Stewards/Elections 2014/Votes/Risker

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

Risker[edit]

ContentsYes • No • Neutral

Risker talk • contribs • SULutil (accounts) / stalktoy • globalcontribs • crosswiki-ness • confirm eligibility
translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

English:

  • Languages: En-N; Fr-2
  • Personal info: Hello, I am Risker. I created my account to edit English Wikipedia in December 2005, although like many others I edited before registering. In May 2008, I became an administrator on English Wikipedia. Between January 2009 and December 2013, I was a member of the Arbitration Committee on that project. I read French at a high-school level. I have been a Checkuser and Oversighter on English Wikipedia since January 2009, and am very familiar with the applicable policies and practices. In my role as the arbitrator who was primarily responsible for managing the appointment of new Checkusers and Oversighters, I worked regularly with stewards. I have been an administrator for the Checkuser-L global mailing list for almost five years, and have been a bureaucrat on the Checkuser-wiki since its creation. My checkuser activities focus on anti-spam and cross-wiki socking reviews. I have been active on OTRS since 2010, and participate in several cross-project mailing lists. I make a point of following Bugzillas that relate to Checkuser, Oversight, and revision-deletion/suppression extensions. In 2011, I was a member of the committee that managed the technical aspects of the image filter referendum. Last year, I was a member of the committee that organized the WMF Board/FDC elections. Should I be elected as a steward, I will be focusing first on permissions, cross-wiki anti-spam work, Oversight for projects without their own oversighters, and responding to requests sent to the Stewards OTRS queues. My extensive experience in dispute resolution and in closing contentious RFCs should also prove useful. I look forward to learning and developing new skills. I am aware of the policies governing steward access, checkuser access, oversight access, and privacy as stated in the prerequisites, and agree to abide by them. I have already identified to the Foundation. Risker (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2014/Questions#Risker


Yes[edit]

