day be viable, but lack sufficient interest at the current time and when people who can contribute find a project full of major problems with the frustrating inability to do anything about it (and the lack of support for the too busy stewards) is going to prevent the project ever taking off. And as this oppose section illustrates, being sysop is a thankless job, people like to hate you and many editors like to just avoid it. If you force people who would prefer to be editors or lack the experience to become administrators, because no one else can handle the mess then these people have less time to contribute and may end up leaving all together when they get too annoyed with being an admin Nil Einne 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3. I can't see the real reason behind this except introducing a new level in the hierarchy. As such I oppose the change. Jeblad 13:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

   The idea is to give the smaller projects a new layer of protection against mass vandalism attacks. Currently, cross-wiki vandal fighters sometimes go back and forth with vandals for hours until a steward comes online. Durova 15:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Agree with Robster2001 = Quistnix 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Only stewards should use globalblock. Huib talk 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
6. I don't oppose global sysops, but I don't like current proposal, particularly about globalblock that needs imho bigger consensus than just a stewards opinion (like a regular poll). Yes, we need help with "rollbackers" and maybe with "deleters" or local "blockers" on small wikis, but we need new stewards as well--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 09:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about global blocking and "just a steward's opinion" - can you explain?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   global sysop with access to global block has more responsibility than a rollbacker, so he should be submitted to a "bigger consensus", like the yearly "steward poll", and not treated just like a standard request. So why we couldn't keep just one role, and perhaps elect a few more stewards?--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   I think we need both, as discussed in the comments section. Also, the provisions for removal due to nonconfidence you want do exist in the proposal (in addition to stringent activity requirements).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Tjako 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC) - This proposal concentrates administrative power in the hands of too few people.Tjako 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
8. no thanks, I don't see the need for this, we actually need more active stewards (requests are open for unreasonable long time), they can handle this too and they are elected by a broader community, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Pjahr 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
10. I completely agree with Robster and also see some truth in Jeblad's words. Masur 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Robster2001 is right. KamStak23 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Maikking 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Per the comments above regarding global blocking. - Rjd0060 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Agree with Huib, and Robster also has a good point. Krinkle 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Klondek 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Brimz 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Because most people who voted for "yes" are working on the bigger wikis. The bigger wikis should not decide what to do on the smaller ones. If a smaller community needs help they can ask people from other communities to become mod on their wiki (temporarely or not)

    Same as for "no". I see mainly people who works on big Wikis. Herr Kriss 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    More to the point perhaps no one is forcing the smaller ones to do anything. They still get the choice to disallow global sysops. Opposing will prevent them having access to global sysops however and they have no choice. Nil Einne 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

17. --LidiaFourdraine 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) One should first inform about the proposal on sister wikiprojects and make it posssible to discuss it among the members long before the voting.
18. Pieter2 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I can't see the need to create more jobs when people already are leaving,
19. Don't we have confidence in sysops from small wiki-projects? Further, global sysop is too big power for a single person. Kubura 02:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    It is less power than stewards get (by a lot). I suppose the question then becomes whether you trust the vetting process. As with other global rights, stewards are in some sense overseeing this - I think it will work just fine, as global rollbacker did.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

20. Rafostry 18:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
21. Paelius 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Zhouf12 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'd rather see little maintenance rather than poor maintenance.

    You are not eligible for voting (150+ edits required). vvv^t 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

22. --Natkeeran 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
23. I like the idea, but this proposal has much more administrative overhead than needed accomplish this goal. Brianski 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
24. Most administrators have let power go straight to their heads and don't care for the little folk. Administrating shouldn't just be about quoting endless wiki policies and shouting down other people's opinions with a list of policies, guidelines and other wiki nonsense. Giving some of these people the power to patrol over all projects is the opposite of what is needed. Policies differ across projects and languages and given social sensitivities each Wiki should be administered by someone from that community and not an outsider.--Xania 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Well since global sysops "have access strictly for maintenance and countering abuse; they have no editorial control over content or the local community", I think it should be fairly obvious they should not be quoting 'quoting endless wiki policies and shouting down other people's opinions with a list of policies, guidelines and other wiki nonsense' (in any case, I'm not an admin and not particularly trying to be one but I quote endless wiki policies when it's relevant). Also as I mentioned above, each wiki has the choice to disallow global sysops so it's up to them whether they want to be administered by an 'outsider' Nil Einne 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

25. Globalblock affects all wikis, should not be given to this group. Prodego ^talk 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
26. I work for a small wiki (bar) and we have no considerable vandalism problem. I don't see why a global sheriff should monitor a projekt where he/she doesn't understand the language. --El bes 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
27. --Rockfang 02:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Vote made by IP; please log in to vote. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    This vote was made while logged in[1] --John Vandenberg 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

28. This proposal concentrates administrative power in the hands of too few people.--Degen Earthfast 02:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you please explain what you mean? This is expanding global adminstrator access from more than just the stewards. NW (Talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

29. --Heyitspeter 02:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    --Tim Tebow Rocks! 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I disagree as this makes outsourcing in everything. Even Disney (Walt Disney World!! CRAZY I know!) outsourced recently to India for their customer service! This is unacceptable in Wikipedia also!

30. I'm a sysop in vi.wiki. I think if a global sysop doesn't understand Vietnamese, he can't solve the problems in vi.wiki, and I don't understand Russian or Japanese, I can't work well in these wikis. Each wiki has its own sysops and steward can work inter-wiki, I think it's enough. Conbo 02:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sadly, most vandalism is English, or is unmistakable gibberish.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    While it nice to know there is almost no vandalism in French or (US)American sign language, how can you distinguish, say, Ukrainian or Vietnamese from unmistable gibberish? Erik Warmelink 11:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    When I said "unmistakable" I meant it.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

31. --Cinik 02:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) (as Conbo, Xania, Robster2001 et cetera)

    --Tim Tebow Rocks! 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I disagree as this makes outsourcing in everything. Even Disney (Walt Disney World!! CRAZY I know!) outsourced recently to India for their customer service! This is unacceptable in Wikipedia also!

32. -- I agree with Robster. If the native speakers are conspicuously absent there should not be a wiki. Period. Jcwf 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
33. -- No. That's what we have stewards for. What's the use of a global admin, anyway? If they want those rights they can go ahead and try and get steward. All this does is let some random admin from some random wiki randomly block random ips on a wiki of a language he doesn't even understand. That's like throwing informed decision out the window! (en.wp opinion, me). Resident Mario 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    You may want to read the section about removing the tools if they're misused. Stewards would not stand by while a global sysop "randomly blocks random IPs"  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

34. -- No, el proyecto puede crecer en cada región sin administradores globales que pueden no entender las prioridades locales. --Shobushin 04:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
35. Different project has different policy. --爱学习的饭桶 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    But vandalisms or spam are not welcome everywhere :) --Vituzzu 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

36. No. Projects are too different. --J. Patrick Fischer 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    --SQ_Minion 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

37. coldacid 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
38.  Absolutely not Deathgleaner 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
39. No. Projects that do not have enough users/depth to such an extent that project specific administrators cannot be found, should not actually have global sysops attempting to 'mentor' such projects, especially as they may have relative incompetence in the particular area. Worse, taking away, say, an English sysops time for contribution to a niche small time project would take away Wikipedia's focus from fortifying its stronger and more competent projects. An issue of self destructing the core competence of administrators is at hand. Wifione 05:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    They would leave the "mentoring" to the local admins, as well as non-urgent tasks. They would only take actions in cases of extreme vandalism when there is no local administrator around, similar to a steward. Tiptoety ^talk 05:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    That line unfortunately assumes that local administrators would be naturally incompetent to handle vandalism. If a project has more vandals than its natural administrators can handle, then a better idea would be to advertise the particular project across our various projects and request interested editors in joining the particular project. If that particular project has depth and interest value which is enough to allow these new editors from other projects to stick on and become administrators, so be it. Users like Rich Farmbrough, you yourself, have seen such a development on the English project. Believe in the sustenance/destruction project life cycles of individual projects and let them develop on the basis of their individual strengths. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

40. No. I support the general concept, but a few of the powers proposed for global sysops should be left in the hands of local sysops or stewards. Carolina wren 05:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
41. I will never support any global sysop proposal at any time. Even though the proposal claims to promise that global sysops have no editorial control and whatnot, there will still be other issues. One major issue: if a user cannot understand the target wiki's language, the user simply cannot do anything right, including the very tasks in the proposal. In addition, this will create another class of users in the rights hierarchy, creating more complexity and resentment amongst the greater Wikimedia community. The option of individual wikis opting-out is simply not enough—a software solution is needed and must be ready for use by the time a proposal like this is brought to vote (correct me if I'm wrong). I can go into much further detail if needed, but to make a long story short: good idea in theory; bad idea in practice. --O (谈 • висчвын) 05:47, 07 January 2010 (GMT)

    Then what are your thoughts on Stewards? They can, and do take admin action on smaller projects and I can assure most speak only a few languages at most. Tiptoety ^talk 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Stewards are excepted because they are elected by the greater community. Often times, if not all the time, they are among the best at what they did/do before stewardship, and thus are held to very stringent standards in terms of conduct. Some sysops on, I believe, mainly the larger wikis and those involved in SWMT may very well not be as competent as stewards in terms of conduct. The election process/vote of confidence outlined in the proposal brings me back to the hierarchy issue again. --O (谈 • висчвын) 06:06, 07 January 2010 (GMT)

42.  No. Je suis d'accord avec El bes et Conbo. J'aime l'idée et j'encourage toujours les polices qui aident dans le développement des Wikis les plus petits. Mais, d'un autre côté, quelqu'un qui sait pas la langue d'un Wiki ne doit pas résoudre les différends ni le vandalisme là. Est-ce que les gens qui deviendront les global sysops pourraient entendre ce que j'écris? Ashley 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    No. Wolfpackfan1234 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

