Stewards/elections 2009/votes

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Warning The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.
←2009 elections Stewards (2009 elections > statements only)

Index: See Stewards/elections 2009 (Purge the cache of this page?)


Al Lemos

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

  1. Support Support Jagwar 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Support Computer wh 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Support Luan 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lyon88 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) uneligible voter. Account created yesterday. es:Drini 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Support Udufruduhu 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Support --Ginosal 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Support Raafael D 02:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Support Mwaldeck msg 04:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Support Will he break the wiki? Most likely not. ErikTheBikeMan 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Definitely yes. I'd go with a staatement of values and intent anyday, over statements of experience. Apologies if I've got anything wrong on following this voting process though ~ I'm new, with one of the two articles I've submitted so far already under review for deletion~:o)Skankarbaba Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima Msg 11:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Support --Sir James 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Sh1019 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima Msg 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Caspiax --Caspiax 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Support Fruggo 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Support--Konsnos 10:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Support EUDOXIO 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support Support NoychoH 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Support — Albert Krantz¿? 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support SupportGlobalphilosophy 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Support Yes. Definitely. CJS102793 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Support --Nrainer 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support --Jouris2009.2.2 (UTC) Uneligible voter. This account isn't registered on Meta. --Lucas Nunes 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Support ----Zeljko 09:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Support Wouterhagens 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support--Psiblastaeban 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. Alex Pereira falaê 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --201.9.61.98 18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) uneligible voter. It's just an IP.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Support pro carioca! -- Linksfuss 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support Support --Arcudaki 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Support --Lighterside 16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Support --Alex Esp 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Support - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Support Ozymandias 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Support Booksworm 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support yes -- A2 supersonique 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter --Nice poa 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Support Multilingual. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support --Snake311 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - all you want 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support I voted for you. Now, where's that bribe you promised me? PM me and I'll give you the account number. Heh, these suckers are gonna be taken for a spin. --85.164.165.51 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter, it's just an IP. --Nice poa 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Support Muro de Aguas 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support Matema 09:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter --Nice poa 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  29. Support Support Albmont 11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support Support Kabri 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Support --Lohen11 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Support --4wajzkd02 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Support --Alborz Fallah 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Support Has all the right language and other skills Carsrac 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support Support Christian Hartmann 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No