  2. Snowolf (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I was initially a bit skeptical that somebody with not that much activity outside of the English Wikipedia and who has served on the Arbitration Committee for so long would be able to take on the job of steward effectively, as a global perspective is really important for it, in my opinion. After seeing my question answered so well and having some discussions with them, I am now very convinced that Risker would do an excellent job as a steward. They do possess the strong global perspective required and their background in mediation and policy-work would be a positive addition for the steward team. I have disagreed with Risker many times on Arbitration matters but that is a very different role and irrelevant here. Snowolf How can I help? 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rschen7754 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  While I can certainly see where the opposers are coming from, Risker was elected to the Arbitration Committee, the hardest role on Wikipedia, only 6 months after becoming an admin, and was able to handle it for the next 5 years. I think that she would be able to do the job well. Rschen7754 18:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. DerHexer (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Trusted. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DrKiernan (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I suspect her cross-wiki experience is hidden from the opposers because it is behind the scenes. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       Flyingfischer (Not eligible, checked by Snowolf) •  Trusted. Flyingfischer (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tryptofish (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  I see that a number of users are opposing on the basis of not enough trans-wiki experience, and I understand that concern. However, I want to put in a very enthusiastic word of support for Risker, based upon my direct observation of her work on the English Wikipedia, where she has consistently shown a superb understanding of resolving both technical and interpersonal problems, and I am convinced that she would contribute very positively to the Steward team. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Guycn2 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I think this user is right for the job. Good luck Guycn2 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rzuwig (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Rzuwig► 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. D Eaketts (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  D Eaketts (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirilloparma (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Good luck Kirilloparma (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Legoktm (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Trusted, will do the job well. Legoktm (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Vujke (Eligible, checked by MF-Warburg)2014 •  Vujke (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Trijnstel (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Frequently helps on CU-L and her experience with mediation could be very useful. And trusted. Trijnsteltalk 22:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Thingg (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  If she could survive being on the en.wiki Arbitration Committee for half a decade and still command the level of respect she does, she can survive anything. I honestly do not understand how anything she could possibly encounter anywhere else would be more complicated than the cases she has seen there. She will be do an excellent job as a steward just as she did in the far more thankless job as an en.wiki arbitrator. I also am baffled that people are opposing based on "lack of experience." All sites use the same software and she clearly has enough experience with that aspect of things. And their rules are not different enough that she won't be able to figure it out by looking if she's not sure. It's also ludicrous to suggest she would do something if she wasn't sure it was ok as she is one of the most conscientious people I've ever met period, to say nothing of online. This election is not a PhD exam where you have to do a certain series of steps for a certain period of time and then pass some arbitrary test to get your degree. Nor is it a quest where you must perform a series of tasks in a particular order and style and make sure that every t is crossed and i is checked and monster defeated before you can kiss the sleeping princess or receive your crown or whatever. After 5 years on Arbcom, is another 10 months of reverting random vandalism on wikis that aren't en.wiki (ZOMG!!) really going to affect your opinion of her? No reservations whatsoever. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about the technical aspects, it's just that you can't expect from someone who has never touched anything outside of enwiki to handle that good from the beginning one. Risker has absolutely zero experience in dealing with small communities (what stewards do all the time) and that's where the opposes come from. Vogone talk 23:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. zusasa (Eligible, checked by MF-Warburg)2014 • 
  16. Gilderien (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Definitely. Gilderien (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Kolega2357 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Kolega2357 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. SamanthaPuckettIndo (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Good luck SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Avraham (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Having worked closely with Risker for many years in EnWiki, I am completely confident that her abilities will benefit all Wikimedia projects. She is most definitely not an enwiki-centrist, clearly understands that different projects have different mores and cultures, has worked with other projects via the checkuser and oversight teams, and is one of the most understanding, level-headed, and dare I say wise Wikimedians with whom I have ever had the good fortune to collaborate. The entire corpus of Wikimedia projects would be well served by her becoming a steward. Avi (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mike V (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Mike V • Talk 01:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Elfix (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I appreciate your work as a CU. I'm sure you could help a lot with crosswiki problems such as spambots. Elfix 08:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ivan Štambuk (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Rome2 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Rome2 (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jan eissfeldt (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Sound judgment; especially in the cases where we have disagreed on conclusions to be drawn. Jan eissfeldt (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Philippe (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  I have confidence in Risker's judgement. In my capacity as an individual, not as a representative of the WMF. --Philippe (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Elph (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Abbas ☢ 11:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jamesofur (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I trust Risker completely, both her judgement and her sensitivity. In my mind there is no one I would support more. Jamesofur (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Takamaxa (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Takamaxa (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Dungodung (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  FiliP ██ 12:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Clockery (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Clockery Fairfeld (talk • enWS) 12:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Laaknor (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Laaknor (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. GiantSnowman (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  GiantSnowman (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Jmvkrecords (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra Talk) 15:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. FriedrickMILBarbarossa (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Vituzzu (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Snowolf eventually convinced me. Vituzzu (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. ТимофейЛееСуда (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       Work2win (Not eligible, checked by Igna) •  Work2win (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Chris troutman (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  On the basis of Snowolf's and Rschen7754's endorsements. Lack of cross-wikiness is very concerning, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Cedalyon (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Cedalyon (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Secretalt (Eligible, checked by Buffbills7701)2014 •  Secretalt (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tlhslobus (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Tlhslobus (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. JB82 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  JB82 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Liuxinyu970226 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Per Rschen7754 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Juliancolton (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Among the most rationale and hands-on Wikimedians I know. Acknowledge the concerns about lack of cross-wiki activity, but the candidate's skills and professionalism offset them IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Kaldari (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Risker has impeccable judgement and a thorough knowledge of pretty much all things Wikipedia. I'm sure she would do a good job as a steward. Kaldari (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Billinghurst (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Completely trusted, dedicated and knowledgeable person. Not completely sure why running for steward, though comfortable with capability and wisdom in decision-making.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Павел Петро (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Павел Петро (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Tom Morris (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Risker is trustworthy and both reasonable and courteous even when one disagrees with her. The only question I have to ask is "do I trust her?" and the answer is "more than adequately for Steward tools". —Tom Morris (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Quentinv57 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I agree with the opponents that cross-wiki experience is needed for being a steward. As much as bureaucrat and checkuser/oversight experience.
    While she is not enough experienced in crosswiki areas, she regularly works with us and already knows how to use the CU/OS tools. By consequent, I remain convinced that she will be a great addition to the current team. Quentinv57 (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Bms4880 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Bms4880 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Wikiwind (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Wikit 18:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Niesy74 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Niesy74 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Jusjih (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jusjih (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Neutron (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Based on her work as an arbitrator, I am sure she would do a good job as a steward. Neutron (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Courcelles (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Courcelles 02:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Epicgenius (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. John Reaves (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  John Reaves (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Surfer43 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Surfer43 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Dick Bos (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Dick Bos (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Demart81 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 22:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Giano (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Exemplary editor. Giano (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Noel baran (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Noel baran (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Glaisher (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  This one was a rather difficult one for me as Risker lacks cross-wiki experience. After seeing her answers to the questions and the rationales for yeses, I'm very much convinced that she will be able to handle the steward bit well. Glaisher [talk] 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Asav (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Excellent, most helpful editor and contributor. Asav (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Wpollard (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 • He has a good record of experience. Wpollard (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Guerillero (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Guerillero 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Beyond My Ken (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Jonathunder (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jonathunder (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. NaBUru38 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  NaBUru38 (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Locke Cole (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Mailer diablo (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Has the necessary experience for the role. Mailer Diablo (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Ronhjones (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  Ronhjones (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Wnme (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Wnme (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Enzian44 (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  Enzian44 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Maurice07 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Maurice07 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Shizhao (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Shizhao (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Pharaoh of the Wizards (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. MichaelSchoenitzer (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Altamel (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Altamel (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Ceoil (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Technical 13 (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Technical 13 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. MZaplotnik (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  MZaplotnik (contribs) 10:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Bluerasberry (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Gamma127 (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Gamma127 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       Tremonist (Not eligible, checked by Avraham) •  Tremonist (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  85. David in DC (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Trusted and trust-worthy. Even where we've disagreed. David in DC (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Mugregg (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Mugregg (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Tonelada (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Tonelada (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