43. Doo ákótʼée da. This seems like a first step to making adminship more difficult to obtain ("Why do you want to be an admin? There are global sysops.") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 7 Yas Niłtʼees 2010 (UTC)

    No, as far as I understand, admin and global admin are completely different tasks. I would say, global admins are more like stewards, but they have no access to private information and rights management. So they don't have to be identified to WMF. Kv75 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    The point is that every potential admin needs to be subject to a local vote. Global sysops will circumvent this vote and affectively become admins w/o a local vote. In the next step, local votes will be completely abandoned since they can be overridden or have become obsolete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 7 Yas Niłtʼees 2010 (UTC)

    Well, there are some global tasks. There are WMF Board and stewards, they are not subject to a local vote. Moreover, there are Mediawiki developers, they are not subject to any vote at all. If we need one more global task, we just have to introduce it. Kv75 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Let more people become admins. Problem solved. The only reason this whole issue has come up is because it's become so difficult to get local adminship. And if a project cannot find a volunteer, nuke it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 7 Yas Niłtʼees 2010 (UTC)

44. I vote no.User:Samsamcat 06:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
45. NO First, someone had the audacity to delete my original negative remark. I'll ask how many other negative comments were deleted--this can't be a fair vote if this is happening. I'm certainly qualified with hundreds of WP edits. We do not need a super administrator. There are enough "Information Police" deciding what the public shouldn't know, without a more powerful veto uber alles. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The majority of the people attracted to such power are exactly the kind of people we do not need.Trackinfo 06:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Global admins are not super administrators. For each small wiki, they are sub-administrators. Kv75 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is OVER-administered already by unqualified people making uninformed decisions. We do not need to encourage more of this abuse of power.Trackinfo 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

46.  STRONG No. : Global Sysops do not have the language skills or expertise to be qualified to work on smaller projects. Smaller projects can be in foreign languages, or in a subject matter category other than that of the sysop's scope of knowledge. Giving a sysop global authority over a subject matter area that is outside of their own invites the possibility of a sysop damaging the smaller wiki through their misunderstanding of the wiki's coverage area. A sysop should be elected out of the populace of the wiki, or should be temporarily invited by a majority vote of users of the wiki to resolve issues on a time-limited basis with oversight by a grouping of the wiki's users. Erpbridge 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    No, no! Global sysops do not resolve any issues. They just do routine technical work, like stewards do. Kv75 07:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

47.  STRONG No. : I agree with Erpbridge. Usually a small project is due to low popularity of a language, a sysop doesn't usually have the skill even to understand the language. --Cosmia 07:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sadly, most vandalism is in English. Most other disruption is unmistakable gibberish or spam. An understanding of the language is generally not needed for the types of tasks the proposed user group would perform. Note that the list does not include anything to do with content.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

48.  STRONG No. : Agree with Erpbridge and Cosmia. If a project haven't at least a sysop or a regular user who can take care of that project, so why, i repeat why that project should run? I strongly believe Stewards are okay to take care of some technical issues. — T@nv!r_ (Talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
49.  Oppose Pamputt 07:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
50.  Oppose If global sysops are to be a group greater in number than those other groups with globalblock powers, then they should be subjected to a greater level of oversight than I believe is included in the current proposal. If globalblock was stripped from the global sysop powers, I would be in favor of it. Furthermore, I think that if the community were to be in favor of granting that power to global sysops at a later date, after a more in-depth review of the oversight mechanisms, that it could be added to their repetoire then and fairly easily. Cassius1213 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you please clarify what you want for "a greater level of oversight"?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

51. No, knowledge of the "local" language and "local" policies is need for the admin-job.--Kriddl 07:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Do stewards know every local language? Kv75 07:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

52.  Strongly Oppose Supreme Unmanifest 07:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
53.  Oppose The privileges not admins should be restricted to single projects, because this could be an ability to make it easier for some people to abuse their privileges. --FUZxxl 07:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Please note that stewards would immediately revoke access if it were abused. There is a strong section on removal, please feel free to review it.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

54.  Oppose Rui Silva 07:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose —☠☢☣^[d] 07:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Very weak 'No'. As far as this goes, it reads like stereo instructions, and to quote Robert Heinlein out of Time Enough For Love. "When in doubt, vote against." ShawnIsHere 07:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

55.  Oppose As for me it'll be useless on pl wiki... Webmajstr 08:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Pl.wiki don't meet criteria to enable global sysop. LeinaD (t) 10:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

56. No, thanks. TheKaspa 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    No! --MvonAugustenburg 08:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

57. steward's work should be enough for such reason --A1 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    If you read several of the commenting stewards' posts (Mike.lifeguard or Lar, just for example), you will see that they are actually supporting this proposal because of all the vandalism they currently have to clean up that could easily be done by a global sysop. NW (Talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

58. No. Cirimbillo 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
59. No, we already have sysops. --Grifter72 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you explain how that helps projects with no administrators? Or projects which don't have enough administrators to effectively deal with disruption at any moment? I think you misunderstand the situation here - there is a real problem that this proposal aims to solve.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    In Lombard Wiki we have 3 sysops that are enough. Other sysops that does not know Lombard language and culture are useless.--Grifter72 09:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

60.  Oppose No, thanks, we don't need Big Brothers --Achsenzeit 09:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Vote made by IP; please log in to vote. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    They had logged in and signed their edit after one minute; two hours before you struck it.[2] John Vandenberg 06:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

61. No, I do not see any need for another adminstrative level. --Linksfuss 09:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Can I ask why?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose We already have stewards. --TorriTorri 09:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Hello, I'm afraid stewards are currently unable to deal effectively with the volume of work. While adding more stewards is another way to fix this (one we will hopefully carry out very soon), this remains a sensible way to spread out the workload to benefit our smaller projects.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    This user is ineligible for voting. vvv^t 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

62.  Oppose Against one more level of admins --Justass 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
63.  Oppose This proposal gives me far too much insight into what ruined DMOZ. Downstrike 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you clarify what you mean by that? I'm not sure most others here know the history of DMOZ; I don't. A clear statement of why you oppose the proposal would be helpful.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

64.  Oppose In my opinion, the list of permissions does absolutely not match the task they should be given in the descriptive text (»maintenance and countering abuse«), it instead promotes privilege abuse. --Xjs 09:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I'm interested to hear you say that, since we spent a lot of time discussing what userrights should be granted to the proposed user group. However, I must say that I find your statement that the proposal promotes privilege abuse to be not just incorrect, but also repugnant. We tried very hard to ensure that the possibility of abuse could be dealt with under this proposed policy with a minimum of bureaucracy specifically to protect the included wikis from abuse.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose I agree with Erpbridge! -- CHfish 09:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. vvv^t 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

65. Hell no. So, how long will it take until folks with this brand spanking new Sysop, Collector’s Edition™ effectively impose procedures upon the supposedly clueless backwater admins? Because, hey, I don’t speak your bloody language, have no idea (and don’t care) about local due process—but look at me! I’m global, you’re lol. We all know the measuring stick types, don’t we? —mnh·∇· 09:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, the proposed global user group would have no such power. Indeed, they are specifically excluded from having any authority over the community's policies or content.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

66.  Opposenope....will lead 2 misuse of power of course....Chinmay26r 10:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    We tried to ensure that the possibility of abuse could be dealt with in a straightforward and non-bureaucratic manner. Could you explain what part of the protections is insufficient?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose I would like some specific examples of what wikis this policy would be used on. Otherwise, I'm against it. --173.5.245.32 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

67.  Oppose – Merlin G. 10:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    No. There are problems if the sysops are remote from the editing community. Racepacket 10:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    This vote was made by IP. vvv^t 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    The proposed user group would have no role with content, so I'm not sure being involved on a day-to-day basis is important. They would deal solely with disruption and noncontroversial maintenance.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose – Fornax 11:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Vote made by IP; please log in to vote. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

68.  Oppose. Firstly, elections of global sysops with such set of rights (including global blocks) must be a subject to a broader community consensus. Secondly, 10 active sysops is a very strong criterion, most non-Wikipedia projects (Wikinews, Wikisources etc) have less sysops. In some situations even stewards can make very strange desicions, for example, in Ukrainian projects there have been some deletions, where a steward understood neither content of the page nor the reason of nomination (like here - deletion of a historical debate as POV or here - adding Category:Swedish writers to speedy deletion template), and I think that adding global sysops, who will do that work on regular basis, not only in emergency situations, will be potentially more harmful. In my opinion, the only reason to activate global sysop rights in a project must be a community desicion that they really need someone to watch their project. Otherwise we will have conflicts between global sysops, who think that their actions are correct, and local sysops, who know the language and local policies better. And, of course, there are stewards, who can always help fighting vandalism and spam in any project. If stewards can not help, we may just need more active stewards — NickK 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, we do need more stewards, and we will hopefully have them soon. However, the volume of work will still outpace the growth of our steward team and the manpower available. This proposal aims to overcome that growth.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    The difference between a steward and a local sysop is that stewards act only in emergency situations, and that's a very good solution of problems with small wikis. However, a global sysop will be able to act like a local sysop. Projects with 9 sysops and even some projects with 2 or 3 sysops usually have rather developed blocking or deletion policies and have a rather broad community. If a global sysop works their like a normal sysops, deleting pages that (he or she supposes) match the CSD or banning users who (he or she thinks) add nonsense to articles, and makes some mistakes, we will definitely have a large number of conflicts, as global sysops are not supposed to understand the language of the project they are working in. I support this idea if: a) they can't work with global blocks, as large wikis are also affected, b) they can't mark their own edits as bot edits, as local sysops can't, c) they help only in emergency situations, when there is some heavy vandalism/spam or local sysops are inactive for a long time. Otherwise we will have conflicts between local and global sysops — NickK 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    (e/c)Actually, you are mistaken. Global sysop are aslo only to act in emergency situations. They are not there to resolve contenct disputes or to take non-urgent action. Tiptoety ^talk 20:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Global sysops don't act like regular sysops; they only intervene to deal with vandalism or extremely uncontroversial maintenance. Anything else would be left to the local community. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    "uncontroversial" is not "emergency", which is the definition that stewards currently use. Unless the global sysops can read the local policies, they can't know what is controversial and what isn't. Often the policies are not yet written down - they live in the minds of the contributors who are building the project. The definition of "vandal" differs per project. Blocking "vandals" is editorial control except in the case of cross-wiki vandals. Do you know that we occasionally write poems to our vandals over on English Wikisource, instead of blocking them? John Vandenberg 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, that's not true. Stewards are permitted to take action in a far wider variety of circumstances than this proposed user group would be. The whole point is to restrict that for these users. The vandals this aims to deal with are unmistakably vandals. I don't know how to make this clearer.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Of course, you are right. Stewards are allowed to go to projects which have forty (40!) oversighters, and oversight a revision at w:WP:ANI because they didn't care to understand the term that they had been told was a bad. And then forty-five minutes later the same steward oversighted another 33 revisions resulting in further confusion among the oversight team. You can read more about it here and there.