  1. Oppose Oppose — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose --Thogo (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose No. Razorflame 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. Horacewai2 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima Msg 11:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose No. Puntori 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose No. Micha L. Rieser 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose No.--Seha 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose --Kanonkas 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose No. Not enough experience for stewardship, what you describe is totally different from what stewardship is. Romaine 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose Az1568 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose No/いいえ. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose per Romaine Herr Kriss 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose sorry, but No per Romaine Marcus Cyron 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose Seems not to understand what being a steward is, or what would make one qualified to do the job.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose No. Seems to not understand what stewardship is. — neuro(talk) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose --FollowTheMedia 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Yym1997 02:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible: This user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his homewiki —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose I like the attitude, and the thoughtful question answers, but I think you need more experience with adminship and general wiki operations across multiple wikis. Perhaps next year? ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose --Tomatejc 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose Not at the level I expect of stewards. Prodego talk 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose Oppose Avjoska 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose Oppose Achates 07:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose No --Shipmaster 07:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose No --Producer 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose Oppose Merdis 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 17:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not anymore. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose No --Dr. Gert Blazejewski 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose Adrian 1111 09:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose No, involved recently in too many unnecessary conflicts in Portuguese Wikipedia. RafaAzevedo 09:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[1]Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose Whilst it'd be good to have non-en stewards, this chap lacks experience. Computerjoe 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Oppose Oppose --Brownout(msg) 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose Oppose No --Church of emacs 10:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose Oppose Béria Lima Msg 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I agree whit Romaine. "Not enough experience for stewardship"Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose Oppose Per Romaine. Jon Harald Søby 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose Oppose --AFBorchert 10:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) per birdy and LarReply[reply]
  34. Oppose Oppose Njaelkies Lea 11:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Oppose Oppose Vyk 11:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Oppose Oppose I'm sorry. I believe in your good purpose, but not enough experience for stewardship. Smihael 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Oppose Oppose Calandrella 13:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I agree with Smihael.Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose Oppose —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose Oppose Stewards should have the experience and trust that comes with being an admin on their home project. John Vandenberg 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose Oppose --MF-W 14:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Oppose Oppose Not this year. -- Nahum 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Oppose Oppose Stewards should be able to describe what stewardship is and should be an admin on their home wiki. Per Romaine and per Jauvdb. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Oppose Oppose Filipe RibeiroMsg 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not now.Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose OpposeObelix 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --91.43.224.39 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Please login to vote. Bence My Talk 14:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose Oppose No. Jdrewitt 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose Oppose Not really. --Ciphers 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Oppose Oppose À cause du manque d'expérience avec les outils d'admin. / Lack of experience with admins' tools. --Edhral 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose Oppose Lack of experience and bad understanding of the steward duties — NickK 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose Oppose ack NickK --RoswithaC 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose Oppose No. Alefbe 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Oppose Oppose –Ejs-80 20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Oppose Oppose NonvocalScream 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Oppose Oppose No. Wants to remove "absentee" admins for no good reason. Rspeer 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Oppose Oppose --Ilyaroz 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Oppose Oppose --PietJay 07:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Oppose Oppose ~ putnik 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Oppose Oppose Stewardship is not only checkuser. Leujohn 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Oppose Oppose --Uwe Gille 09:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Oppose Oppose no experience--Nick1915 - all you want 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Oppose Oppose Too few user rights => not much experience. --FiliP × 12:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Oppose Oppose GlassCobra 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Oppose Oppose Contra. QuartierLatin1968 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Oppose Oppose I don't see expierence. Should be an admin.