  2. Vogone (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  No cross-wiki experience. Vogone talk 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John F. Lewis (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Looking at it, While I appreciate Risker knows what she is doing and has experience, she lacks crosswiki experience which to me is a must in a steward. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MF-Warburg (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  No cross-wiki experience at all with 95% of edits on enwiki. I can see also see no experience "close to steward areas" except CU+OS. But OS requests happen rarely to stewards, and if one claims to be working together a lot already behind the scenes with checkusers etc. from other wikis, there at least should somewhere also emerge edits from random occasions. MF-W 18:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Érico Júnior Wouters (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Lack of cross-wiki experience. Érico Wouters msg 18:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. İncelemeelemani (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Weak participation in other projects. İncelemeelemani (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Odder (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  From her involvement in Bugzilla and from her regular posts to the Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l mailing lists, Risker has always seemed to me a reasonable, down-to-earth, level-headed contributor. The only issue I see is lack of experience in cross-wiki and steward-related areas. Please work a little bit on those, and I'd be happy to support you next time. odder (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 분당선M (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Per vogone DangSunM (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jasper Deng (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  While I like Risker's work on the English Wikipedia, a lack of cross-wiki counter-vandalism or counter-spam work is something I think is really important for a steward. This is a "not now" vote, rather than "never". Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rubin16 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Despite of my respect to the great wiki-experience, I don't like that activities are mainly concentrated on en.wiki with no significant global output - stewards should be more independent to particular wikis rubin16 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Stryn (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  as above Stryn (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ralgis (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  --Allan Aguilar • /t/ 19:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sjoerddebruin (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nemo bis (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Per MF-Warburg and all the others. No cross-wiki, small-wiki or interlanguage experience whatsoever and almost no Meta or bugzilla activity unless en.wiki-centric, hence appreciated but not relevant for steward activities. I don't think she would fit in the group of the stewards (or any other global group), she needs a more gradual approach to crosswiki activities and practices. Glad to revisit my opinion next year if she shows some interest, activity, understanding and cooperation/interaction in the area, but it would just be too hazardous to elect her as of now. --Nemo 22:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Southparkfan (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Southparkfan 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SPQRobin (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  per above SPQRobin (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mh7kJ (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Also per above. Mh7kJ (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. John Vandenberg (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Lacks any involvement on other languages or other projects. This role is about more than buttons and being active on IRC. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Teles (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Sorry, but cross-wiki experience is required. —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Hahc21 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Thank you for volunteering, but I think that significant cross-wiki experience is needed for the job. — ΛΧΣ21 03:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Armbrust (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Lack of cross-Wiki experience. Armbrust (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Hkjacksonhk (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Hkjacksonhk (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. David1010 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  David1010 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. TCN7JM (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Cross-wiki activity really is required for stewardship. ArbCom on enwiki is not analogous to stewardship; even though Risker jumped right from being an admin to being an ArbCom member, she stayed within enwiki. Stewardship requires that candidates know how things work on other wikis, and the only real way to learn is through experience. TCN7JM 06:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This, that and the other (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  This user is an incredible asset to enwiki, and I don't dispute that. I have no doubt voted for her in ArbCom elections there. However I feel that Risker is too enwiki-centric, and she would find it difficult (with her current experience) to work well as a steward. This, that and the other (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Mihewag (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  minor cross wiki experience Mihewag (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mehran (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Mehran Debate 11:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Russavia (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  As per most of the concerns above. Russavia (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Steinsplitter (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Steinsplitter (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Karol Karolus (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Karol Karolus (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Bill william compton (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Steward aspirant should have adequate cross-wiki experience. Bill william compton (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Blackfish (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Blackfish (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Mathonius (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I agree with John F. Lewis. Mathonius (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Abd (Verification pending) •  Before considering Risker for steward, I'd want to see more WMF visibility, handing issues very differently from how they are handled on enwiki, and especially from how Risker has handled them.Abd (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. GyaroMaguus (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Maybe next year with more cross-wiki activity. GyaroMaguus (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Jafeluv (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Trustworthy user from what I've seen on en.wp, but I'd like to see more crosswiki activity. Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Piotrus (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I am afraid this user has not gained my trust performing as an Arbitrator on en.wp few years back. Perhaps another time... --Piotrus (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Obelix (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Obelix (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Zerabat (Eligible, checked by MF-Warburg)2014 •  Zerabat (discusión) 17:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. AGK (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  AGK [•] 18:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. ColonelHenry (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  As per the above comments--and because I am convinced anyone from ArbCom, Wikipedia's intellectual 4chan, lacks the judgment and trustworthiness to do anything besides tying their own shoes. ColonelHenry (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       فلورانس (Not eligible, checked by Snowolf) •  Florence (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Laurent Jerry (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Trop peu d'expérience des autres wikis que l'anglophone. Not enough cross-wikiness. Laurent Jerry (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Imzadi1979 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Peg this as "not now" as well because of the lack of cross-wiki experience. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Alberto568 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Alberto568 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Drzewianin (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Drzewianin (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Ginsuloft (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Ginsuloft (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Tiyang (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Concur with most of the concerns above. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Hubertl (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  --Hubertl (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. AFBorchert (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I would like to see some cross-wiki-experience first, particularly in smaller projects. Then I would be inclined to support a stewardship. AFBorchert (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 1ForTheMoney (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Concurring with fellow voters. Spend more time outside enwiki. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Ul1-82-2 (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  Ul1-82-2 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Steschke (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  ST ○ 22:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Abaddon1337 (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  Not enough cross-wiki experience. Abaddon1337 (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Marcus Cyron (Eligible, checked by Vogone)2014 •  "Grand dame of en:WP ArbCom" I read somewhere. For me the en:WP Arbcom is one of the most undemocratic elements of our whole project. CU at en:WP - also a thing that let me strictly oppose. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. CT Cooper (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Per others. CT Cooper · talk 17:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Intothatdarkness (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Hipocrite (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Hipocrite (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Bdell555 (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  If Risker's inclination to exercise due care with respect to getting her facts right is any inclination, I have grave reservations about the attention that will be given to detail. Risker supports a broad use of Oversighting and/or RevDel, and when I objected to a specific instance of Oversighting, she accused me of "working to try to find a way of finding out what a specific suppressed edit says, but trying to draw in the community under false pretenses." This false allegation was entirely rebutted but Risker never acknowledged any error in levelling the charge. On another occasion Risker told me "You cannot stand for the AUSC" which was not true, since non-admins can stand for ArbCom and then as an ArbCom member serve on AUSC . Everyone is occasionally inaccurate, such that this particular inaccuracy would be a non-issue, were it not for the fact that Risker subsequently accused me of spreading "nonsense" in another forum when I noted what was implied if what I was told was true. This all to say that a little more reservation with respect to having one's accusations backed by the facts is needed here. Brian Dell (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Waka Waka (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Waka Waka (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Inadequate experience with Wikipedia projects outside of English Wikipedia, on which she has been increasingly criticized for having lost contact with encyclopedia-writing and encyclopedia-stewardship and for displaying an authoritarianism more appropriate to the court of Louis XIV than a wiki: Risker has never given a full accounting of her responsibility in the release of confidential Arbitration Committee emails, which at least involves a failure to safeguard confidential personal information. More recently, Risker was actively involved in releasing confidential (check-user) information about editor Eric Corbett's IP and editing times, and one of the worst apologists for this abuse of checkuser information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. NE Ent (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Lost her equanimity during her ArbCom term. NE Ent (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