    If you wanted to make it clear that global sysops are only permitted to fight vandalism, the proposal would mention specify vandalism. It doesn't currently mention "vandal". It says "urgent cases of abuse" and more worryingly "non-controversial maintenance".

    Fighting vandalism does not require these global sysops to be given ipblock-exempt, proxyunbannable, globalblock-exempt, globalblock-whitelist, globalblock, globalunblock, browsearchive (i.e. w:Wikipedia:poor mans oversight), deletedhistory, undelete, editusercssjs, editinterface, autopatrol!!, import, patrol, reupload, unwatchedpages, etc, etc. John Vandenberg 05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    NO. Agree with Robster and Huib. --Strafvollstrecker 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ineligible to vote. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

69.  Oppose. Unless global sysops are required to understand language of project they are operating in. -Yyy 12:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, most vandalism is either English or unmistakable gibberish. For the specific tasks the proposed user group would perform, an understanding of the language is not critical.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

70.  Oppose. Critères pas assez contraignants Ddalbiez 13:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Are you referring to the criteria for electing members of the proposed user group? I think, given those who will be doing the electing, the requirements will be stringent enough. Note also that the section on removal of rights is quite strong.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Ykargin 13:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote (registered less than 3 months before vote began). vvv^t 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Could you please provide a rationale?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

71. I would hope some other measure of less drastic measure would be adopted instead of this. There was some suggestion of not letting people globalise before they have shown to be valid members of community.--Emppu 13:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I've heard of no such suggestion. Even if it existed, it would never happen and is irrelevant here. Please let us know what you think of the proposal itself.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose --The nuts 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)--The nuts 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    You are ineligible to vote, sorry. vvv^t 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose --User:Is_zuddas 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)--User:Is_zuddas 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Please log in to vote. vvv^t 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

72.  Oppose --Rrm·Sjp ^Enwiki _Dewiki ^SimpleWiki 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Not all the people speaks in all languages, so I find this additional level unnecesary. Also every project has their own sysops, and they cand handle each project individually, as they are doing now.

    Sorry, it is simply not true that all projects have administrators. Furthermore, many projects with administrators are still unable to deal effectively with abuse of the wiki. The proposed user group would provide additional manpower to assist stewards, who are currently unable to deal with the volume.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe it will be better to elect more stewards instead of global sysops. What I see is language problem. For example, in my case, if I am elected as a global sysop, I can only contribute in English wiki, Simple Wiki, Spanish Wiki and Ladino wiki, but, what happens with the other wikis? I do not speak all languages. That is what I see. Regards Rrm·Sjp ^Enwiki _Dewiki ^SimpleWiki 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

73.  Oppose --Grasso83 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
74.  Oppose ,unless the persons elected as global sysops are required to understand the language of every project they are involved in. Mikeo 14:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, that is not even a requirement for stewards. That's because the requirement makes little sense. While stewards are required to interact with many of our language communities, the proposed user group deals solely with matters of abuse and noncontroverial maintenance. An understanding of the language, while nice to have, is not strictly necessary.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

75.  Oppose The way this is proposed it's lacking lots of clarity. First only experienced wikipedians know what a sysop is: why not explain it that it's an admin? Second, why not define clearly what is local and what is global. Third, why not present a table with the situation now and situation in the future? Voting is required for everyone with more than 150 edits. That's not a lot, so voting is being required from lots of people that don't know well wikipedia. Fourth: It's not explained what quorum is required for the voting so that the proposal passes. For all these reasons, I reject the proposal. I tend to vote "NO" any time I don't know what I'm voting for and the proposal is not clear enough. Call me stupid, I call myself conservative.--Sulmues 14:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I've tried to clarify the lead of the proposal because it gave the incorrect impression that global sysops already existed. There is no formal quorum, that is not an omission. While I appreciate that you may not like the particular method of carrying out the vote, I think the proposal is clear enough to make a reasoned decision. Could you let us know what you think of the proposal itself?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

76.  Oppose In my eyes there would be too much power in the hand of a few users. --B.Mothes 14:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, this proposal would spread out power. Currently, only sysops have access like this - we want to spread some of that to a larger group of users. The whole point is that we don't have enough users with these tools.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

77.  Oppose I like the idea, but we better explain the concept
78.  Oppose Too much power given to the sysops. Unsigned vote made User:Mylife2702 [3]

    Uhhh, again, this is inconsistent. Currently we have more power given to an even smaller group of people; the stewards. This proposal plans to distribute the power more evenly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

79.  Oppose - 10 sysops is too high, and that criteria should be abandoned. The criteria to base it on admins actions in the last few months is also odd; global sysops should only step in if there are no willing local sysops. Stewards do not replace local crats unless the local crats are ignoring requests. If there are no requests within a few months, they are not failing to do their duty. It should be opt-in by local consensus, with the stewards able to add a project to the list if they feel that the local admins are belligerently refusing to opt-in while also not properly administrating their project.
    Globalblock should remain only with stewards.
    global sysops should first have significant experience on a small wiki before they are allowed to mess around with other small wikis. John Vandenberg 15:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    The requirement of recent activity was included because we often see people with admin tools disappear. When the tools aren't being used for the benefit of the community, they might as well not be assigned to anyone. So, in those cases, it would make sense to allow global sysops to fill the void - at least for the specific tasks they would perform. The requirements for being elected will be at least as stringent as what you suggest. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the rest of your comments - these were questions raised early on, and the folks participating during the many iterations of this proposal came to a different conclusion than you.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose Don't want to add more bureaucracy to wikipedia... 24.1.89.148 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Vote made by IP; please log in to vote. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

80.  Oppose Hugo.arg 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
81.  Oppose --Memmingen 15:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
82. Per Nick1915 and because global sysops could be a good idea but, on the other hand, it could demotivate local communities to find out new sysops among their users. --Vituzzu 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I think we need to find new ways to encourage editors to participate in maintenance and administrative aspects, but I'm not sure that this proposal would demotivate any more than having stewards would. Shall stewards allow spammers and vandals to run rampant to encourage local wikis to elect their own sysops?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

83. Rbrausse 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
84.  Oppose. I think that local administrators can effectively work with technical questions because they know their own Wikipedias and its features and have enough language skills to contact with users using their native language (or, at least, well-known language). Also the possibility of global blocking can produce some conflicts, in my opinion. Also I agree with Vituzzu - it's a way to demotivate local communities to find out new local sysops. LexArt 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I think our experience with stewards and global rollbackers has shown that knowledge of the language in question is actually not strictly required for the tasks the proposed user group would be performing. Please also see my comments to Vituzzu.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Well, but in this case a global sysop must be very advanced Wikipedian. I know, that our international community can find so experienced men. But I think that global sysop should work only with Wikipedias in well-known languages. For ex., how will this man able to correct vandalism and delete articles in foreign language? Or global sysop will leave this work for local colleagues? If the job of global sysop will be only technical, I can agree that it's a potentially useful idea, but this work is only for very responsible people. LexArt 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose- — The preceding unsigned comment was added by IndieCondor (talk) [4]

    IndieCondor has less than 150 edits. John Vandenberg 06:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose Not against such a proposal in general, but against this proposal as it stands. Who watches the watchers, from what community will these sysops be recruited? probably the most active ones such as en:wiki,in which case there's a strong possibility that a small community will be overwhelmed and pushed into doing things the way a global sysop is used to, from his home community, which may be at odds with the local culture. If admins are the local sheriffs, then a global sysops would be Federal Marshals, and I would prefer to have a marshal who has been around a bit before they get given their badges, someone who has reasonable language skills in multiple languages, has already independently achieved admin status on three or four different communities and has had a history of substantive contributions and interactions with local communities pan-wiki. As there are not likely to be that many candidates who meet my criteria for a global sysop, rather then vesting the power in an individual how about vesting the power in a body, teams of say seven or so. Whatever the system we finally adopt to be acceptable I would need to see in place in place a system of checks and balances (i.e. appeal, repeal, and oversight procedures) before being able to support such a proposal.KTo288 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    The proposal suggests that candidates would have extensive cross-wiki experience. They'd almost certainly be global rollbackers already. There is essentially no danger of electing people without sufficient experience for the work. Please note also that there is a strong section on removal of access. I'd be interested to hear which part(s) you find lacking.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Striking my vote out on principle, but letting my comment stand. I think this proposal would have been better served if we had been introduced to this proposal first, before being asked to vote, to get our questions and miscomprhensions out of the way before the vote was launched, you guys have spent months working on this and know its ins and out, you can't expect those of us who first learnt of it this morning when the banner went up to have the same understanding. I only voted because of the banner, and to be honest I voted out of gut instinct against what I saw as an attempt by meta users to grab power for themselves at the expense of local communities. It was only when questioned about my vote that I dug into the previous global sysop proposals, the talk page and why exactly this proposal is needed. I can't say that I now totally understand the issue just that I now better understand it and that is why I'm striking out my vote. I am not a regular editor of the smaller wikis, and will probably never be personally affected by this proposal and as I am not a regular contributor to those wikis, do not think I should vote on this, indeed I think that this vote should have been restricted to the regulars of the affected wikis rather than the community at large. If I was a contributor at a small wiki I would resent having things decided for me by a mob of outsiders who have never edited at my wiki and never will, and therefore remove myself from that mob. You claim that there is a strong section on removal of powers, but what constitutes abuse how high or low is the bar of proof, if a sysop is so lacking in finesse that abuse is seen even if none exists should he go? and what is a substantial minority, I guess you have in your mind what you mean by each of those terms. Would seven editors constitute a significant minority? would three? Of course these thing are variable with the needs of each situation and wiki, but even so if I was a small wiki editor I would want it in black and white and to know exactly how it would affect me before I sign up for it. Much of this proposal deals with tools and powers, what a future global sysops will be able to do and how. But with power there must come responsibility and a code of conduct along the lines of Stewards policy would not have gone amiss.KTo288 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