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Oppose Oppose --Stepri2003 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Oppose Oppose--Davecrosby uk 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Oppose Oppose Mailer Diablo 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Oppose Oppose Tcrow777 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Oppose Oppose Stef48 08:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Oppose Oppose --Tarantelle 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Oppose Oppose no experience to this. Alex Pereira falaê 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Oppose Oppose Not enough experience or understanding of the role. Maedin\talk 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Oppose Oppose I am not sure you fully understand the role of stewards. Anonymous101 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Oppose Oppose Fred Xavier 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Oppose Oppose Tiptoety talk 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Oppose Oppose --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Oppose Oppose Apparently doesn't know what the position is about.--Cerejota 04:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Oppose Oppose Doesn't seem like enough experience. ...Aurora... 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Oppose Oppose Don't have experience. --Lucas Nunes 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Oppose Oppose Nones. --Tesi1700 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Oppose Oppose Not enough experience. --Tchoř 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Oppose Oppose sorry but need more experience --Gdgourou 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Oppose Oppose No Modernist 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Oppose Oppose GoEThe 10:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Tends to resolve disputes by attacking the opponent rather than the question and when proposing policy shoves opposition under the carpet by pushing for a vote instead of trying to build consensus.Reply[reply]
  84. Oppose Oppose Urielpunk 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)?Reply[reply]
    Meekohi 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Oppose Oppose No. TFBCT1 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Oppose Oppose Nadzieja 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) The user had a discussion with me in pt.wikipedia (initialized by he), and was agressive and impertinent with me and another user that was in his right: making comments in the discussion page of the pt.wiki article "Sockpuppet". The user don't have enough maturity to be a Steward. I agree with the user GoEThe: The user resolve disputes by attacking the opponent. 'Cause this my vote is no!Reply[reply]
  87. Oppose Oppose IMatthew 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Oppose Oppose --Nice poa 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but he 'argues' too much with everybody for everything and uses to offend and to mock his opponents!Reply[reply]
  89. Oppose Oppose No -- per unaddressed concerns from other editors. Message From Xenu 10:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Oppose Oppose at first you'll need to be experienced as sysop anywhere - IMHO - sorry --Rax 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Oppose Oppose not even a sysop on any project, and does not seem to understand well the stewards' role. O. Morand 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Oppose Oppose Not enough exp. --Sampi 02:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Oppose Oppose Lack of admin experience, misunderstanding of steward role. Nbarth 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Oppose Oppose Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Oppose Oppose--Drboisclair 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Oppose Oppose--Thesupermat 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Oppose Oppose-- Harrywad 23:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Oppose Oppose Nearby, but needs still experience --Höyhens 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Oppose Oppose Tosão 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No,no,no![2]Reply[reply]
  100. Oppose Oppose If you resign from proposed adminship why should we trust you stewardship? Masti 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Oppose Oppose --Techman224Talk 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[3]Reply[reply]
  102. Oppose Oppose -- it's not necessary for him to add footnotes to opposing comments, and his doing so clearly demonstrates that he should not be a steward. KrakatoaKatie 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Neutral Efbé Je suis un WikiLover 10:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know nothing about the experience of candidate. Unfortunately, I can not understand Portuguese, and I'm out of estimation.LexArt 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am ambivalent. Rangond 06:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral Neutral Kushal one 11:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral Neutral Bence My Talk 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral Neutral Punx 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WITSPUTZ 17:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral Neutral DanielRute 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral Neutral Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Nothing against the user. He's indeed a great editor on Wiki-pt. But he's a bit nervous and he does not like being questioned and contradicted. He must change that. But in general, he doesn't like canvassing and elitism, and that's great! Especially in Wiki-pt where our adminship is focused in elitism and friendship. Being an administrator there is nothing, really.Reply[reply]
  7. --Mayer Bruno 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Info