  2. PiRSquared17 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Lack of cross-wiki activity concerns me. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wiki13 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Per PiRSquared17. Wiki13 talk 18:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Brateevsky (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Brateevsky (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alan (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Alan (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LlamaAl (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Lack of cross-wiki activity and experience. LlamaAl (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Eminn (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Emin • message 19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ebe123 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sportsguy17 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  -- Risker has done and still does do an excellent job on the English Wikipedia. That being said, I've never seen Risker elsewhere on WMF sites. Sportsguy17 (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Daniel Mietchen (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Great contributions to enwp, some good replies to questions here, and hope that cross-wiki experience will grow. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Someone not using his real name (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 • I came here ready to support, but I think the arguments that the steward role doesn't fit her experience are fairly compelling. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bene* (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  Bene* (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Taichi (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Taichi - (あ！) 02:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hym411 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  —레비Revi 07:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wagino 20100516 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Midnight Gambler (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Never seen before; although I'm close to support the proposal. Midnight Gambler (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pratyya Ghosh (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  She's good and well experienced. But she lacks cross-wiki works. Which a steward should must have in my thinking. So per her good work in en wiki I'm not opposing, but can't support her this time. But wishing her a very good luck. Pratyya (Hello!) 03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Aldnonymous (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Just English and French :( ? --AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Mr. Stradivarius (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  I too am slightly concerned about the lack of cross-wiki experience, but not enough to make me oppose outright. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oursdesmontagnes (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  Oursdesmontagnes (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. KundaliniZero (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  KundaliniZero (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. The Anonymouse (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Very little crosswiki experience means I can’t support. However, since the activity (especially regarding private data) on the English Wikipedia seems fine, I don’t want to oppose. The Anonymouse [talk] 19:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2014/Votes/Risker&oldid=19957738"