85.  Oppose Steward is enough, no need for more non-project bounded persons. Either a project is alive and they take care of themselves and if not, there is no need for the project. I  Oppose strongly to those meta-votes deciding over the fates of people not at all interested in meta things (because they don't speak the language or they don't have interest in other meta things) who will never see what the happy few decide for them. Either this is a referendum for all people (that means at all projects this vote) or there should be no vote at all. Pjetter 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, stewards cannot currently keep up with the volume. I think we need some help. There are active projects with no sysops, I'm not sure it makes sense to simply shut down projects because they cannot find someone who wants to be an admin. Furthermore, even when a wiki does have an admin, or several, it is still often the case that they cannot deal effectively with disruption 24/7. Finally, we made an effort to be very inclusive with this vote, and it will be advertised even more widely as the vote progresses.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

86.  Oppose absolutely unnecessary function --Itsnotuitsme 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Speaking as someone with fairly extensive cross-wiki experience, I can say that this would absolutely not be unnecessary, much less absolutely so. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

87. :  Oppose oppose to add new power, a new hierarchie, a new type of sheriffs. WP must be remain free and open. Erwan1972 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    This user is ineligible to vote (registered after October 1, 2009). vvv^t 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Did you never try to figure out how much un-free and un-open would be wiki without admins? --Vituzzu 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Wikis can manage their own stuff. add new level, add new complexity, add more dark.

    and dark means corruption, on point of view, partial ...

    please, let out chief, sheriff, director of wiki (or wikimoneys), administrator is enough. Erwan1972 20:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

88.  Oppose I realy don`t see the big need for global sysops. It would probably not be a large problem, I`m sure it would be good candidates, but I belive sysops should be local and choosen by the Wiki in question. Happy New Year! Ooo86 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Please know that the need for more people with these tools does exist, even if you don't happen to see it.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

89.  Oppose --Quedel 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
90.  Oppose --Barcelona 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
91.  Oppose PsychoInfiltrator 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
92.  Oppose Granting access to global block forces this proposal on wikis that have opted out. That tool should be steward access only. Hersfold ^(talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
93.  Oppose I don't like the idea. --by ----> Javierito92 (Talk to me) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
94.  Oppose One step towards centralization, bureaucratization, homologation Marcello ferrero 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    We made a lot of effort to ensure the proposal was as non-bureaucratic as possible. Could you explain where you found unnecessary red tape?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

95.  Oppose I don't see how wp could benefit from that. If a project is that small, let s/o (anyone) actively contributing to it become local admin. --Pberndt 17:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Even with an admin, or several, it is often the case that they cannot deal effectively with disruption 24/7. That gap is what we're trying to fill with this proposal. Currently stewards try to handle it, but the available manpower is too little.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 Not massively against - just don't see the need for super admins... who wants the to run the risk of censorship developing when 'it ain't broke' --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose No more totalitarian censors, please!!! User:HCPUNXKID--HCPUNXKID 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    This user is ineligible for voting. vvv^t 00:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    The proposed user group only has tools for the purposes of dealing with vandalism and spam, and noncontroversial maintenance. I don't see much risk of censorship, especially considering that any such abuse would result in the tools being immediately revoked by a steward.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

96.  Oppose. There is no point in global sysops. How are they suposed to rollback vandalism if they can not understand the difference between meaningfull content and false information in actual language of certain small wiki? ОйЛ (OiL) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Global rollback users can already do that - automatic translators are used, and if there's any doubts people shouldn't interfere with the edit. -- Mentifisto 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    I have never seen good automatic translators for most part of African and Russian minority languages. ОйЛ (OiL) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    That is true. And in such cases, we assume good faith. For the most part, an understanding of the language is not necessary. For example, most vandalism is in English, and most of the remainder is unmistakable gibberish.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

97.  Oppose --Glysiak 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
98.  Oppose --LinDrug 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
99.  Oppose -- I don't see how people who do not understand the languages used in a wiki can seriously be expected to accuratley interact with those communities, and while I appreciate the sentiment and reasoning behind the proposal, I doubt that it is going to seriously help create sustainable independent projects. Ajbpearce 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    The level of interaction is actually fairly small, since the proposed user group would exist solely to deal with disruption and noncontroversial maintenance. Please see above for discussion of whether a knowledge of language is required for such work (hint: it isn't).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

100.  Oppose -- --Piotr967 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Robster 2001 and Jeblad
101.  Oppose Taam 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose ToxicOranges 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

102.  Oppose I understand the need for more people engaged with wikipedia, but don't se how this proposal would solve the problem. --Remontoire 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     It's not trying to solve that problem, so that's irrelevant. All global sysops will do is assist the stewards in combating vandalism on small projects where few or no local sysops are available. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

103.  Oppose--Alex Esp 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
104.  Oppose Yonaka 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
105.  Oppose Copana2002 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Tscherpownik 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

106.  OpposeWikis can manage their own stuff.Bllasae 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose dont support force on wiki --Koronenland 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. vvv^t 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

107.  Oppose There should be no globalblock for these people. Would you want an unidentified user coming and blocking you from all wikimedia wikis? I wouldn't. Hamtechperson 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     If I'm a vandal, then yes, I would. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

108.  Oppose --Thovt 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
109.  Oppose Sorry I do not see a good enough argument to implement this, if an established admin wants to help out on a small wiki then let them RfA there. This will cause more problems then it will fix by parachuting people into problems. RP459 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     But that's not the issue. Global sysops aren't "established admins" on a given project, they're simply there to deal with vandalism on small projects that lack local sysops. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     It sounds like a cultural neo-colonialism in disguise.Marcello ferrero 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

110.  Oppose --Ssola 20:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose we need more sysops, not another position. Hacky 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

111. --Vanger 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
112.  Oppose --Helohe 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
113.  Oppose --O.W.J. te Nijbroek
114.  Oppose For all the reasons above. And even more.Regmoelle 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
115.  Oppose It sounds like a conspiracy theory to take over the world almost. - Presidentman 21:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Is this a joke vote? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     I doubt it's a joke. This English Wiki plan speaks of cultural annihilation. We're basically saying that these smaller wikis can't govern themselves so they need more EN, DE, ES and PL administrators to come in and sort the mess out for them.--Xania 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Oh yes, by stopping people from vandalizing for 45 minutes while RC patrollers wait for a steward or a dev to finally wake up, we are trying to annihilate people's culture. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

116.  Oppose From my point of view this is too dangrous. I had actually more trouble with wisenheimer admins in the past then with vandalism or the other issues global sysops may addresse. so : No.Soulman 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
117.  Oppose --AnjaQantina 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
118. No. We need more stewards too. They do the same job. FAIL
119.  Oppose Luchsen 23:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Martin Morard 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

120.  Oppose --Urdutext 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
121.  Oppose If a project is so small it can't rustle up 10 users to be admins, it shouldn't exist, and certainly shouldn't be expecting the admins from viable projects to clean up their mess.Iridescent 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
122.  Oppose - The intentions are good, but this would surely play out in a patriarchal, intrusive way. The small, obscure wikis this would target would likely not have awareness of global sysops or their ability to opt out until strangers come blocking and deleting without respect for their local conventions and policies. The attitude that knowledge of the wiki's language is unnecessary to properly sysop strikes me as a bit arrogant. If this were opt-in, I'd be all for it. Until then, help for understaffed wikis should come in the form of recruiting qualified speakers of the wiki's language. -kotra 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose --Genobeeno 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

123.  Oppose Just another way for wikimedia.gov to make sure everyone conforms.
124.  Oppose - Windchaser 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose --AldanaN 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Vote struck as you registered less than three months ago. --John Vandenberg 07:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

125.  Oppose If a smaller wiki wants to invite more sysops from the larger ones, it should do so. It shouldn't be forced to opt-out of the additional sysops. Chipuni 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
126.  Oppose Is this a discussion to seek consensus or just a numerical vote count? Toby Bartels 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     It's a numerical vote-count, and since the larger wikis have more voters, smaller wikis will be overruled. We are merely given the opportunity to voice opposition to the death-sentence before execution Seb az86556 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Please re-read the implementation notes. Specifically, the part where it says that "Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus." J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Local consensus is frequently overruled and discounted. It will be the same here. This is only to re-assure us until the policy is implemented; after that, any dissent via local consensus will be silenced. Small will not have the possibilty to takeadvantage of this option on procedural grounds. See Stephen's concerns below. Seb az86556 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