Meet some people from Lusophone Wikipedia that are not only voting against me (what is perfectly democratical), but blaming me... - Al Lemos 14:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ↑ This fellow has so many enemies in the lusophone Wikipedia that was nicknamed "rabid dog" by a veteran editor.
  2. ↑ Candidate for sysop. In the voting under way, an editor (Pediboi) said about him: "without saving articles a large number of times in quick succession, a thing that he usually do, he don't will obtain the minimum number of 2000 editions in the mainspace; I smell a scam here."
  3. ↑ It's old news. The world has changed since January 2007...

View vote page

Alexanderps

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

  1. Support Support —DerHexer (Talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Support Computer wh 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Support Yes. Razorflame 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Changed to neutral.Reply[reply]
  3. Support Support André Teixeira Lima 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Support NuclearWarfare 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Horacewai2 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima Msg 11:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Support I'm happy here. Majorly talk 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Support Puntori 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Support Luan 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Support Mr.Z-man 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Support — vvv 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Support yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Support Epinheiro 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC), of course!Reply[reply]
  12. Support Support --Seha 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Udufruduhu 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)not eligible to vote--Pediboi 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support Support Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Support Az1568 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Support Chick Bowen 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Support Yes/Sí/はい. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Support Vini 175 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support Support — neuro(talk) 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Support --FollowTheMedia 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Support --Ivan Štambuk 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support Support --Shizhao 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yamaka122 ...:) 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)not eligible to vote.--Pediboi 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Support bibliomaniac15 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Support --Luisfege 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Support--1j1z2 03:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Support More workers are needed. --Millosh 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support Support, of course. Mwaldeck msg 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Support GlassCobra 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Support --Sir James 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Support Avjoska 06:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support Support Rubin16 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support Support Sebleouf 08:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Support Octahedron80 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Support Otourly 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Item 09:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) not eligible to vote--Pediboi 13:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support Support RafaAzevedo 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support Support yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa --.snoopy. ✉ 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support Support --StSasha 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ДА.Reply[reply]
  37. Support Support --Wing 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support Support sounds fine --Church of emacs 10:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support Support Efbé Je suis un WikiLover 10:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Samyn97 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima Msg 11:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Support Béria Lima Msg 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Complete support.Reply[reply]
  41. Support Support →Na·gy 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nikolia 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: Innexistent account —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please sign in to vote. →Na·gy 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Support Vyk 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support Support The Helpful One 11:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Support Stealth500
  45. Support Support EUDOXIO 11:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support Support axpdeHello! 12:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support Support --Ahonc 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support Support -- Nahum 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support Support Stifle 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support Support Obelix 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support Support --Garfieldairlines 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support Support --Furado 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support Support iAlex 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good luck! That Thing There 17:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, it appears you're ineligible to vote.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support Support SOAD KoRn 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Support Saloca 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Takkyuu 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) not elligible to vote--Pediboi 12:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support Support --buecherwuermlein 06:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good. Rangond 07:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Support No objection.--Wikipedian (Activist) 08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support Support Oui --P@d@w@ne 08:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support Support Looks about right. --FiliP × 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Support Complete support. Filipe RibeiroMsg 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rui kuhnert 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. The Helpful One 14:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Support --Jón 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Support Leefeni,de Karik 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Support, Bjoertvedt need to be logged in to vote.--Pediboi 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support Support-- Bjoertvedt 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support Support Pro. QuartierLatin1968 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Support --Zeljko 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Support 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support Support ~ Seb35 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Guille.17 Sí not enough contributions--Pediboi 12:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support Support everything looks good HBR 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support Support --Davecrosby uk 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support Support --Thogo (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --无杨 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC) not enough contributions--Pediboi 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support Support I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support Support -gildemax 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support Support --Tarantelle 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support Support--Lighterside 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support Support --Reynaldo 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Support Fred Xavier 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support Support Knows his way around the Wikimedia Projects. Experience and knowledge is key in a situation like this. Support. Marlith T/C 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support Support Davidandrade 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support Support EBY3221 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support Support --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support Support sure --Nick1915 - all you want 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support Support --Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support Support--ZERBERUS 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support Support --Gdgourou 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support Support Oui Adailton 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support Support Changed from Neutral to Support based on answers and a closer inspection of the ptwiki issues cited by opposers and questions. John Vandenberg 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support Support Has some good cross-wiki experience and is trusted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support Support Thewiikione 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Support Tumnus 09:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Support Xenus 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support Support --Baiji --> (Opinión) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support Support Burmeister 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that you will do good job. -- A2 supersonique 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Unegibile voter --Nice poa 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support Support Dobau 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Support Proofreader77 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Snake311 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - all you want 11:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support Support --TNolte 02:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry for IP, my 'Unified Login' was wrong)Reply[reply]
  96. Support Support fr33kman t - c 03:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support Support --Daniel73480 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support Support [[User:Mateus RM|Mateus RM]] <sup>[[User talk:Mateus RM|talk]]</sup> 16:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support Support --Nice poa 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support Support IMatthew 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support Support Rizalninoynapoleon 12:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support Support Garavello 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support Support ok --Rax 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Support No problem O. Morand 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support Support Kleiner 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    yes. Gustavo Roriz 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Uneligible voter. Alex Pereira falaê 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Support Support --João Carvalho 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support Support --Nevinho 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. Support Support Nbarth 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support Support Storkk 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support Support MOOOOOPS 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support Support -- lucasbfr talk 09:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Support --4wajzkd02 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support Support--Alborz Fallah 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support Support--Thesupermat 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. --Mayer Bruno 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support Support Raafael D 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  118. Support Support Gonçalo Veiga 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Good luck!Reply[reply]
  119. Support Support Christian Hartmann 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  120. Support Support Talk2lurch 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Go on!Reply[reply]
  121. Support Support Some people say you are already busy with other tasks and conclude that you shouldn't become a Steward. I disagree with them: first, it is you who knows if you can work more or not; second, you are allowed to become a steward, and if it happens, to resign from some other tasks (and you are also allowed to postpone such resignation until you become a steward). Besides, it is great to have a steward from your time zone and with your language skills. Huji 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 07:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support Support André Koehne 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support Support --Mardetanha talk 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support Support --Meno25 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No