127.  Oppose Quoting Achsenzeit. --Avemundi 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
128.  Oppose In principal this sounds like a good thing, but I think the criteria is a bit too high. (The 10 active admins seems high, and I'd be more comfortable with this being set as an opt-in scheme). If a project doesn't have enough volunteers, I think I agree with Iridescent above. I also think the issue raised by Hersfold about blocklist access is problematic. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
129.  Oppose A bad idea. RMHED 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Good intention, but each wiki should have its own sysops who dedicate most to that wiki. Difu Wu 02:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Vote struck as you registered less than three months ago. --John Vandenberg 07:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

130.  Oppose Giving someone global power reduces their focus and effort on individual topics Chsh 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
131.  Oppose My project is too small and doesn’t have enough votes to be able to opt in or out as we want, so this is not for us. Stephen G. Brown 03:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
132.  Oppose Marfiadi 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
133.  Oppose Petiatil 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
134.  Oppose This might be a slightly odd reason, but I think a small wiki must have the need for its own admins to develop properly. --Yair rand 04:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Informational imperialism. Small wikis will suffer. If we had global sysops from the start, wikipedia would have been stunted MAKootage 05:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

135.  Oppose If that's not TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY then i don't know what is. Our small sisters shall have their right of SELF-DETERMINATION when it comes to the question of such external interventions. It's not up to the community at large to decide on their behalf. Every project has to vote on their own on whether or not to allow this to happen in their house. --Saltose 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus... Just sayin' J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     BUT the point is, that for the small projects those global sysops are enabled BY DEFAULT! and that's not how it should be. ALL PROJECTS SHOULD FIRST BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT! --Saltose 13:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose The Globalblock is too powerful and can be too easily abused. I'm not convinced this is for the best. --Wwahammy 06:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

136. ipblock-exempt, proxyunbannable and globalblock-exempt are not needed. Erik Warmelink 07:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
137.  Oppose if wikipedia had started out this way, our growth would have been stunted. info imperialism, this is
138.  Oppose — DarkSTALKER 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose The role of this additional level of moderation seems unclear. Exactly what would they contribute. Wiki needs more expertise, to increase the body of knowledge it holds. Holding numerical votes hardly helps here either... --Nerusai 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

139.  Oppose While the idea seems to be not an unreasonable approach to a problem, I oppose it for the following reasons. More user classes add complexity and confuse newcomers and even regular users. In addition to these relatively minor negatives, I see no particular need for this change at present: I see no reason why stewards can't simply be recruited if that is what is desired. If they can't be recruited, then why give their powers to others who don't meet the requirements to be a steward? If a project can't self-manage, their are already concerns, and giving users the ability to affect powerful change in these by-definition under-policed projects seems concerning. Not that the proposed privileged users would be tyrannical per se, but if a project can't manage its own vandals, I'm not optimistic they can handle a hypothetical abusive privileged user. The recourse I see would be concern from the larger community across projects, but given the most-effected userbase is unable to deal with the privileged user/vandals well (due to them needing this proposal in the first place), I don't see how this recourse is at all sufficient in this hypothetical. If the requirements or nature of stewards or steward-like users needs adjustment (which may well be the case), then such should be dealt with more directly than by a proposal such as this. I'm open to reconsideration, but oppose at present.--Δζ 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose I agree with Δζ.--MartinStennert 17:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose First of all, if this should exist at all, it should be opt-in, not opt-out. But moreover, the unequal distribution of power to a select number has already gone far enough. We don't need to create even more categories of privilege. --MQDuck 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

140.  Oppose — Guy M ^(Talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
141.  Oppose - the proposal is awkward and the rules too arbitrary. - Richardcavell 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
142.  Oppose Kicior99 08:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC) On ne peut pas administrer un project dont les regles lui paraient inconnues. C'est tout simplement au detriment du projet entier, ainsi que l'usage d'une langue (n'importe quelle).

      Oppose 68miko 08:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Einige wenige bekommen die Macht über viel zu viele - mir ist das mündige Individuum wichtiger als eine 100%ige "Wahrheit". --

     You are ineligible to vote (registration before October 1, 2009 is required). vvv^t 01:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

143.  Oppose Captain Courageous 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Too much heirarchy and too many people deleting legitimate things as it is. It will just make the edit wars of attrition worse.
144.  Oppose nejron 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
145.  Oppose Ohms law 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
146.  Oppose Useless to my mind. Ascaron 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
147.  Oppose Never the Global Sysops will have enough language skills to work on other language projects.Gryzon 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
148.  Oppose Makes the threshold for abusive use of moderator rights even lower. Potentially destructive for wikipedia. Otto ter Haar 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
149.  Oppose Zwiadowca²¹ 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
150.  Strongly Oppose--Meisterkoch 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     --Stepri20xx 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Cicero Oliveira 14:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

151. I came to this page expecting to support the proposal, for the want of anything better, but John Vandenberg's comments here have persuaded me otherwise. Angus McLellan (enwiki talk) 14:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
152.  Oppose I’m also not convinced. --Frakturfreund 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
153.  Oppose This will only drive away users and admins of already small wikis. --Beefball 15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
154.  Oppose Körnerbrötchen 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
155.  Oppose Bad idea D100a 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
156. --Mogelzahn 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
157.  Oppose see comments below. good luck! Macevoy 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose absolutely no-go. Don't make the mistakes of the German WP going Global! --Bausparfuchs 17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

158.  Oppose I like the idea, but I oppose granting them global blocking. CRGreathouse 17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
159.  Oppose I don't think that is a good idea. We don't need a new level in the hierarchy. --JessicaRapha 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
160.  Oppose Totally against. Local admins are and should be only ones who make such important decisions as global ones will not know language or inner rules of each Wikipedia or other project. This would make possible conflicts with local admins (more work for stewards to solve?). And it is not needed duplicating of rights ... --Atlantas 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Very Bad idea Fula5 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     ((oppose))--Bouilletmichelpas une bonne idée possibilité de la pensée unique, censure, ditacture !! !User:Bouilletmichel

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

161.  Oppose Sp5uhe 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
162.  Oppose I have two concerns for this proposal. First of all, I would like to see a more formal examination of how global sysops would be chosen, and what the standards will be for who is eligible to request access. Without that information, I am not comfortable supporting any proposal. Secondly, I am concerned with the idea of allowing anyone who is unfamiliar with a project, and most especially unfamiliar with the project's language, to take some of these actions. What may appear to be gibberish in one language may be actual good content in another (I for one find that some languages have far too few vowels for me to recognize when someting is a word). What may appear to be English words dropped in randomly to a page may actually be cases where those words have been borrowed by another language because there is no equivalent. Furthermore, small wikis are much tighter communities than larger wikis. There may be unwritten rules, norms, or injokes that would be unknown to those from other wikis (a wonderful recent example of this on the English wikipedia is the Randy from Boise oversight incident in late 2009). Karanacs 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
163.  Oppose I'm not convinced this is for the best. Frommbold 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
164.  Oppose --Matsmannen 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
165.  Oppose If you've ever seen the edit wars over single letters ([5]) [6][7]), you'll know the difficulty you can get simply by having two users from different regions and/or countries with common languages. Add to this the fact that you'll now have people not only from different countries, but from countries with different languages with administration permissions. Translating programs on the internet are not always accurate, and even when they are they tend to give garbled grammar, and if someone were to find something that didn't translate as intended, there could be a large amount of problems. Keep in mind that even the highest positions on Wikipedia already get into edit wars; having to deal with cultural and lingual differences between countries would not help much. BAPACop 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     I work in articles where conflicting editors from profoundly different cultures, speaking different languages and working in a language not native to any, still manage to produce (sometimes painfully), improved articles. It presents challenges. The people and peoples of the world have been addressing those for years, and more now than ever. WP itself is clearly a product of success in such efforts. I don't see this as an objection to this process.Sinneed 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

166.  Oppose --Scheppi80 22:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose The structure of the across-different-languages part of the bureaucracy should be kept as simple as possible. --Ruinia 22:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose too much power will be concentrated -- MoN24 23:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose --LinkNY 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose RenagadeX 23:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

167.  Oppose The UK and the USA have been described as nations divided by a common language—unless I am convinced that these "super sysops" have the skills to fully understand the nuances, slang, similies and metaphors of second, third, fourth and fifth languages, I cannot see how this will ever work. GrahamColm 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     We have plenty of stewards who are bi- or one-and-a-bit-lingual. Do you think there is something wrong with that as well? You don't exactly need to know a language to realize that adding obscenities to an article multiple times is probably vandalism. NW (Talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

168.  Oppose Alphred 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Chrishibbard7 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) must agree with comment by Deathgleaner, despite his ominous name: too many "WikiNazi" admins already, this would bring a growing number of junior Wikinazis. I see too many articles removed hypocritically.

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

169.  Oppose Not convinced it is needed, fear potential for conflict. Rather err on the side of not doing this.--Wehwalt 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
170.  Oppose Lack of discussion about the effects of "global policy" needed to implement this makes me oppose. --Xeeron 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
171.  Oppose Wikipedia becomes very bureaucratic. How to make a community, when everybody wants to control others? Multiplying administrative roles won't help to fight vandalisms. Przsak 02:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
172.  Oppose Btornado 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Boo So, I am to understand that we are voting on whether or not to create transient inter-wiki janitorial staffers to act as harbingers of beaurocro-blandness through the smaller projects by a majority vote of all projects? Folks who would be able to instantly affect content in communities of which they are not members and further push other wikis away from communal and democratic concepts that helped add over 3 million articles in under ten years. For this to ever be even remotely viable as a solution, individual projects should have the option of preventing the incursion of these sysops-at-large. My position my not be articulated as best as possible, but I'm sure the same folks dissecting the rest of the opposition's reasoning will address that soon enough. If I'm a little polemic, it is because there is a bad taste in my mouth. Pruitt 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus. Just saying... NW (Talk) 03:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

173.  Oppose - No drive-by sysop'ing please. These folks, well-meaning each of them, will not have close to enough time to understand local user dynamics, especially on the target wiki's where the number of admins and users is low. These folks do not articulate their thoughts often and as such, may be overridden by well-meaning but unaware global sysops. अभय नातू 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose can't the admins there take care of it? Me6620 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

174.  Oppose I prefer a flat hierarchy. --Eberhard Cornelius 04:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
175.  Oppose Dontworry 06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
176.  Oppose Keep the system as it is and add more stewards if it's a real issue. Giving admins more power just invites abuse. Lithorien 06:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
177.  Oppose ----Erkan Yilmaz 07:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
178.  Oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
179.  Oppose The standards don't seem right to me. Why does a wiki that has 8 admins, for example, need "help" from global admins? Furthermore, I think this will probably stunt more wikis than it helps by discouraging the formation of active local admins. Also, the proportion of struck votes between the two sides seems a bit out of whack to me... oh well, pretty obvious this is going to pass anyway... Bduddy 08:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
180.  Oppose Stechlin 09:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
181.  Oppose --Tobias1983 09:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
182.  Oppose VisualBeo 09:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
183.  Oppose global sysops scope should be limited small wikis by design, yet they would have global block access. --Brownout^(msg) 11:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
184.  Oppose --Tenautomatix 11:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose - Tim1337 12:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

185.  Oppose --Birczanin 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
186. Oppose Diversity is essential for making this project a success. Globalizing admin functions, even if the start is with a small subset, seems like a terrible idea to me. (As an aside, I fear that a hefty chunk of these sysops will come from the english wikipedia and we already have an english speaking world-view bias. However, regardless of that, this is not a good idea.)--RegentsPark 12:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Stewards already have global admin capabilities. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 12:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

187.  Oppose --Cidel 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
188.  Oppose --Frukko 13:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
189.  Oppose --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 13:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
190.  Oppose -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
191.  Oppose -- I don't see the need for creating a group of super sysops. Off2riorob 14:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
192.  Oppose. I support the idea of global sysops, but not this implementation as (1) I think 10 admins is too high a threshhold and (2) I don't think globalblock should be included in the package. WJBscribe (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
193.  Oppose Is Wikipedia getting more and more stalinistic? --stern89 14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     How does creating a group to fight vandalism in little wikis counts as "stalinistic". that just doesn't make sense. DarkoNeko 14:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

194.  Oppose. I don't like the thought of admins rummaging in wikis they have no experience with and of which they perhaps don't even know the language (I'm not only meaning people from enwiki, but IMHO they are most likely to do that). --Sir Anguilla 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
195.  Oppose Kragenfaultier 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose Unnachamois 16:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

196.  Oppose - Individual projects are better at managing themselves than someone working across all. Wikiwoohoo 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose - Management will be lost. --Friendly Ed 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

197.  Oppose - we don't need any more of this sort of nonsense. --Mcginnly 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
198.  Oppose. There should be more stewards instead of the proposed system. --Joku Janne 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
199.  Oppose. Mainly because I think the burden should be reversed and global sysops should only be able to be active on projects where that project makes a decision to opt-in. Having global sysops acting on projects where there is no consensus either way on them is a bad idea. Also concerned over globalblock as well. Davewild 16:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose. I don't imagine wikipedia as a bureaucratic machinery. Any move in the direction of establishing one is a no.Eleman 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose. No uber-sysops please. Local admins work fine. 173.11.92.206 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     IP Vote. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

200.  Oppose --valepert 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
201.  Oppose. It creates another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy; the minimum requirements are too easy to achieve; and it could lead to people who wouldn't be accepted for adminship via the normal route being given sysop status within a community that would not have supported their promotion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     That's unlikely, as users not known for small wiki / crosswiki vandal fighting would probably not get the status. --MF-W 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose --Farthen 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

202.  Oppose Undue centralisation. - prat from English Wikipedia
203.  Oppose --Retaggio 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose --Magzan68 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC) This would again allow a small minority to forge facts and make misuse of their powers.

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

204. Sorry,  Oppose per SlimVirgin above. If this is even done it must be given to those users absolutely and 100% trusted. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Which is exactly the plan. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

205. --Decora 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC) ..... 1. ..... Where is the evidence that this is needed? What ongoing abuse of wikis? Do you have any links? Statistics? Analysis? You want to see a dead site taken over by spammers, go to craigslist. Wikipedia AFAICT looks pretty damn good. The main problem is not spammers, it is bad writing (including massive plagiarism), bad research (IE, Heydrich's page used to have almost no reference to the holocaust, i'm sure there are other pages like that out there), poor coverage of important topics (business history), some pages that are messy disasters (the CIA), and a confusing citation system. Where is the massive attack from spammers? Im not saying it's not happening... but please, show me some evidence before you go giving some new cabal of bureaucrats a bunch more power. ......2....... "but would use these tools only in urgent cases of abuse, or for non-controversial maintenance. " Yeah where have I heard that before? The Tazer? The War on Terror? The War on Drugs? Who watches the Watchmen? .....3...... 'The government that governs best, governs least.' - Some wig dude. Thanks for reading. Decora 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose --Camahuetos 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I think the powers given to the so called 'global sysops' go beyond the justification given for their existance.

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

206.  Oppose No to the bureaucracy; we already have wikiadmins, who can deal with problems. Also no to the western arrogance. Most of those small wikis are local/tribal/choose yourself, having some powerflirt as admin could be a problem. Third, if those wikis can't find their own admins, there must be some bigger problem. And of course,as for global admins; their language skills. Being admin in a wiki of strange language may be a problem. --Los3 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
207.  Oppose Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
208.  Oppose No, we don't need more roles à la admin. How can someone who speaks French only help with wikipedia in Russian, for example? There is too much room for abuse as well. --Île flottante 19:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose No to the bureaucracy; we already have wikiadmins, who can deal with problems. Also no to the western arrogance. Most of those small wikis are local/tribal/choose yourself, having some powerflirt as admin could be a problem. Third, if those wikis can't find their own admins, there must be some bigger problem. And of course,as for global admins; their language skills. Being admin in a wiki of strange language may be a problem. --Los3 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Indented duplicate vote. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

209.  Oppose--Nickanc 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
210.  Oppose--Рашат Якупов 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose--RunnerHarold 15:24, 9 January 2010 (EST) I don't want to see Wikipedia turn into just another glorified message board with moderators and SUPERMODERATORS and the like. Begin able to block IS editorial control in and of itself. I think the Wikimedia leadership and community are being a bit oversensitive to critics here and are overreacting. I say all of this with respect and love, I think Wikimedia/Pedia is modern treasure. Let's not ruin it with bureaucracy. Thank you!

     You are ineligible to vote (150+ edits are required). vvv^t 01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

211.  Oppose Voting no, makes it feel too much like a forum, plus I think it infringes on the consensus of other projects. Andyzweb 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

      Oppose A project should have its own identity, not being controlled by buerocracy. --Alex norway123 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

212.  Oppose Any given power contents the possibility to misuse it. I do not like the possibility to nuke pages. Doboz 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
213.  Oppose I support this in general but would like a short trial, maybe a few people granted one 6 month terms as an experiment before having this proposal made universal for January 2011. Suomi Finland 2009 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
214.  Oppose It seems to me virtually impossible to take the right decisions when it comes to vandalism if you don't speak the project's language. The rest of the right of this class of users seem to me simmilar to sysops. Furthermore, the first condition of wiki inclusion (less then 10 administrators) is useless - most wikis with less than 10 administrators don't need any more than they already have. Instead, I think a personalized recruitment policy should be put in place for stewards. By that, I mean that current stewards should choose users they trust and ask them to step up and become stewards. --Strainu 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
215.  Oppose why don't you just establish a consul-System instead of the admin-System. And a senate of all local consuls elect their Elder to handle the sysop-stuff --Cum Deo 02:09:24, 10 January 2010 (CET)
216.  Oppose bad news to give people global power over edits who cannot read the languages that they are given authority in. 76.226.131.202 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
217.  Oppose Goodone121 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• We already have Nazi admins that make Hitler look like a hobbyist ^{[citation needed]}. Why put more Hitlers on the site? Deathgleaner 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I invoke en:Godwin's law. (Just couldn't resist!:) rursus 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Birdy: the criteria of 150 edits and 3 months of registration means that those who meet it are eligible to vote on this proposal. –Ejs-80 15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am confused about the 150 edits. Is this to VOTE & to become a possible member of global_sysops? --Bjjohns 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• See Global sysops#Election for more information on the proposed global sysop election process. –Ejs-80 15:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  Spacebirdy has changed her comment. I think that a more correct action would have been to use strike-through, since other people had already responded to that comment. –Ejs-80 15:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Global spammers can easilly be defeated by setting a minimum number of good contributions before an account can be globalized. For example enforce that the parent account should be autoconfirmed before globalization. Note that this solution is pretty old, but still hasn't been implemented. In my opinion it should be implemented as it is far petter than the current proposal. Note also that autoconfirmed should be checked as it has a few bugs if I'm not in error… — Jeblad 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Birdy: You are absolutely correct that we need more stewards. However, the current situation is, we don't have enough. IMHO, the attrition rate among steward is too high to justify holding elections only once every year. Unless that is changed, I am sure the situation will always be what it is now, namely long wait times, backlogs, etc. This proposal would at least let those stewards who are still around focus on issues that require a very, very high level of trust, instead of wasting time dealing with petty vandals. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well said. Having users who can help deal with a subset of steward tasks means our currently-active stewards are able to focus on the steward-only tasks more. However, I think we need to examine seriously how active our current complement of stewards is, and elect more as soon as possible. We're supposed to have a steward election soon, but I haven't seen any preparations :( Removing inactive stewards and adding (many) new ones should be a high priority when those elections + confirmations happen.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tjako, err, that comment seems to contradict your vote. By opposing, you apparently assert that the small group of stewards are able to handle the workload, yet you suggest it's better to spread out responsibility among more users, which this proposal intends to do if implemented. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• obviously everyone is free to have their own opinion but I don't understand robsters oppose and those who agreed with him. The point of the position isn't for normal admin duties, most small wikis do in fact have 1 or 2 admins who are at semi active even if it is just temp sysop because not enough people are there to elect them. The big reason for the proposal is for anti-vandalism purposes. Not all wikis need help, there are plenty of small wikis I have never touched as a global rollbacker because they never really have issues. However xwiki vandalism can end up being very disruptive from 100s of edits on one wiki to edits spread over huge numbers of wikis. My very first day on swmt I had to undo more then 120 edits from. A vandal bot on a small wiktionary project over about 20 minutes before we could find a steward to block. Of course the next morning the active users, admins and their 1 crat realized what had happened but their was nothing for them to have to do to clean up (other then they extended the block). Just because a wiki does not have 24/7 coverage does not mean it is not viable, however it does sometimes mean they will need help and the stewards have a lot more to handle. I understand the global block issue some people have, personally I think it is necessary for the big xwiki attackers though I do think they should be limited to very short duration blocks and the stewards can extend them if necessary. I'm not sure how technically feasable that is but any global sysops would be working closely with (and under ) the stewards anyway. James (T|C) 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think we can place a technical restriction, however I think that, as a social matter, some level of deference to stewards makes sense, particularly in the beginning.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are small wikis with few sysops available in daytime while no or few steward understand the language used there (for exanple, such as ja.wikisource or ja.wikiquote). Once in a while vandals would come to such wikis and disrupt articles - if you (not a sysop in those wikis) find such vandals, all you can do now is to request stewards to come and block vandals in wikis where that steward understand not a word. Yes, global sysops would be very helpful in such wikis where no or few steward understand their languages.--miya 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• The one thing that I see will to be addressed and cause traffic is the requests for review of globalblocks imposed by global sysops. One would hope that this is where the stewards can undertake the oversigh and be able to manage these cases simply, sweetly and without the bureaucracy of an ArbCom. billinghurst 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• This has tremendous potential to improve the capacity of smaller projects, and to encourage a sort of broad-based community. I look forward to seeing how this will operate Steve Joseph 03:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed that quite a few of the opposers dislike the idea of global sysops having access to global block. While I disagree with them, it is obviously a contentious issue that hadn't really been raised in the preliminary stages. Perhaps we could drop it from the proposal by now and have a discussion on the talk page afterwards about adding the right? I'm not sure if it would lead to more confusion that it is worth for now, but if we do decide to do it, we should probably do it soon. NW (Talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I would support changing it, but also think if it is to be done we need to do it soon otherwise there is going to be a fair amount of confusion. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• ResMar: The whole idea is that there aren't enough stewards to effectively deal with vandalism, so they need global sysops as minions. Also, your comment about people making decisions on unfamiliar projects also applies to stewards; surely they don't know 200+ languages? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Could somebody please explain why this is being advertised on Wikipedia? The rules clearly state that this is intended for established Meta users only, not users of Wikipedia or other Wikimedia-related projects. Given this is a select few out of the hundreds of thousands of active users on all Wikimedia-related projects, I don't quite get why it needs to be advertised in an area where it is considerably irrelevant, due to so few people being eligible for voting. Brokenwit 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Apologies, didn't read the rules clearly enough to figure I answered my own question. That said, how can each vote be determined to represent an actual user on a specific Wikimedia-related project? As far as I can tell, any person who can access this page and open up a Meta account could theoretically vote on this matter, making fraud a distinct possibility. Brokenwit 05:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well for starters, because of Help:Unified login you can't create an account with the same name as someone who already has an account on anoter wikimedia project. Some may already have such an account from before unified login, but I guess the moderators are going to make sure each meta account is unified with an active account, e.g. as mine is. For those few that aren't, I guess the moderators may ask the main account for confirmation it's them Nil Einne 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal It seems to me that being a global sysop is somewhat counter-productive, so I have a proposal to make. I would suggest anyone wanting to apply for the global sysop position to be required to have at least 250 edits, spread across two (2) or more projects. Please comment.--Iner22 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The requirements would be, and are much higher than that. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Are you getting confused by the 150 minimum edit requirement vote in this election? In any case, as Tiptoety said, the minimum would almost definitely be higher because unless I'm mistaken, technically there is no minimum currently defined but the chance of an editor with only 250 edits in two project being elected is close to zero. Indeed I suspect the stewards may automatically reject such person even before there's been any discussion. Nil Einne 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Global sysops need more higher level standard for select the person to work on this job .

then the structure of Wikimedia (include other wiki project)have some progress and upgrade.The running rule of wiki seens need a greate upgrade.The option way of wiki business need change.

And Global sysops need serval language skill,if wiki have no auto-local-language-translate-tool,work in global of all languages is so hard.

Final,I hope the UionNation of wiki become reality,after those reality. Loadpage 05:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no clue what all this is about, I just got an invitation... Ocelotl10293 07:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I find this idea interesting, and yet I'm strongly neutral with the idea. I can see the uses of this and also the problems easily enough, I'm going to stick with a Neutral No for now because I'm worried about the priv's will be misused for other things beside the means they propose them. It may be all in my head, but it's a cause for concern. unregistered edit credited to ThemeParker, who does not have an account on this site. 216.11.96.2 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Everytime (almost) someone adds a negative vote soon there is a comment or question placed under their vote. I resent having to constantly explain myself to others. I don't see endless questions added after someone has voted in support for this policy. Why can't you just let people have their say and stop all this retribution and questioning everytime someone votes against something that you might support.--Xania 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Because it seems much of the opposition fundamentally misunderstands the proposal, so it'd be unfair to let it fail to due a series of inaccurate assessments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  I would add that those who support the proposal misunderstand it but that's just my opinion. Let other people express their opinion. I'm sick of all this wiki-pressure from people who seem to think that they know best and go out of their way to crush anyone who expresses a different viewpoint. How is a global sysop supposed to know what's vandalism and what's not? People talk about there being a "need" for this (Mike.lifeguard, in some of the above comments) but if that's the case SHOW us the need. People say that it's offensive to say that so much 'power' could be bad but why's that a bad thing to say? Too many administrators spoil the wiki and over the past year or so that saying (invented by myself) has proven itself to be partly true.--Xania 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Any support implicitly accepts the reasoning given in the proposal, so additional explication is unnecessary. Where opposers have left comments which make their misunderstanding evident, I think it is imcumbent upon us to ask them to clarify their opinion or change it, lest it be invalid. There's a reason we try not to vote.

  As to showing you evidence: I'd be happy to, but what sort of evidence do you want? Shall I make a list of instances where small wikis were unable to fend of vandals effectively because all their sysops were asleep and no stewards happened to be around?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry for posting the above in several places. My reply to your responses can be found in the Discussions tab.--Xania 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Mike.Lifeguard your fervent defense of this bad idea suggests that you might be the kind of person who WANTS the job, the POWER that is so much of the interference to information and the spread of knowledge on WP. The better thing to do, to maintain better stewardship of the information here (read: protection from vandalism) could come from education. Instead of WP turning into more obscure languages and secret codings, make this system less unintelligible. Teach people who care, masses of people who care, how to watch the information they post. The ultimate success of the WP project will come through consensus battles, not through leadership by one individual or group of all powerful individuals. In the subject that I edit, I know there are several watchful eyes viewing my every word, sometimes they correctly reword things. Our areas get vandalized constantly, but enough people are watching. If more people knew how to watch, and how to solve an issue, we'd have less of a problem. And no need for a corruptible superhero to save us.Trackinfo 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not saying anything about what else he is saying I did want to point out that Mike isn't really wouldn't be in the running for the position at least at the moment since he is already a steward

• The proposal says that a project can opt in or opt out, but it does not elaborate. If a wiki is small, with only a couple of sysops, what is accepted as a decision to opt in or opt out? Stephen G. Brown 22:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this will be treated just like electing sysops etc, if the community is able to elect a sysop (so they got 4-5 votes usually to do that) then they are fully able to decide if they want to opt out (or in). If there is only one person who edits and he wants to control the whole thing then it may be more difficult but that has been very rare in my experience. James (T|C) 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• • We’re so little that we can’t even get permanent sysops (even though we have willing and able volunteers) and usually we can’t field more than two or occasionally three votes. I don’t believe we would have any control at all in this matter, so we will be voting against it. Stephen G. Brown 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I must say, it's not particularly good form for people to continue calling up the opposers on their reasoning. This is a vote, not a discussion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Please see the above; I'm not sure it is in the best interests of the community to allow faulty reasoning to lead us to some course of action, even if that faulty reasoning comes in large quantities.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  Faulty reasoning?? There is a large volume of faulty reasoning in the support column as well, votes without any rationale, and votes from big wiki people who have never set a foot on a small wiki. I respect your faulty reasoning; please respect mine. John Vandenberg 07:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that we shouldn't have an extreme amount discussion hence why I'm purposely not viewing either section to avoid getting drawn into further discussion. However I think some discussion is fine. So if you find any faulty reasoning in the support column, then I would encourage you to question it. Hopefully, it will encourage those people to think about their reasoning and others who may support them to think carefully about whether the reason they are making their decision is sound. In votes such as this, it's easily possible that people may be confused, not have thought of something or just be unaware and worse, an unchallenged but incorrect claim may result in people voting in a way they wouldn't have were it noft for that claim. For example, in this section (not sure about the votes) I see some people who seem to think the 150 edits is the threshold for people to be global sysops which is clearly not the case, and hopefully we can all agree we should help inform people who are confused by the requirement for 150 edits to vote as meaning people with 150 edits are likely to be global sysops. Obviously you should not harass or intimidate people until they give in or are scared of voting, and people are free to ignore the responses. And clearly, people shouldn't challenge those who don't express an opinion since there's nothing to challenge and this is a vote, nor challenge someone because they are from a big wiki (who appear to be on both sides, which isn't surprising since the small wikis by definition don't have many people so unfortunately are only ever likely to be a small part of the vote). But I haven't seen any of these queried or challenged. People have queried those who have voted against the proposal because they feel they feel this is being directed by the big wikis, which is of course a different thing and I would say you're welcome to do the same for those who support the proposal because the opposers are coming from the big wikis and especially those who support because the opposers are coming from the small wikis. Ultimately the responses will in no way themselves contribute to the outcome, other then if people upon reading the responses changed their mind. I would point out that in the 2008 en.wikipedia arbcom election, I had faulty reasoning in voting against you, and someone pointed it out (on my talk page) which resulted in me deciding to abstain instead. I didn't make this up, and in fact checked my page to make sure I had the right person (I did) so you're welcome to check my page or ask me about it if you want. Reading peoples comments was also part of my decision making process. I doubt this wasn't unique to me and it was one of the reasons some object to removing open voting and is surely the nature of an open and public vote and people choosing to express an opinion of why they are voting. Remember no one is trying to force you to change your vote, or saying you can't vote because you have faulty reasoning. In other words, you're welcome to your faulty reasoning, as am I to mine, but within reason I'm welcome to query your faulty reasoning, as are you of mine. Unfortunately some may be intimitaded by such queries but we can't help that, the better thing would surely have been to make this a private vote if we didn't want people to be able to query votes. Nil Einne 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Why do people from un-affected wikis get to vote on this? It's easy to vote for apartheid if you're not black (comparison might be harsh, but you get the point) I would support this proposal if it said "wikis without any active local sysops". Seb az86556 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Technically there's no such thing as an unaffected wiki, since all wikis can choose to opt in (the same as any wiki can chose to opt out). It is rather unlikely that a number of wikis, such as en.wikipedia, whos contributors I expect make up the vast majority of voters would be affected (*) although some of them may one day choose to participate in other project and could even be more if for example the wiki become better off thanks to global sysops. However there's clearly no simple way to differentiate between those who will be affected and those who won't unless we require all wikis now to decide now which would be a bit silly. (*)Also as some of the opposers have pointed out, as global sysops have access to the global blocklist technically all wikis are affected even if they optout. Nil Einne 08:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unlike most others who oppose this, I do not have any problems with global blocks. Let them have the global-block hammer - there is already a stringent policy describing under exactly what circumstances a GB is warranted. I have a huge issue with people messing with content (deletions, etc...). Where exactly would be the place for recourse or complaints without having to engage in wheel-warring between global and local sysops? If there is no such place, who do you think will "win" that war? The global sysop, of course. Who do you think is more likely to be admonished or possibly blocked? The local admin, of course. Will local admins be forcefully de-sysopped for restoring deleted pages? Seb az86556 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here's something from my mind: I'm a staff member of some forum sites, and what I've seen in many of them are that their "owners" (administrators) act like as if they are "deity-like" or "God-like", thus they can impose heavier rules and punishments without the consent of its users or members. Is there any way, if the sysops will kick in, to monitor the administrators' conduct as well because I know that the internet is for everyone to use, but, there are some that use it just to abuse their power, and thus becoming counterproductive to the rest of the virtual community? wishfulanthony 05:06, 8 January, 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. Important that Wiki projects are protected against diversionary uses. I am a firm inclusionist (i.e. if you LOVE your local park, then it should be allowed to have a page about it, even if it is on 10m square). I beleive the central wiki values (presentation of facts from a neutral POV - even though unacheivable in practice) is a “healthy” goal for a human endeavour and helps to ensure that even our many disagreements are conducted in a “healthy” style. We need distributed sysops as the number and size of projects increases despite the inevitable inconsistencies and biases that this involves. Yes Diggers2004 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Forgive me if I missed it but what sort of vote is this? A simple majority? (I.E. if there are more legitimate support or oppose votes, then the proposal will either be implemented or not.) 2/3? 3/4? An advisory one, i.e. the foundation will make the final decision but base their decision primarily on the vote? Nil Einne 09:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• I would vote support if each wiki has the right to reject one or all the Global sysops. --KrebMarkt 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus. If one sysop irks the local community, then they can either block them locally or refer the matter to a steward, who will act on the complaint and desysop the global admin if they feel it is necessary. NW (Talk) 17:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If a global sysop is "desysopped" on a particular project, can they still block users on that project via globalblock? -- 3centsoap 17:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I really like that concept, since it allows me to evaluate a sysop's capability, and if the sysop abuses his or her power by intimidating others, then he or she can be suspended locally, thus it will be a very good tool for me to have. --wishfulanthony 05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • What good is blocking against people who have ipblock-exempt, proxyunbannable and globalblock-exempt? Erik Warmelink 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• i voted nay first of all because it is not clear in the proposal context what "problem project" means, in terms of content domain, content size, language or geographic region, dispute issues, etc. which makes the handwaving about trusted users and community consensus deeply murky; can holocaust deniers post nonsense and approve their own sysop to exclude correction? my second concern is that this proposal seems to perpetuate rather than resolve the turmoil by handing "nuke" and other big hammers to certain users simply because they are admired by a content clique; the reach is farther than the grasp. and finally i don't really see how the administrative rigamarole of discussion and approval really vets candidates in specialized "projects" for skill set and character. "trust" is something that you have -- until you don't. at that level, crankweb is a fact, and wikimedia are a magnification system for the fact. in fact, i am wary of wikimedia precisely because it does not, as a collective, aggressively highlight and forewarn about that fact, under the cheery slogan "we're all making it better." as for "projects" too small to be adequately supervised, that states the problem clearly: they're too small. at minimum, perhaps projects should be proposed and voted, or by quota queued into existence at a manageable rate, rather than left to free spawn exponentially as more work for the overworked and more nutrients for crankweb parasites. (i'm also puzzled by projects that are claimed to be too small yet also assumed to be large enough to propose, approve and even "desysop" among themselves.) perhaps projects too frequently or radically edited (by kilobyte change) can be automatically reverted by server software to the last editor approved version, until the understaffed stewards and editors can get around to reviewing and fixing them to their best judgment.

Voting criteria are too low as some comments of Yes user "Why not let's try"???, obviously it is very new user who are voting and deciding to giving global power and affect all not largest Wikipedias, and create not needed duplicating of rights, and possible conflicts between specific Wikipedia community and global sysops. Why we need this? Voting should be restarted with higher criteria, example user made 5000 edits or have admin rights to avoid newbie voting as this should be decided by much more experienced users. --Atlantas 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

One problem with such a voting restriction would be that it would prevent many from smaller projects participating. EN, ES and PL Wikipedia users may have thousands of edits but it's unlikely that many on GV wikipedia for example (Manx Gaelic) would have this kind of number and they're the very people who are most affected by such a proposal. But it would be nice if those voting in favour of the proposal would say something about their decision.--Xania 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to agree with what Xania said. This was basically on purpose, there were (and are) actually people who thought it should be less then what it is. Making high requirements would totally shut out the wikis where this is the most important and would guarantee the only people with power in the discussion are the biggest wikis (just compare the number of enWiki admins to the number of admins anywhere else). James (T|C) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment: the 275th. vote in the "Yes" section is a vote from an IP address. Can IP's vote? Can any registered user in Meta say that this vote is valid or not? Regards Rrm·Sjp ^Enwiki _Dewiki ^SimpleWiki 02:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  I have indented that vote. Thanks for spotting it. John Vandenberg 02:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• This may create an Elite among the common wiki —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainjohann (talk • contribs) 2010-01-09T09:15:18.

If such rights will be implemented I suggest to imagine likely typical situation. A global admin decided to make order in a small Wikipedia. It pops up and conflicts with local ones admins and they not understand global administrator language !?! Also, global one is not aware of small Wikipedia inner rules and could be viewed as be doing negative actions to local users (as foreign), however he acts according hes previous main Wikipedija (for instance English). Wake up people, why we need this? Who will control such global admins? More discussions and work for stewards?--Atlantas 10:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Support Smihael 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
2.  Support --Ervin C. 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
3.  SupportLa Alquimista 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Even if Global sysops get adopted in meta-project, opponents can still initiate a vote to reject them in their local small wiki. This is bound to happen. --KrebMarkt 12:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You are so naive, will you ask each small Wikipedia: do you want that somebody who do not know language and inner rules of project and you do not trust (as you not elect them) make important decisions in your project? I would vote NO as I would not like this to be implemented in my "local" Wikipedia. It would be logical self defense against intruders. I think every or most of small projects will vote against to avoid intervention from outside if there are any active user ... From large Wikipedia it may look like very nice initiative to block vandals and etc. (as it also do not concerns user of biggest Wikipedia!!!), but in reality it could turn to very nasty for small Wikipedia users. Also about rejection how you image this: 100 elected global admin, but few small Wikipedia users later said oh no he doing wrong in our project? So goes like this 100 against 5 votes and small Wikipedia falls to influence of bigger Wikipedia users ...? Yes, it is pessimistic scenario, but it maybe fatal blow for small Wikipedia as project could loose last active users. --Atlantas 12:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to see more clear rules about what global sysops are allowed to do. Otherwise we will see them "enforcing foundation policy" or something over the content of smaller wikis. --Apoc2400 16:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Great idea. --Dude1818 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend wording

In order to make it very clear what "opt-out" means, the wording needs to be changed:

"Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus." is insufficient.

change to "Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus, according to the same procedures that apply to electing local sysops. If a project cannot muster more than 5 votes, the opt-out-request will be rejected.'"

This is according to the comments/answers we have received thus far. Please comment if this is incorrect.

Seb az86556 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  SupportGoodone121 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)