  1. Oppose Oppose — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose Pediboi 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Improper behavior as pt.wikipedia CheckUser as explained hereReply[reply]
    Explained in answer to your question. Alex Pereira falaê 14:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose Sorry but No. Jobcolector. How much more? SysOP, Crat, CU - 9 different jobs until here. This is enough. Marcus Cyron 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. ptwiki issues. Prodego talk 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Caspiax --Caspiax --Caspiax 10:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: This user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his homewiki —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose I agree with Marcus Cyron. Jobcolector. - Al Lemos 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose Me, too, NoychoH 13:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose I agree with Marcus Cyron. Enbéká 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose No. --RoswithaC 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose NonvocalScream 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose Njaelkies Lea 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) The Portuguese issues worry me.Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose No. --Nrainer 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose No. --Andrsvoss 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose No. Agree with Marcus Cyron, too many titles to do. Vinhtantran 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose Hargau 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose Stef48 08:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose Maedin\talk 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Avi 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Moved to neutral upon receipt of satisfactory explanation -- Avi 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Avi, because the summary used by any verification, it's possible to compare user with IPs by logs. Many checkusers have a archive (I have, actual checkusers have, former have) of their verifications, because the tool have a limited time of verification. So, when we have a CU, if applicable, we compare with our archive (obvius, nobody discloses that). I hope have answered your question. Alex Pereira falaê 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will take this to e-mail to preserve the privacy of anyone who may be involved. -- Avi 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose Evidence of canvassing, borderline misuse of checkuser tools per the questions above. AndrewRT 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose Oppose - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose Oppose I am concerned about the answer to Q6. Kingturtle 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose Ozymandias 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Meekohi 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible to vote. --Lucas Nunes 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose DorisAntony 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose Oppose Too much access--132.205.110.197 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) IP don't vote. --Lucas Nunes 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose OpposeMizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) - Too much "jobs". Take it easy!Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose--Drboisclair 22:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose per Marcus Cyron --Wikikids 02:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose Oppose per --User: Valid 02:19, 12 February 2009 sorry, you must to be logged to vote. --Nice poa 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose per Marcus Cyron. I think it's almost impossible to hold all of these positions! --OrsolyaVirág 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose per Marcus Cyron. Khoikhoi 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Neutral perhaps all OK, but someone mentioned ptwiki issues and I think you have enough roles ... --Smihael 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Waiting on answers to questions related to ptwiki. John Vandenberg 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Comment - What happneed in pt.wiki? In end of 2008 one of the CheckUsers resign, and only Alex and other user done the CheckUsers, in the same time, pt.wiki have a lot of sock puppets and dispurtives accounts in this time (PédiBoi is one of them), and we have a time whit 5, 6 CheckUsers at the same time. It's complete normal that Alex, whit so lot of work, have put in analissis the wrong CheckUser (He apologise after that). Béria Lima Msg 12:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral Neutral Waiting for answers on questions 4-8, will vote opposed if questions are not answered by the last day. Leujohn 09:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral Neutral Punx 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral Neutral I am satisfied with the explanation. Thank you, Alex, and good luck. -- Avi 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral Neutral ...Aurora... 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral Neutral Not sure how to vote on this one. Both sides have good arguments. Razorflame 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral Neutral --Sampi 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral Neutral Too pt centric Carsrac 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)View vote pageReply[reply]

Apteva

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

  1. Support Support because otherwise it's impossible to indent the line below properly, and that makes my vote-checking bots not work. ST47 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    --Caspiax--Caspiax 10:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible for voting: the user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his homewiki. —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  2. Support Support --Zeljko 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No

  1. Oppose Oppose No. You have not mentioned anything relevant to stewardship in your summary. Gak 08:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose No, If you are not willing to sign what you write. Fenrisulfir 01:05, 3. February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Abdullah Harun Jewel 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Sorry, I don't believe you have enough experience. Have you thought about en:Administratorship though? With a little work, that might be better. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuclearWarfare (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You just voted two lines up... ST47 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs) diff, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC). ;) --Thogo (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose Puntori 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose Mr.Z-man 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose --Thogo (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose no. Micha L. Rieser 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose I think you should be familiar with your home project first before running for Steward. miranda 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose No Udufruduhu 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Inexperience, haven't really explained what you'd do with the Steward bit and you were blocked back in October on en-wiki, can't support sorry. Matt (Talk) 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose Az1568 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose No. Not a word about the stewardship. This user seems to think it is all about en-Wikipedia what we are talking about, but stewards shouldn't do anything (or ver very little) on en-Wikipedia. We are talking here not about the Wikipedia-project, but about the Wikimedia-project, a small difference in words, a very big difference in practice. Romaine 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose No/いいえ. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose Sorry, but No - what do you want? Marcus Cyron 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose --Kanonkas 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose Not enough experience.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose per some of the issues mentioned above. macy 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose Oppose, inexperienced. — neuro(talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose Oppose --FollowTheMedia 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose --Ivan Štambuk 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose --Tomatejc 02:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose Oppose bibliomaniac15 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose--1j1z2 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose --Revolus Echo der Stille 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose No. Prodego talk 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose—『Skjackey tse』 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Oppose --Sir James 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose Oppose Avjoska 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose Oppose Achates 07:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose Oppose --Shipmaster 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose Oppose Matema 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Oppose Oppose Sorry. Sebleouf 08:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Oppose Oppose --Vd437 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Oppose Oppose --Brownout(msg) 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Oppose Oppose Against monolingual stewardship. Man77"..."(de) 10:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose Oppose --Church of emacs 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose Oppose Efbé Je suis un WikiLover 10:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose Oppose Doesn't show understanding of what stewardship is. Jon Harald Søby 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Oppose Oppose --AFBorchert 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) apparently no experience and no knowledge of foreign languagesReply[reply]
  42. Oppose Oppose Vyk 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Oppose Oppose --KRLS 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose Oppose are you joking? --Smihael 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose Oppose only using a username when necessary - stewards use a username more than when necessary'. The Helpful One 11:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose Oppose Against monolingual stewardship (especially english speaker). VIGNERON * discut. 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Oppose Oppose Béria Lima Msg 11:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose Oppose In my view, stewards on EN Wikipedia should speak English as their first language. Also this user cannot be praised (if that if the right word) for the edits he has made via an IP account as we cannot tell for sure whether this user made those edits. Also user has not had enough experience. Manadude2 12:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose Oppose --Florian Adler 12:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose Oppose sorry axpdeHello! 12:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Oppose Oppose —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Oppose Oppose --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Oppose Oppose Stewardship has little or nothing to do with enwiki. Stifle 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Oppose Oppose John Vandenberg 14:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Oppose Oppose Obelix 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Oppose Oppose Obelix 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Oppose Oppose Enbéká 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Oppose Oppose Jdrewitt 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Oppose Oppose Japiot 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Oppose Oppose À cause du manque d'expérience avec les outils d'admin. / Lack of experience with admins' tools. --Edhral 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Oppose Oppose Seems to be very little active (less than 50 edits in 3 monts) even in his home wiki — NickK 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Oppose Oppose Obviously not nearly enough experience. Majorly talk 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Oppose Oppose Saloca 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Oppose Oppose –Ejs-80 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Oppose Oppose NonvocalScream 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Oppose Oppose No. Razorflame 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply