Global sysops/Vote

The following discussion is closed: This proposal passes, but without the "Global blocks" related rights.

---

This proposal's raw rating is : 1385 / 1802 (76.9%).

One of the main points of concern about this proposal is the ability of global sysop to globally block accounts. (supports 39, 209, 422, 520 / opposes 5, 6, 13, 25, 50, 67, 77, 82, 89, 102, 148, 171, 180, 187, 217, 231, 242, 248, 252, 327, 331, 349, 387 ; plus all the people that voted "as per" them)

The proposal should have been closed a whole month ago. The most viable compromise seems allow the proposal while removing this litigious bit.

so.

The Global Sysop proposal is accepted, with the following rights removed from its original formulation :

• Bypass global blocks (globalblock-exempt)
• Disable global blocks locally (globalblock-whitelist)
• Make global blocks (globalblock)
• Remove global blocks (globalunblock)

DarkoNeko 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The global sysops vote is over.

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.

NuclearWarfare has contributed to wikis which will be affected

As proposer[1] NW (Talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - NuclearWarfare checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Maximillion Pegasus is a sysop on an affected wiki

Maximillion Pegasus 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Maximillion Pegasus checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Barras is a sysop on an affected wiki

Barras ^talk 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Barras checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Jamesofur has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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.

1.  Eligible - Jamesofur checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

2. I don't see why not.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Gordonrox24 checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

VasilievVV is a sysop on an affected wiki

vvv^t 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - VasilievVV (vvv) checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

J.delanoy has contributed to wikis which will be affected

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - J.delanoy checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Katerenka may have contributed to kwwiki, which is an affected wiki

···Katerenka (討論) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Katerenka checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Lar has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Care in choosing these folk is key but this is a needed and useful thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Lar checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

2. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Deliriousandlost checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

WizardOfOz is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

--WizardOfOz 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - WizardOfOz checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Tempodivalse is a sysop on an affected wiki

 Support This is a good idea. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Tempodivalse checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

2. 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)

    Eligible - Rd232 checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Why not !!! [✖ not eligible]

    Not eligible Rechecked. Unsigned vote is by Jaymondy (see evidence), who is not entitled to vote (see here and also here) - Jaymody checked by (RT) 04:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

GSMR has contributed to wikis which will be affected

GSMR 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - GSMR checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Bart0278 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--Bart0278 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Bart0278 checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

MisterWiki has contributed an English page to a wiki which will be affected

--MisterWiki (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Not eligible Vote actually by Fire in the Hole (see evidence) who is not eligible to vote (see here and also here). Later duplicate vote from same account - Fire in the Hole (signed as MisterWiki) checked by (RT) 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

2. IRTC1015 03:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - IRTC1015 checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

   I agree. --Awesong 03:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [✖ not eligible—VasilievVV]

    Not eligible Rechecked. At the time of voting had not been registered for at least 3 months (see here and also here) - Awesong checked by (RT) 01:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Laaknor is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

Help needed! Laaknor 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Laaknor checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Masrudin has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Masrudin 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Masrudin checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Kwj2772 is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

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

1.  Moved vote Rechecked. See evidence here and also here - Kwj2772 checked by (RT) 01:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Eligible - Jivee Blau checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

   Yes. Wq-man 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [✖ not eligible—VasilievVV]

    Not eligible Rechecked. At the time of voting had not been registered for at least 3 months (see here and also here) - Wq-man checked by (RT) 02:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Juliancolton has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Durr. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Juliancolton checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. PeterSymonds 03:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - PeterSymonds checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Nifky? has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Nifky? 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Nifky? checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

   Ganondolf 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [✖ not eligible]

    Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here). - Ganondolf checked by (RT) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

TRYPPN's home wiki will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - TRYPPN checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Mike.lifeguard has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Mike.lifeguard checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

blurpeace has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Definite necessity for our smaller projects. –blurpeace ^(talk) 08:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - blurpeace checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Ejs-80 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Ejs-80 checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. A fine proposal in favor of our smaller wikis. IShadowed 08:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - IShadowed checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Tiptoety has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Per my comments at Talk:Global sysops. Tiptoety ^talk 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Tiptoety checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Those small projects would benefit a lot from this. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Chamal N checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Herbythyme has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Long overdue --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Herbythyme checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Yes BejinhanTalk 12:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bejinhan checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

3s has contributed to wikis which will be affected

3s 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - 3s checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

ZorroIII has contributed to wikis which will be affected

ZorroIII 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - ZorroIII checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Leinad has contributed to wikis which will be affected

LeinaD (t) 14:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC) cross-wiki patrollers are very helpful and part of them should have GS priviliges

1.  Eligible - Leinad checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Ulflarsen has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Ulflarsen 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Ulflarsen checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --Ellysse 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [✖ not eligible—VasilievVV]

    Not eligible Agreed, does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project and at the time of voting and had not been registered for at least 3 months (see also here). - Ellysse checked by (RT) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Bjoertvedt has contributed to wikis which will be affected

-- Bjoertvedt 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

    Eligible Subsequently logged in (see here) - Bjoertvedt checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Kjetil_r is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

--Kjetil_r 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Kjetil r checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Erwin is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

Would definitely be helpful. --Erwin 16:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Erwin checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Dungodung is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

I'm a bit skeptical about global blocks, but the rest of the permissions seem fine. --FiliP ██ 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Dungodung (FiliP) checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

DerHexer has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Same as dungy. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Longer German explanation: w:de:Benutzer:DerHexer/Blog#Global_sysops

1.  Eligible - DerHexer checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Jon Harald Søby has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Jon Harald Søby 16:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Jon Harald Søby checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Multichill has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Multichill 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Multichill checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Atluxity 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Atluxity checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

3. (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)

    Eligible - Lolsimon checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

4. Petter Bøckman 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Petter Bøckman checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

5. Vigorous action 18:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Vigorous action checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Fruggo has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Fruggo 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Fruggo checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Sustructu 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

    Eligible Reinstated, looks fine (See here and also here) - Sustructu checked by (RT) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Vito Genovese has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Per Mike.lifeguard--Vito Genovese 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Vito Genovese checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Coffee has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Coffee (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Coffee checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Seddon 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Seddon checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

IAlex has contributed to wikis which will be affected

iAlex 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - iAlex checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Mezelf14 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Mezelf14 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Mezelf14 checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Prince Kassad has contributed to wikis which will be affected

-- Prince Kassad 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Prince Kassad checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

DaB. has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--DaB. 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Why not. As long as they don't interfere in middle and big wikis.

1.  Eligible - DaB. checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --StG1990 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - StG1990 checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Smial has contributed to wikis which will be affected

-- smial 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Smial checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Jake Wartenberg may have contributed to wikis which will be affected

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Jake Wartenberg checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

ZaDiak is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

--ZaDiak 02:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - ZaDiak checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Bibliomaniac15 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

bibliomaniac15 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Bibliomaniac15 checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Cirt has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Cirt (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Cirt checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Pmlineditor is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

Yes. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Pmlineditor checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Harrywad has contributed to wikis which will be affected

-Harrywad 11:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Harrywad checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Putnik is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

— putnik 12:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Putnik checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

MF-Warburg is a sysop on two wikis which will be affected

--MF-W 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - MF-Warburg (MF-W) checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Cumulus has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Cumulus 14:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Cumulus checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support lightening the load on stewards with this supporting role. ~ Ningauble 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

   Ningauble is a sysop on a project which will be affected by a shift in steward workload. Ningauble appreciates the assistance provided by stewards when no administrators were patrolling, and does not appreciate attempts to deprecate the votes of those who have a valid interest in the outcome. ~ Ningauble 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ningauble checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Sounds good. Glacier Wolf 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Glacier Wolf checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

A333 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

A333 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - A333 checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --Peroxwhy2gen 08:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Peroxwhy2gen checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

EdBever has contributed to wikis which will be affected

EdBever 08:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - EdBever checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Red 81 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Red 81 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Red 81 checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Lampak has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Lampak 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Lampak checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. I think we have to help small projects, because they can’t help themselves and vandals can very easily at the beginning of their ‘life’. Tajniak2 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tajniak2 checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Taketa has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Taketa 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Taketa checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Beany 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Beany checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

3. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - MBisanz checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Robotje has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Robotje 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Robotje checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Mhaesen has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Mhaesen 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Mhaesen checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Good idea! Aku506 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Aku506 checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Erik1980 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Erik1980 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Erik1980 checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Herr Kriss is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

Herr Kriss 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Herr Kriss checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Mwpnl has contributed to wikis which will be affected

m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Mwpnl (Mark W) checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. ken123 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - ken123 checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Ency has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Ency 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) pl why not

1.  Eligible - Ency checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. EMeczKa 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - EMeczKa checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Merdis has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Merdis 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Merdis checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Aotearoa has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Aotearoa 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Aotearoa checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Trivelt has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Trivelt 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Trivelt checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Willking1979 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Willking1979 checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

RubiksMaster110 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

RubiksMaster110 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - RubiksMaster110 checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Angela has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Angela 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Angela checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Phantomsteve 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Phantomsteve checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

The Evil IP address has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--The Evil IP address 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - The Evil IP address checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

   Annotations of which voters are affected ends here currently; please help add more.

2. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Logan checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

3. – Innv | d | s: 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Innv checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

4. Karol007 ✉ 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Karol007 checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

5. -- Avi 04:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Avraham (Avi) checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

6. - miya 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - miya checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

7. --Bsadowski1 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bsadowski1 checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

8. -- Razorflame 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Razorflame checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

9. Gdarin | talk 10:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Gdarin checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

10. Cycn 11:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Cycn checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

11. --Kaganer 13:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kaganer checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

12. Diegusjaimes 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Diegusjaimes checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

13. --Jan eissfeldt 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC) of course

     Eligible - Jan eissfeldt checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here). - 8BitHero checked by (RT) 04:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Eligible - Thunderhead checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    94.224.94.149 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible IP can't vote; log in required - 94.224.94.149 checked by (RT) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

15. Kafziel 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kafziel checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

16. --Taichi - (あ！) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Taichi checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

17. Frank 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Frank checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

18. NativeForeigner 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - NativeForeigner checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Valicore 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Valicore checked by (RT) 19:19, 15 February 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.

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Odehammar checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

    Jeffwang16 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Also not registered for 3 months, see also here - Jeffwang16 checked by (RT) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

19. Addihockey10 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Addihockey10 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Stinging Swarm 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project and at the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. --(RT) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

20. Emrahertr 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Emrahertr checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

21. Geni 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Geni checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

22. ZooPro 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - ZooPro checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

23. Bradybd 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bradybd checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

24. Please, this will be helpful. Ceranthor 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Ceranthor checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 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)

     Not eligible Rechecked. Voter was not logged in (see evidence) - 76.201.63.246, BlueSatoshi checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Eligible - Guettarda checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Deehh 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Deehh checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  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)

     Eligible - Argyle 4 Life checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    —§ stay (sic)! 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Snake311 checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Snake311 checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

27. Syohei.A(talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Araisyohei (Syohei.A) checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

28. Blodance 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Blodance checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

29. Saebjorn 02:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Saebjorn checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

30. Sander Fraga 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sander Fraga checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

31. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ryan Postlethwaite checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

32. oscar 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Oscar checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

33. DrNegative 02:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DrNegative checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

34. Maxima m 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Maxima m checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

35. Evalowyn 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Evalowyn checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

36. Mind the gap 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mind the gap checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Gravedig2 2:31 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Gravedig2 checked by (RT) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

37. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ktr101 (Kevin Rutherford) checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

38. 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)

     Eligible - Valley2city checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

39. Even the little projects should have people looking out for them. AP1787 02:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - AP1787 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

40. Tarheel95 02:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tarheel95 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

41. 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)

     Eligible - Nil Einne checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

42. Editor182 13:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Editor182 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    OurDigitalVision Please be more responsible

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - OurDigitalVision checked by (RT) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

43. I don't see why not. Bloodmerchant 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bloodmerchant checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

44. Yes, but there is potential for serious misunderstandings caused by language issues Thparkth 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Thparkth checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months (see here and also here) - Mimar77 checked by (RT) 21:52, 12 February 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)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Darkbluesun checked by (RT) 12:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

45. billinghurst 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Absolutely.

     Eligible - Billinghurst checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

46. Carl 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Radiocrazy (Carl) checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

47. --Taweetham 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Taweetham checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

48. Commander Keane 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Commander Keane checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 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)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Steve Joseph checked by (RT) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

49. 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.

     Eligible - Perey checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

50. This change is long overdue, as experience with chr wikipedia demonstrated a few years ago. Wikiacc (§) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Wikiacc checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    iSquishy

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - iSquishy checked by (RT) 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

51. Yes. Teinesavaii 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Teinesavaii checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

52. Zwilson14 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Zwilson14 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

53. Shooter16101 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Shooter16101 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

54. Yes. --The New Mikemoral 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - The New Mikemoral checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

55. DerAndre 04:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DerAndre checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Bentoman checked by (RT) 21:52, 12 February 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)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months (see here and also here) - Adi4094 checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Vote was actually by 트리플루 (see evidence) who was registered for less than 3 months with insufficient edits (see here and also here) - 트리플루 (Triple.Rhu) checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

56.  Support Shivashree 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Shivashree checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

57.  Support Calebrw 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Calebrw checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

58. Yes, --Sarumo74 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible - Sarumo74 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Mr. Anon515 checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

59. --Bellayet 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bellayet checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

60. --Atu 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Atu checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

61.  Support As long as it's not abused, it's a good idea. For.--Maximz2005 04:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Maximz2005 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

62. Yk Yk Yk 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Yk Yk Yk checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

63. Yes. Magnefl 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Magnefl checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Fischy checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

    Terence 05:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Terence checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Terence checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

64. Yes. Logical proposal providing necessary help. Ezratrumpet 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ezratrumpet checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

65. Juan Miguel 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Juan Miguel checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

66. --J Hazard 05:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - J Hazard checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

67. If help is needed then we should help Chaosdruid 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Chaosdruid checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Yes. We need a way to quickly stop vandalism. Eric Scubeesnax 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Scubeesnax checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Scubeesnax checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

68. Yes. Seablade 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Seablade checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

69. Jamesjiao 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jamesjiao checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Yes Noraft 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    User ineligible (registered after October 1st 2009)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months (see here and also here) - Noraft checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

70. Alvaro qc 05:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alvaro qc checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

71.  Support Yes --Delivi 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Delivi checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

72. Because the projects are allowed to opt-out. -- kh80 05:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kh80 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

73.  Support. It is very good idea. Mondalor 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mondalor checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

74. Geanixx 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Geanixx checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

75.  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)

     Eligible - Angrysockhop checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

76.  Support IlyaHaykinson 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - IlyaHaykinson checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

77.  Support Aldo samulo 06:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Aldo samulo checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

78. Nixón 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Nixón checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

79.  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)

     Eligible - Trinity507 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

80.  Support IVP 06:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - IVP checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 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)

81.  Support nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Nat checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

82.  Support --Labant 06:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sadly you are [ineligible to vote because you registered on October 4th 2009 (the requirement is October 1st) If you have an old account that is eligible to vote please feel free to use that and your opinion is of course still welcome and you can join in on the discussions. James (T|C) 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked and reinstated. At the time of voting Labant had been registered for 3 months on de wikipedia and had sufficient edits, meeting the eligibility criteria set out at the head of this page (see here) - Labant checked by (RT) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

83. Kv75 06:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kv75 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 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-very-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)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Sompm checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

84.  Support--Shizhao 06:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Shizhao checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

85. --Heiko 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Heiko checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

86. Hohohob 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hohohob checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

87.  Support - Wysprgr2005 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Wysprgr2005 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

88. --Djlordi 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Djlordi checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

89.  Supportמתניה 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - מתניה checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

90.  Support Dovi 07:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dovi checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

91.  Support --Caponer 07:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Caponer checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

92.  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.

     Eligible - CaribDigita checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Nickaat checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

93.  Support Kimchi.sg 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kimchi.sg checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

94.  Support - seems like a good idea--Pianoplonkers 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pianoplonkers checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - CntRational checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Petri 08:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    User ineligible (not enough edits) James (T|C) 03:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible The Petri account does not have sufficient edits (see also here); possibly the same user as Pjr, but no link provided - Petri checked by (RT) 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

95.  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)

     Eligible - Cavernia checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Clamiax checked by (RT) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

96. Great idea! —what a crazy random happenstance 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Happenstance checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

97. --DS-fax 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hat600 (DS-fax) checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

98.  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)

     Eligible - Tyw7 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

99.  Support Merlissimo 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Merlissimo checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

100.  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)

      Eligible - Peremen checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

101.  Support Kenrick95 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Kenrick95 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

102.  Support --Wvk 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Wvk checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

103. --Treublatt 08:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Treublatt checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

104.  Support VMS Mosaic 08:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - VMS Mosaic checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

105.  Support --Lutz Terheyden 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Lutz Terheyden checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

106.  Support --Faizhaider 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Faizhaider checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

107.  Support, I like this idea. --Mercy 09:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Mercy checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

108.  Support --Ragimiri 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Ragimiri checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

109.  Support good idea for small projects --Tlusťa 09:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Tlusťa checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

110.  Support Reduction of Steward - workload by distributing "simple" admin tasks on adminless wikis. --Guandalug 09:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Guandalug checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

111.  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)

      Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Mathmo checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

112.  Support --Vigilius 09:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Vigilius checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

113.  Support - Very efficient way to improove the organization of "understaffed" projects. Leujohn ^(talk) 09:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Leujohn checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

114.  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)

      Eligible - DaGizza checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

115. --Euku 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Euku checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

     --Fschubert 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     user ineligible (account created after October 1st 2009) James (T|C) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Fschubert checked by (RT) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

116. 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)

      Eligible - GrafZahl checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

117.  Support Makes sense. rursus 10:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Rursus checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

118.  Support -- Klaus Eifert 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Klaus Eifert checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

119.  Support Yes/Kyllä --Jepse 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Jepse checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

120.  Support Seems sensibly bounded by parameters. --Dweller 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Dweller checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

121.  Support--Rsmn 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Rsmn checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

122.  Support --Harald Haugland 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Harald Haugland checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

123.  Support Very sensible idea for projects just getting started. --Clarince63 10:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Clarince63 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

124.  Support --Wedderkop 10:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Wedderkop checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

125. Great idea. Pitke 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Pitke checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

126.  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)

      Eligible - Freederick checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

127.  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)

      Eligible - Andrew Dalby checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

128.  Support Seems like a good idea. Alan16 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Alan16 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      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)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

129.  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)

      Eligible - Geitost checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

130.  Support Sahmeditor 11:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Sahmeditor checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

131.  Support ThorJH 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - ThorJH checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

132.  Support Razimantv 11:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Razimantv checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

133.  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)

      Eligible - Jbolden1517 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

134.  Support notafish }<';> 11:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Notafish checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

135.  Support --თოგო ^(D) 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Thogo (თოგო) checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

136.  Support Support blindspots can create significant problems for the project as a whole. SamJohnston 11:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - SamJohnston checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

137. Working on a small wiki myself I can see this being something of a Godsend for most. Garden 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Garden checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

138.  Support Daniel (‽) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Dbmag9 (Daniel) checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

139.  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)

      Eligible - Knee427 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

140.  Support Absolutley WilliamF1two 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - WilliamF1two checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      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)

      Not eligible JulieSpaudling account is ineligible (see here and also here); actual vote was by Artic Night (see evidence), who has not provided links and has not unified their account - JulieSpaulding checked by (RT) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

141.  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)

      Eligible - Mjroots checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

142.  Support. Very useful for our job at SWMT. --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 12:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Lucien leGrey checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

143.  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)

      Eligible - VIGNERON checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

144.  Support --ThT 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - ThT checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

145.  Support Vladimir.frolov 12:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Vladimir.frolov checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

146. --alexscho 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Alexscho checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

147.  Support Tomatoman 12:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Tomatoman checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Trdsf 12:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     You are not eligible for voting. – Innv | d | s: 07:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Trdsf checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support--Cyrillic 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Seems like a good idea.

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Cyrillic checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

      Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Cyrillic checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

148. --Nemo 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Nemo bis checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

149.  Support Mheart 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Mheart checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

150.  Support --Pitlane02 12:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Pitlane02 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Doktorbuk 12:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Doktorbuk checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

      Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Doktorbuk checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

151. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Redvers checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

152.  Support --BokicaK 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - BokicaK checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

153.  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)

      Eligible - Nutiketaiel checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

154.  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)

      Eligible - Chrism checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

155.  Support - Proposal seems rational and for the betterment of the entire Wiki community. --Mwilso24 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Mwilso24 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

156.  Support J-L Cavey 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - J-L Cavey checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

157.  Support I agree, small wiki have problems to get sysop. Vasiľ 13:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Vasiľ checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

158.  Support Will help us get at cross-wiki vandals who use small wikis to create malicious accounts. NawlinWiki 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - NawlinWiki checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 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)

159.  Support Muro de Aguas 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Muro de Aguas checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

160.  Support Tostan 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Tostan checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

161.  Support Conaughy 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Conaughy checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support I think this is a good way to improve small wikis -- HF cars and sets 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

162.  Support Good idea. Raychut 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Raychut checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

     Yes. Tgkprog 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

163. Yes. Swatjester 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Swatjester checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

164.  Support Evet! --Goktr001 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Goktr001 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

165.  Support I support. Albertus Aditya 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Albertus Aditya checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

166.  Support Linedwell@frwiki 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Linedwell checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

167.  Support --FischX 14:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - FischX checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

168.  Support--VincenzoX 14:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - VincenzoX checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

169.  Support --амдф 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Amdf (амдф) checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

170.  Support --TheGrimReaper NS 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - TheGrimReaper NS checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

171. --Sanbec 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Sanbec checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

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

      Eligible Rechecked and reinstated. Voter logged in (see evidence); registered in 2007 and had sufficient edits (see here and also here) - Joe N checked by (RT) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

173.  Support A sensible extra layer of defense against mass vandalism attacks. Durova 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Durova checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

174.  Support --Frank schubert 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Frank schubert checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

175.  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)

      Eligible - SunProj3cT checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

176.  Support -- small wikis need some help. Renata3 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Renata3 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

177.  Support Taking a hit for the little guy sounds good to me. Neelix 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Neelix checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

178. Sandstein 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Sandstein checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

179.  Support. Since trust is not a matter of languages -- Vwm 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Vwm checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

180.  Support Christian Giersing 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Christian Giersing checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

181. Don't agree with the silly support templates but chalk this up as a support Spartaz 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Spartaz checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

182.  Support --Engelbaet 15:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Engelbaet checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      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)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

183.  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)

      Eligible - Paginazero checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

184.  Support --ゆきち 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Yukichi99 (ゆきち) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

185.  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)

      Eligible - Thecurran checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

186.  Support Carolfrog 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Carolfrog checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Carolfrog checked by (RT) 11:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

187.  Support Neeters 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Neeters checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

188.  Support Juliabackhausen 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Juliabackhausen checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

189.  Support -- zur887 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Zur887 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

190.  Support --Morten Haan 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Morten Haan checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     robaco would have been entitled to voted later in the voting period - however at the time of voting 150 edits had not been reached (137 on pt wiki). --(RT) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

191.  Support --Lépton ^✉ 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Lépton checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

192.  Support --Transmissionelement 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Transmissionelement checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

193.  Support --Jonathan Groß 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Jonathan Groß checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

194.  Support Sensible approach to solving a real problem. FloNight 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - FloNight checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - TheBestPilarYouWillEverSee checked by (RT) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

195.  Support –neurovelho 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Neurovelho checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

196.  Support. JamieS93 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - JamieS93 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

197.  Support Kubłok31 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Kubłok31 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

198.  Support /Poxnar 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Poxnar checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

199.  Support Tpt 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Tpt checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

200.  Support Tuvalkin 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Tuvalkin checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

201.  Support Hosiryuhosi 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Hosiryuhosi checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

202.  Support --FlügelRad 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - FlügelRad checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

203.  Support Fantastic idea, as long as they are not annoying and act "the hard man". Conay 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Conay checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

204.  Support --Anthony Ivanoff 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Anthony Ivanoff checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

205.  Support this idea. Actually it has already been tested in Wikia (helpers), and it works. Wassily Steik 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified account, but link provided - Медиа (Wassily Steik) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

206.  Support Hrcolyer 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Hrcolyer checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

207.  Support Catherine 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - CatherineMunro (Catherine) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Jyka checked by (RT) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

208.  Support With caution, as per Kimdino. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - OwenBlacker checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

209.  Support Kaldari 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Kaldari checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

210.  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.

      Eligible - Arkuat checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

211. Laser brain 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Laser brain checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

212.  Support Ateria 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Ateria checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Braveheart09 would have been entitled to voted later in the voting period - however at the time of voting 150 edits had not been reached. --(RT) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

213.  Support The Anome 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - The Anome checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

214.  Support Migt be useful for small african wikis JAn Dudík 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - JAn Dudík checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

215.  Support Will be good for smaller Wikis. But let´s see if is it working or not. --Chmee2 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Chmee2 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

216.  Support SBC-YPR 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - SBC-YPR checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

217.  Support --DieBuche 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - DieBuche checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Why not? Clearly, many smaller projects need this. Innotata 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 7 January 2010). --(RT) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

218.  Support Stefaniak 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Stefaniak checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

219. Support. -AlexSm 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Alex Smotrov (AlexSm) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

220. Support --M/ 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - M7 (M/) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

221.  Support Rajiv Varma 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Rajiv Varma checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

222.  Support --Amrum 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Amrum checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

223. Very yes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Amorymeltzer (Amory) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Pattiz checked by (RT) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

224.  Support Yo creo que esto es algo bueno para la wiki ya que hay muchos vandalos--Moms10 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Moms10 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

225.  Support Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Cocoaguy checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

226.  Support --Krdan 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Krdan checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

227.  Support Raysonho 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Raysonho checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

228.  Support --Toobaz 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Toobaz checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Dunshocking checked by (RT) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

229. --Thalan

      Eligible - Thalan checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

230. Seems useful. No such power than stewards --Sargoth 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Sargoth checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

231.  Support Sebk. 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Sebk. checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

232.  Support --Amir E. Aharoni 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Amire80 (Amir E. Aharoni) checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

233. Izno 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Izno checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Skamecrazy123 checked by (RT) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

234.  Support - Eric-Wester 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Eric-Wester checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

235.  Support -- Cozzycovers 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Cozzycovers checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

236.  Support Good idea. I believe it can help the projects. --egg 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Egg checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

237.  Support Seems a good idea - Lnegro 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Lnegro checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

238.  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)

      Eligible - Rannpháirtí anaithnid (coṁrá) checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

239.  Support - Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Jeffrey Mall checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

240.  Support GameOn 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - GameOn checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Armageddon11 checked by (RT) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

241.  Support - Rainmonger 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Rainmonger checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

242.  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)

      Eligible - I Feel Tired checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

243.  Support --Alterego 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Alterego checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

244.  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.

      Eligible - ClockworkSoul checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

245. Shii 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Shii checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

246. --Osd@ruwiki 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Osd checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

247. --Philippe 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Philippe checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

248. --Enemenemu 20:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Looks like a solution for a problem

      Eligible - Enemenemu checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

249.  Support Sole Soul 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Sole Soul checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

250. --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.

      Eligible - AFBorchert checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

251.  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.

      Eligible - Lumos3 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Gkarpljuk 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 02:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

252.  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)

      Eligible - Jeremjay24 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

253.  Support Pschemp 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Pschemp checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      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.

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

254.  Support Absolute power corrupts absolutely; it's a Good Thing this isn't absolute power. Dhatfield 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Dhatfield checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support IzzyReal We as a collective entity need to protect the smaller articles. So Heck yeah!

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

255.  Support --Dreaven3 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Dreaven3 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support --cslatlantis 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Totally great idea. Too many people have been screwing up the facts.

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 01:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

256.  Support --Gereon K. 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Gereon K. checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

257.  Support --Daemorris 21:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Daemorris checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support --Ding1dong 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

258.  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)

      Eligible - Adamfinmo (Adam in MO) checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

259.  Support --Abaumg 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Abaumg checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

260.  Support Nbarth 21:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Nbarth checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

261.  Support Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - QuiteUnusual checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

262.  Support - Vinvlugt 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Vinvlugt checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 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)

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Na'vi checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

263.  Support -- Sounds interesting and worth a go. DD2K 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - DD2K checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

264.  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)

      Eligible - Vertigo Man-iac checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

265.  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)

      Eligible - Tony1 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

266.  Support I like this idea --Adrille 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Adrille checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

267.  Support --Zinnmann 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Zinnmann checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

268.  Support ok -Kacembepower 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Kacembepower checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support G8crash3r 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Great idea. I think I can help out if given the opportunity.

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project and at the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. --(RT) 01:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

269.  Support I support the motion Endo999 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Endo999 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

270.  Support - Much needed. -- Avenue 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Avenue checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

271.  Support --ysangkok 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Ysangkok checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

272. Majorly talk 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Majorly checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

273.  Support I agree with the idea behind this as long as the opt-out is there. Woody 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Woody checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

274.  Support --Pelz 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Pelz checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

275.  Support - I support whatever will provide help for smaller wikis. -- Atama頭 23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Atama checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

276.  Support - We need effective ways and tools against vandalism. I hope this will help! --Ulanwp 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Ulanwp checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

277.  Support --Computerjoe 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Computerjoe checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

278.  Support -- Montgomery 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Montgomery checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

279.  Support I agree with Paginazero. --Fredericks 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Fredericks checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

280.  Support Makes sense to me.-LtMuldoon

      Eligible - LtMuldoon checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

281. Yup. Makes perfect sense. BG7 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Bluegoblin7 (BG7) checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

282.  Support --MoRsE 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - MoRsE checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

283.  Support --Schmendrik881 23:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Schmendrik881 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

284.  Support Adambro 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Adambro checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

285.  Support --Something12356789101 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Something12356789101 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

286.  Support Royalbroil 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Royalbroil checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

287.  Support --Emes 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Emes checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

288.  Support Fetchcomms 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Fetchcomms checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

      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.

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

      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)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

289.  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)

      Eligible - Wefa checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

     Annotations start here

290.  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)

      Eligible - AndrewRT checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

291.  Support bonne idée --Ofol 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible - Ofol checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

St. Alex has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --St. Alex 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - St. Alex checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --E020613 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - E020613 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Definitely a good idea. —MC10 (T•C•L•EM) 01:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - MC10 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Sneaky 013 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Sneaky 013 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Wesha has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support -- Wesha 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Wesha checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Ukexpat has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --Ukexpat 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Ukexpat checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Support, sounds like a good idea--Jac16888 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jac16888 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Giants27 Talk to Me 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Giants27 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Wikitiki89 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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.

1.  Eligible - Wikitiki89 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Themfromspace 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Themfromspace checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3. --Jodoform 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jodoform checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support--Christian Lindecke 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Christian Lindecke checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support GreenReaper 02:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - GreenReaper checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

the ed17 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - The ed17 (Ed) checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Slark 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Slark checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Patar knight 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Patar knight checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Seems sane enough and commensurate with the problem. --Kay Dekker 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kay Dekker checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Nothing I can think of that would make this a bad idea. --Shirik 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Shirik checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Starblind/Andrew Lenahan has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Andrew Lenahan 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Starblind (Andrew Lenahan) checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support ~fl 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Fl checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Bouchecl 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bouchecl checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support BfPage Hey can I be one of those sysops?

    Eligible - Bfpage checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Jack Merridew has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support — a very good idea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Jack Merridew checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 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.

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Jamie314 checked by (RT) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Personplacething checked by (RT) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

    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.

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - 9548coolgirl checked by (RT) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Plommespiser checked by (RT) 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

    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.

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Jmans25 checked by (RT) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

    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?

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 26 October 2009). --(RT) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Tentative  Support Shoefly 18:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This change should not create any power monopolies.

    Eligible - Shoefly checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Christopher Pritchard checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  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.

    Eligible - Gullit Torres checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Carptrash 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'll try anything . . . . ...... once.

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Carptrash checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Carptrash checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support (Wiki id2 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 16 November 2009). --(RT) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5.  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.

    Eligible - Kimdino checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

   {{Orion11}} Yes, thats good —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.229.164.197 (talk • contribs) 2010-01-07T14:20:57 (UTC)

   Anon vote. John Vandenberg 08:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Voter was not logged in (see evidence); Orion11 did not log in to vote (see here) - 79.229.164.197, Orion11 checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

    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. TomBeasley 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 20 November 2009). --(RT) 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

    SupportFindiver13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I like the above wording : "start being nazi on editing"

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Findiver checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support DarioAlvarez

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - DarioAlvarez checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

6. --Teepoet 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Yes.

    Eligible - Teepoet checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

   James Brian Ellis 08:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 13 December 2009). --(RT) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

7. 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.

    Eligible - WngLdr34 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support with obvious need for careful thought in the selection process. Kafka Liz 03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kafka Liz checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Closedmouth has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--Closedmouth 03:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Closedmouth checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Canyouhearmenow checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Bradjamesbrown checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Roberto de Lyra has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Good idea. Roberto de Lyra 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Roberto de Lyra checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Thejetset1 checked by (RT) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Steven Walling (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Steven Walling checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - FlyingPenguins checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Seems to be a very reasonable proposal to me. Basket of Puppies 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Basket of Puppies checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  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)

    Eligible - Mr.Z-man checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

6. Llakais 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Llakais checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Paradoctor has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Paradoctor checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - BaronLarf checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Rintaminator checked by (RT) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Grandmasterka has contributed to wikis which will be affected

EMPHATIC  Support. This is a long overdue solution to the abuse of small projects. Grandmasterka 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Grandmasterka checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support. I hope that this will reduce vandalism, while protections mentioned will prevent abuse. Tigerhawkvok 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Tigerhawkvok checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3. 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)

    Eligible - Wishfulanthony checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Jclemens 05:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jclemens checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Tm93 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Small wikis need experienced "sysops" to help them grow.

    Eligible - Tm93 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Rudyramjet checked by (RT) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support Sensible way to help small wikisJohn Quiggin 05:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - John Quiggin checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Sirozha has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support nice practise for small wikis --Sirozha 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Sirozha checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Ozob 06:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ozob checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Dcoetzee has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Dcoetzee checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Onee checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3. Quiddity 06:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Quiddity checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Graeme Bartlett has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Support only purpose is to assist. Graeme Bartlett 06:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Graeme Bartlett checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Brücke-Osteuropa has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support -- Brücke-Osteuropa 06:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Brücke-Osteuropa checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Woraponboonkerd has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support -- Worapon B. ^talk 06:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Woraponboonkerd (Worapon B.) checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

EVula has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Easiest choice I've made all day. Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - EVula checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Insufficient edits, see here and also here - Tholau checked by (RT) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

.snoopy. has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --.snoopy. ✉ 07:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - .snoopy. checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Orderinchaos has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --Orderinchaos 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Orderinchaos checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --JohnMarcelo 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - JohnMarcelo checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --newspaperman 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Newspaperman checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Makes sense -- this will help the smaller projects. --MCB 07:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - MCB checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Needed it for years. Biem 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Biem checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

6. --Revvar 07:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Revvar checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Maedin has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Maedin checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --2thuriel 08:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - 2thuriel checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Klaws 08:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Klaws checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Starwiz 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Starwiz checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

4. Suppport Ged UK 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ged UK checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Gabriel Kielland has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support -- Gabriel Kielland 08:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Gabriel Kielland checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --Eriklindroos 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Eriklindroos checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Clem23 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Support Clem23 08:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Clem23 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support -- Andre315 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Andre315 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Pipedreamergrey 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I'm all for anything that will foster a sense of community among the smaller wikis.

    Eligible - Pipedreamergrey checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Leolaursen is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Support Leolaursen 08:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Leolaursen checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Physchim62 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Physchim62 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Physchim62 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support There's no reason to deny it. - Ellif 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Galadrien (Ellif) checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Windharp checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Redagavimas is a sysop on an wiki which will be affected

 Support --Redagavimas 09:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Redagavimas checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Stifle has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Stifle 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Stifle checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Patangel 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible At the time of your vote, you had been registered for 3 months (see here) as specified in the multilingual header of this page. However a contested view is that registation should be 1 October 2009 (shown here) - Patangel checked by (RT) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Mpadowadierf 09:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mpadowadierf checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Murgh has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Murgh 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Murgh checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Altenmann has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Altenmann 09:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Altenmann checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Bschandramohan

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Bschandramohan checked by (RT) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Ahmad87

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (although number of edits on fa wiki now exceeds that, see here) - Ahmad87 checked by (RT) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Cryngo has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Cryngo 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Cryngo checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Vladimir Solovjev has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support--Vladimir Solovjev 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Vladimir Solovjev checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Pjoef has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Yes, it's a good idea. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Pjoef checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Akkifokkusu 10:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Akkifokkusu checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support--Bdell555 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bdell555 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Nobbipunktcom 10:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Nobbipunktcom checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Archandha 11:10, 8 January 2010 (MET)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Archandha checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support BabelStone 10:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - BabelStone checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  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)

    Eligible - Philosopher checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Michail has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--Michail 10:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Michail checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Gz260 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Gz260 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Lemiffe checked by (RT) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support TraxPlayer 11:57, 8 January 2010 (MET)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - TraxPlayer checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

SVL may have contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --SVL 11:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - SVL checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Boivie has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--Boivie 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) It's a good proposal.

1.  Eligible - Boivie checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  SupportYeah, I'm OK with this.--Mktsay123 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mktsay123 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support MichaelSchoenitzer 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - MichaelSchoenitzer checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4. 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)

    Eligible - WereSpielChequers checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 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)

5.  Support. Not a bad idea, I think. — Qweedsa 11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Qweedsa checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support maxkramer 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Maxkramer checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

6. --Conti 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Conti checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

MacCambridge has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support MacCambridge 12:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - MacCambridge checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Clpo13 12:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Clpo13 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Lukas9950 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Lukas9950 12:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Lukas9950 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support--Spartanbu 13:27, 8 January 2010 (MET) Good idea!

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Spartanbu checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

NoCultureIcons has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--NoCultureIcons 12:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - NoCultureIcons checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Great idea. We do need to be careful who we elect, though. Elium2 12:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here - Elium2 checked by (RT) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Tim Ross has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Tim Ross (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Tim Ross checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Hut 8.5 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Hut 8.5 12:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Hut 8.5 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support ...and hopefully this will be the last of any dealings with this matter. LessHeard vanU 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - LessHeard vanU checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Carkuni 12:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Carkuni checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Good idea -- DieterEg 13:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - DieterEg checked by (RT) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Olaf2 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support--Olaf2 13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Olaf2 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support sounds like a flexible tool to me. Pauli133 13:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Pauli133 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Usien has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support--Usien 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Usien checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Per J.delanoy's comment below. AGK 13:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - AGK checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Samyn97 13:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Samyn97 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Tinucherian 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tinucherian checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Dprabhu 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Dprabhu checked by (RT) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Vajotwo has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --Vajotwo (posta) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Vajotwo checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

   annotation finishes here

2.  Support CillanXC 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - CillanXC checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3. --Bahnmoeller 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bahnmoeller checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Shaktal

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project and at the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. --(RT) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

4.  Support--Иван Прихно 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Иван Прихно checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  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)

    Eligible - Stephane8888 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support. Yes indeed! -- OlEnglish 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - OlEnglish checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Strong support That'll be good for smaller Wikis --231013-a 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - 231013-a checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support. Anything to slow vandals -- comindico 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

8.  Support --Jpfagerback 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jpfagerback checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support Makes sens. skagedal^... 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Skagedal checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --Lankavatara 14:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

10. sounds reasonable to me -- pne 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pne checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support Certainly would help the smaller wiki's. -Djsasso 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Djsasso checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support -- Tehbing 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

12.  Support --Maha 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Maha checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support -- There are concerns with this, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages I think. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Oleg Alexandrov checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Professor Muttonchops

    You are not eligible for voting. – Innv | d | s: 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

14.  Support --Oneiros 15:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Oneiros checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Lineplus 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

    Diyan.boyanov 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

15.  Support There are global vandals so why not admins and difference to stewards seems somewhat sufficient. --Usp 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Usp checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Yes, I reckon it's needed, مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link (with a qualifying account) is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Mr. Richard Bolla checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Mr. Richard Bolla checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support Mulad 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Mulad checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support - Colin dla 15:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Colindla checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

18. Good idea. --Dimitris 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dimitris checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support yes--Alexander Timm 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alexander Timm checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Support We need to be as coordinated and flexible as our attackers -Drdisque 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Drdisque checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

21. 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)

     Eligible - Penwhale checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  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)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Fernando Maia Jr. checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support Perfect iniciative. --Rolf Obermaier 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rolf obermaier checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  Support - Taqi Haider 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Taqi Haider checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

25. ×α£đ^es 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - XalD checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support About time that this happened. Woollymammoth 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Woollymammoth checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  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)

     Eligible - Alexbouditsky checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Support 51% support, 49% no support. A bit concerned with power abuse --Rochelimit 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rochelimit checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support --Emericpro 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Emericpro checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Think it's definately necessary! --NorthernCounties 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

     SupportWe need more anti-vandals.Zoravar 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project and at the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. --(RT) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

30.  SupportDefinitely.Lewis82 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Lewis82 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  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)

     Eligible - Headbomb checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Support Jacoplane 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jacoplane checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

33.  Support --Feudiable 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Feudiable checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  Support Danielkueh 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Danielkueh checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Danielkueh checked by (RT) 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Support Kanman 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kanman checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support MMS2013 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 16 November 2009). --(RT) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support --Teufli 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

36.  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)

     Eligible - 80686 (Manuel Schneider) checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support - seems reasonable to me (Madapakar 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project and at the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. --(RT) 17:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

37.  Support - useful and reasonable --Jfblanc 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jfblanc checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Support - seems to be a good idea, to support understaffed wikis --NPunkt 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - NPunkt checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  Support - Ike9898 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ike9898 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

40.  Support --Mordan ( talk - de - de-talk ) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mordan checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  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)

     Eligible - Tryptofish checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     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)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

42.  Support - Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - R.T.Argenton checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

43.  Support Ironholds 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ironholds checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support I agree with Headbomb. --Charlie Rrose Selavy 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

44.  Support Galessandroni 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Galessandroni checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

45. --Density 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Density checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

46.  Support - It's very good idea! Misiek2 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Misiek2 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support simonexxx83 17:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). At the time of voting you had not been registered for at least 3 months. (You registered on 24 November 2009). --(RT) 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

47.  Support Mlaffs 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mlaffs checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support—I discuss my decision here--ArthurOgawa 17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

48.  Support —LarryGilbert 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - LarryGilbert checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support would make wiki so much better! akshayrangasai 23:23, 8 January 2010 (IST)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

49.  Support agree Mathmo Fulldecent 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Fulldecent checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

50.  Support I have become mostly inactive, due to rampant Wikipedia abuse --Gesslein 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Gesslein checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

51.  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)

     Eligible - Love Krittaya checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

52.  Support Demonwhip 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Demonwhip checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support I think it is a very good idea Jan Keromnes 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

53.  Support Great idea. --Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Connel MacKenzie checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Half price0 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

54.  Support --Epiq 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Epiq checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

55.  SupportThe Magnificent Clean-keeper 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - The Magnificent Clean-keeper checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

56. Annabel 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Annabel checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

57.  Support--Germannoiseunion 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Germannoiseunion checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support--User:Tag101 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

58.  Support--Bartiebert 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bartiebert checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

59.  Support--Mike Linksvayer 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mike Linksvayer checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support--Charles F Ross

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

60.  Support Let's try it out --Tschips 19:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tschips checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

61.  Support —Paul Erik 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Paul Erik checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

62.  Support —Longbow4u 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Longbow4u checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Cowtung 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

63.  Support Sins We Can't Absolve 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sins We Can't Absolve checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

64.  Support --BradPatrick 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - BradPatrick checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

65.  Support --Firilăcroco ^{discuție / talk} 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Firilacroco checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

66. Nothing controversial, really. --Mormegil (cs) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mormegil checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

67.  Support -- Pbsouthwood 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pbsouthwood checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Thekaleb 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support --Dougcard 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. (If you use a different user name on other wiki projects you should have provided a link). --(RT) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

68. Nakor 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Nakor checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    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)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project - at the time of voting your highest number of edits was 148 on Simple wiki. --(RT) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

69.  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)

     Eligible - Rje checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

70. --habakuk 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Habakuk checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

71. --Jeroen 20:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jeroen checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Absolutely a necessity, given the volume and scope that the wikimedia projects have evolved into! Soren42 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. Also, when you voted you had not been registered for 3 months. --(RT) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

72.  Support — The Earwig @ 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - The Earwig checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

73. --Nro92 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Nro92 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

74. --Matthiasb 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Matthiasb checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

75.  Support Bob bobato 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bob bobato checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

76.  Support --Item 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC) of course :-)

     Eligible - Item checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

77. → crazytales 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Crazytales checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

78.  Support - so long as it remains the privelege of a few, and not the right of many. GeeJo

     Eligible - GeeJo checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

79. XenonX3 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - XenonX3 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Hercule is a sysop on two wikis which will be affected, and crat' in another affected wiki

 Support --Hercule 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Hercule checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --Sens8 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. (If you use a different user name on other wiki projects you should have provided a link). --(RT) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

    Support --Todtanis 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You have not been registered for at least 3 months and do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2.  Support --AnRo0002 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - AnRo0002 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --TK-CP 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You have not been registered for at least 3 months and do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3.  Support Per proposal. --Millosh 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Millosh checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   <small>IP vote, login to vote pliz --[[User:Dalibor Bosits|'''<font color="Maroon" face="Bookman Old Style" size="2">D<font color=#ffcc66>alibo<font color=#FFD70 face="Bookman Old Style" size="2">r <font color="Maroon" face="Bookman Old Style" size="2">B<font color=#ffcc66>osits<font color="silver">''']] [[User_talk:Dalibor Bosits|'''<font color="black" size="3">^©</font>''']] 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)</small>

    Not eligible Rechecked. Voter was not logged in (see evidence); Gaumond did not log in to vote (see here) - 74.57.163.6, Gaumond checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Jarkeld 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jarkeld checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support --Jnthn0898 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jnthn0898 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support --Malafaya 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Malafaya checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support --MichaelMaggs 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - MichaelMaggs checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --Ondokuzmart 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

8.  Support HistoryStudent113 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - HistoryStudent113 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support --Mark Nowiasz 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mark Nowiasz checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support --Woodstock1 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Woodstock1 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support --ZX81 ^talk 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - ZX81 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  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)

     Eligible - Sinneed checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support --Tone 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tone checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support -- Yaztromo 22:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

14.  Support -- Btphelps 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Btphelps checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Support -- Rotsee 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rotsee checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support --ST ○ 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Steschke (ST) checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support --Church of emacs talk 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Church of emacs checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Kjetil1001 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

18. --Tinz 23:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tinz checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Beccaviola 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support --Alexanderaltman 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) elegant

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

    {{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.

    Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 08:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Verdanarch checked by (RT) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support -- Pistnor 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC) seems reasonable

     Eligible - Pistnor checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Support -- CristianCantoro 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - CristianCantoro checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

21.  Support - Seems like a good idea. - NeoAC 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - NeoAC checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - NeoAC checked by (RT) 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Support Hportfacts5 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hportfacts5 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support Acer 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Acer checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Weblaunches

     Not eligible At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Weblaunches checked by (RT) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  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)

     Eligible - Mattopaedia checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Support Blahma 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Blahma checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support It sounds usefully. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jagro checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  Support --Evangelivm 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Evangelivm checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 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.

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Publicly Visible checked by (RT) 12:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

    It seems many people represent the opposition as folks who predict pervasive tyrany, this doesn't really seem accurate and it doesn't really seem to be the thrust of their objections. The problem cited is that the potential is created, and that along with the increased complexity, responding to inevitable abuse of power becomes harder. The degree of abuse will probabl be quite minor based on my present understanding of this proposal, but who can say, especially when the means for gaining the privledge and for revoking it are still a bit unclear. The problem I see is that the wikis where this is needed will be by-definition under-policed. I would think it easier to deal with a vandal that anyone can check than a privledged user that is immune to most user's objections. So we create a class of users who will be given extraordinary powers over particularly unmoderated sites- this to me seems to be a possible problem. As for the pros of the proposal, I see no reason why more stewards can't be recruited nor why the requirements for obtaining this privledged status and the manner in which it may be used can't be modified if needed. It seems to me that if the steward program isn't working on certain sites then this program should be discussed directly. In short, the complexity, opportunity for arbitrary excercise of power in an environment with less oversight, and the unclear necessity of creating a new user class rather than simply getting more stewards or changing the nature of this user class's functions and appointment process as needed, makes me oppose the proposal, and it seems many share similar views. It isn't that prevasive abuse is foreseen, its that the need for this change is unclear and that the negatives, however slight, push many to not being able to see this proposal as a beneficial change given the readily available and well-tested alternatives (steward program expansion, modification) not having bee shown inadequate.--Δζ 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

28.  Support --Hormold 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hormold checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support--Unionhawk 01:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Unionhawk checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Support Saemikneu 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Saemikneu checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  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)

     Eligible - Simonxag checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Support Hi878 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hi878 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Wiseguy007 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support MikeLacey 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

    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)

    Duplicate vote. Davewild 15:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     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)

    Duplicate vote. Davewild 15:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     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.

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

33.  Support -- Tawker 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tawker checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Buckeyetigre checked by (RT) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Bctrainers checked by (RT) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  Support — It can be useful. Here's hoping its used for the described purposes.—DMCer 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DMCer checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  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)

     Eligible - Sigma 7 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

36.  Support -- Njrwally 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Njrwally checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  Support -- Jtico (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jtico checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Support -- Lenitha 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Lenitha checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  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)

     Eligible - Alexius08 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     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)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - JShenk checked by (RT) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - JShenk checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

40.  Support -- William915 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - William915 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  Support Ottava Rima 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ottava Rima checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

42.  Support -- Allen4names 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Allen4names checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Supraphonic 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

43.  Support-Not entirely sure about some things, but I'm basically in support — The preceding unsigned comment was added by NativeTexan55 (talk)

     Eligible - NativeTexan55 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Xam123456 03:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support - I think it's a good idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reinaldo Christopher (talk • contribs) 2010-01-09T03:49:34 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Reinaldo Christopher checked by (RT) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

44.  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)

     Eligible - DivineAlpha checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Sounds like a normal delegating of responsibilities Firefight 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

45.  Support. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Lwalt checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

46.  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)

     Eligible - PMDrive1061 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Joejoe92 04:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

47.  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)

     Eligible - Sladen checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

48.  Support to deal with spam. --Banana 04:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Banana04131 checked by (RT) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

49.  Support --Werdan7^{T @} 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Werdan7 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

50.  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)

     Eligible - Chick Bowen checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Danshil checked by (RT) 12:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

51.  Support Will enhance the fight against inter-wiki vandals... ARUNKUMAR P.R 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - ARUNKUMAR P.R checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

52.  Support --Leuqarte 05:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Leuqarte checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

53.  Support--Jusjih 05:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jusjih checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - ChrstphrChvz checked by (RT) 12:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

54.  Support Zscout370 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Zscout370 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     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)

    Only 4 edits, sorry. 150+ edits on a single project are required.

     Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - DrMel checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

55.  Support Kira-san 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kira-san checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Hesperian 06:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Changing vote; John Vandenberg's comment below convinced me this is unwise as presently worded. Hesperian 13:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Moved vote See evidence here - Hesperian checked by (RT) 13:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

56.  Support Lear's Fool 06:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Lear's Fool checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

57.  Support Sheepunderscore 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Sheepunderscore checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

58.  Support — Аурелиано Буэндиа 06:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Аурелиано Буэндиа checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

59.  Support --Nn123645 06:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Nn123645 checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Guugolpl0x 07:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

60. --Fg68at 07:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Fg68at checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

61.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - J.smith checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

62. —Dark ^talk 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - DarkFalls (Dark) checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

63.  Support Barefact 07:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Barefact checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

64.  SupportScooteristi 07:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Scooteristi checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

65.  Support Calaka 07:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Calaka checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --Chadwickschool 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

66.  Support --Gaeser 08:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Gaeser checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

67.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - KrebMarkt checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

68.  Support Sheitan 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Sheitan checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Pheines 08:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here) You have not been registered for at least 3 months and do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support Astonvilla91 08:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Kevin j morse checked by (RT) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Eligible Rechecked - FocalPoint checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Pyrdacor-Cyberdragon checked by (RT) 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You have not been registered for at least 3 months and do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - NeoCreator checked by (RT) 14:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You have not been registered for at least 3 months and do not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Ulrichteich7 checked by (RT) 14:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

70.  Support Wild mine 09:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Wild mine checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

71.  Support — JamesR ≈talk≈ 09:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - JamesR checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

72.  Support Biathlon 10:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Biathlon checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

73.  Support --Vantey 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Vantey checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

74.  Support --Ratzer 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Ratzer checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

75.  Support Niesy74 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Niesy74 checked by (RT) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

76.  Support --Joe-Tomato 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Joe-Tomato checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. If you have edits on another account, you have not indentified it. --(RT) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

     Support Cody escadron delta 10:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here) You have not been registered for at least 3 months - your first registration was on 8 November 2009. --(RT) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Willscrlt has contributed to wikis that will be affected

 Support because…

1. • (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-Latin 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)

    Eligible Rechecked - Willscrlt checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --Mbdortmund 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Mbdortmund checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

3. Shraktu 11:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Shraktu checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support --Mohanjith 11:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Greudin throws a shoe towards spammers, vandals Greudin 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Greudin checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support --Goldzahn 11:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Goldzahn checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

   Didicher

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page needed to verify eligibility to vote - Didicher checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Didicher checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Insinbad checked by (RT) 15:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  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)

    Eligible Rechecked - Roquefeuil checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting not registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - MirekDve checked by (RT) 15:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

7. Yes. Seems helpful on balance. Ucucha 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Ucucha checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support Needed. Surprising this does not already exist. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Edgarde (edg) checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support Michalwadas 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Michalwadas checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - Microcell checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Sparkiegeek checked by (RT) 15:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Eligible Rechecked - Stef48 checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support make sense to me

     Not eligible Rechecked. Unsigned vote by Alatryste (see evidence). At time of voting not registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Alatryste (unsigned) checked by (RT) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

12. --ThierryNicollin 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - ThierryNicollin checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

13. --Rutja76 12:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Rutja76 checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Support Cysioland - Talk with me 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) - Why not? It can be useful.

     Eligible Rechecked - Cysioland checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

15. Btd 12:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Btd checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

16. Kallerna 12:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Kallerna checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support Automatic seeing is good, but this sounds much better! Keep that idea up! (User: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Andy_E (German))

     Eligible Rechecked - Andy E checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

18.  Support--Capucine8 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Capucine8 checked by (RT) 14:53, 6 February 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)

     Not eligible Rechecked. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Innerfish checked by (RT) 15:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - Artemis Fowl checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

20. Wammes Waggel 13:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Wammes Waggel checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

21.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - Taxman checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 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)

     Not eligible Rechecked - at time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - A.gavardi checked by (RT) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Support Mystori33 -- I think its a great idea.

     Eligible Rechecked - Mystori33 checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support Plani 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Plani checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  Support --FritzG 14:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - FritzG checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

25. -jkb- 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - -jkb- checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support--ZERBERUS 14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - ZERBERUS checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

27. Carlitoslemon 14:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Yo creo que esto si es una buena idea

     Eligible Rechecked - Carlitoslemon checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Support --S.Didam 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - S.Didam checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support Kyro 14:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Kyro checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Support --Tpa2067 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Tpa2067 checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - Mav (Daniel Mayer) checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     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)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

32.  Support --Ken-Z! Talk 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Mopza (Ken-Z!) checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

33. DarkoNeko 14:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Darkoneko checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Drwhapcaplet checked by (RT) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  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)

    Since you justify this based on the subset of rights being "sound", perhaps you would be kind enough to explain which steward rights are not being given to this group...? And then explain why you think global block is appropriate. John Vandenberg 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Well, the inability to use Special:Userrights is the primary difference (and a big one it is!). As for global block, that's an important tool for fighting cross-wiki vandals. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Coren checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Support Fernbom2 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Fernbom2 checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

36.  Support --Orci 15:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Orci checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  Support Стаканчик 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Стаканчик checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Support Untitledmind72 15:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Untitledmind72 checked by (RT) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - BD2412 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

40.  Support JackOL31 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - JackOL31 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Sueli.f.lima checked by (RT) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  Support That's a very good idea! FalconL 16:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - FalconL checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

42.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - Sylvain2803 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

43.  Support Dewet 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Dewet checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

44.  Support Qui1che 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Qui1che checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Username is Dark Lord Of Time (see evidence) who did not have a minimum of 150 edits (see here and also here) - Dark Lord Of Time (darklordoftime) checked by (RT) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

45.  Support, vandalism is evil. If an experienced sysop knows the language of project, its support is important. --Jackie 17:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Jackie checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

46.  Support, no reason not to. Timmeh 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Timmeh checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. Did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (at the time of voting Evox777 only had 91 edits on en wiki, although has more than 150 edits now, see here and also here) - Evox777 checked by (RT) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

47.  Support, Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Glane23 (Geoff) checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

48.  Support --Mghamburg 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Mghamburg checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

49. Роман1989 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Роман1989 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

50.  Support --Trixt 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Trixt checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

51. This is a good idea. Earle Martin 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Earle Martin checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Rafael Rodrigues Troiani checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

52.  Support I agree, --Réginald (To reply) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Meneerke bloem (Réginald) checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

53.  Support Chrisvomberg 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Chrisvomberg checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

54.  Support --Srborlongan 17:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Srborlongan checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

55.  Support--Héctor Guido Calvo 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Héctor Guido Calvo checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

56.  Support Isidore 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Isidore checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Railpunk checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Eligible Rechecked - Halut checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - User195 checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

58.  Support Pic-Sou 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Pic-Sou checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

59.  Support Promking 18: 45 Jan 9

     Eligible Rechecked - Promking checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

60.  Support Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Hégésippe Cormier checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

61.  Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Rastrojo checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

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

     Eligible Rechecked and reinstated - registered on fr wikipedia for more than 3 months (since 17 May 2009); also at time of voting exceed 3 months on fr wiktionary (since 4 October 2009) with more than 1330 edits (see here) - Nougatdugardemanger checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

63.  Support Secret 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Secret checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

64.  Support --Explodicle 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Explodicle checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support asia234

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project - you had slightly less, 147 edits on zh wiki, at the time of voting. --(RT) 23:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

     Support --Plasmie 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

65.  Support There is way too much vandalism. --Brandon5485 19:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Brandon5485 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

66.  Support Blue Elf 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Blue Elf checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Mramz88 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

67.  Support --Duschgeldrache2 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) There are so many small Wikis. It would help to manage them.

     Eligible Rechecked - Duschgeldrache2 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

68.  Support --Gestumblindi 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Gestumblindi checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     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)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project - your fr wiki account only has 135 edits by 31 January. --(RT) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

69. Дзей Ковуй 17:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Dzej (Дзей Ковуй) checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

    --Sfcongeredwards 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

70.  Support Johnnyjoe23 20:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Johnnyjoe23 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

71.  Support Jón 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Jón checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Gohe007 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    At the time of voting, you did not have 3 months registration (See here and also here). --(RT) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

72.  Support Happy‑melon 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Happy-melon checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

73.  Support Shadowrouge99 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Shadowrouge99 checked by (RT) 11:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support BernAdrian 22:04, 9 January 2010

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

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - BernAdrian checked by (RT) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

74.  Support --Cirdan 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Cirdan checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

75.  Support --Devin Murphy 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Looks good as far as I can see.

     Eligible Rechecked - Nived 90 (Devin Murphy) checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

76.  Support --Alvestrand 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Makes creating new wikis a less dangerous activity for the community.

     Eligible Rechecked - Alvestrand checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

77.  Support --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 21:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Egmontaz checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

78.  Support --IvanStepaniuk 21:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - IvanStepaniuk checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

79.  Support --Dthomsen8 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Dthomsen8 checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

80.  Support --Aqwis 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Aqwis checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

81.  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.

     Eligible Rechecked - Inhumandecency checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

82.  Support Sembra una buona idea, vediamo cose ne esce.--Topolgnussy 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Topolgnussy checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

83.  Support -- Anne-theater but there must be the posibilty to opt out! 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Anne-theater checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Anne-theater checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

84.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - BTH checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

85.  Support Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Camaron checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

86.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - PsychoKim checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

87.  Support AlexKazakhov 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - AlexKazakhov checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

88.  Support I share the initiative VivaU--VivaU 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - VivaU checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

89. --Jabala 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Jabala checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

90.  Support -- JB82 23:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - JB82 checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

91.  Support Rather strong vote "yes" for now, hope it lasts! ;-) CielProfond 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - CielProfond checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

92.  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)

     Eligible Rechecked - Josiah Rowe checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

93.  Support --Grebenkov 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Grebenkov checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

94.  Support -- Vik-Thor 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Vik-Thor checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

95. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - La Pianista checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

96.  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - The High Fin Sperm Whale checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

97.  Support -- Eric.LEWIN 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Eric.LEWIN checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

98.  Support --Cephas 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Cephas checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

99. Szwedzki 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Szwedzki checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

100.  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)

      Eligible Rechecked - Antioctopus checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

101.  Support --Denverjeffrey 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Denverjeffrey checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

102. Collect 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Collect checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

103.  Support --Gobonobo 02:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Gobonobo checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support This sounds like a great way to assist with the propogation of Wikipedia. Scottperry 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Scottperry checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Scottperry checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

104.  Support -- Jeffmister 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jeffmister checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

105.  Support These people may be crucial in stopping mulitilingual vandals. OCNative 03:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - OCNative checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     Vandalism is annoying. McLerristarr 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     [2] Seb az86556 10:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - McLerristarr checked by (RT) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

106.  Support SifaV6 04:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - SifaV6 checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

107.  Support -- @lestaty ^discuţie 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt (@lestaty) checked by (RT) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

108.  Support I support this completely. Modify 05:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Modify checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

109.  Support Clorox 05:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Clorox checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

110.  Support CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 05:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - CastAStone checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

111.  Support. ReverendWayne 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - ReverendWayne checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

112.  Support. Vandalism is a huge problem on Wikimedia projects. Firsfron 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Firsfron checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

113.  Support. --Rocksanddirt 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Rocksanddirt checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

114. M0llusk 06:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - M0llusk checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - M0llusk checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

115.  Support. It's a good selection. --Ch.Andrew 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ch.Andrew checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

116.  Support Yves.morel 06:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 06:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Yves.morel checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

117.  Support Everyking 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Everyking checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

118.  Support Have oberserved a lot of spam abuse and copyright violation on wikis without active administrators. --Martin H. 07:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Martin H. checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

119. Chaddy 07:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Chaddy checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

120.  Support Kostmo 07:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Kostmo checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

121.  Support ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) 08:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - AlexandrDmitri checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

122. I see this will help many projects (especially small projects) to keep in good condition for growth (and possibly some eduation of policies and guidelines).--Altt311 09:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Altt311 checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     Please explain what you mean by "some eduation of policies and guidelines". Are you voicing your support for interference into smaller projects? Seb az86556 10:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

123.  Support I think it is a good idea. --Amit6 09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Amit6 checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

124.  Support --Malcolmxl5 09:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Malcolmxl5 checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Spin7ion 09:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Spin7ion checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

125.  Support J-C Bubbendorf 10:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - J-C Bubbendorf checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

126.  Support - Yes. Yottie 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Yottie checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

127.  Support --Reader781 10:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Reader781 checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

128. --Archenzo 10:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Archenzo checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

129.  Support Michael Meinel 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Michael Meinel checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

130.  Support Onix GCI 10:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Onix GCI checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

131.  Support --Lohachata 10:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Lohachata checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

132.  Support -- Freedom Wizard 11:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) sounds useful

      Eligible Rechecked - Freedom Wizard checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

133.  Support --Giac83 11:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Giac83 checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

134.  Support Need this feature for smaller wikis until they have enough contributors to elect enough sysops. --Teemeah 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Teemeah checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

135.  Support Thomas Vedelsbøl 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Thomas Vedelsbøl checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

136.  Support--Bencmq 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Bencmq checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

137.  Support Bennó 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Bennó checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

138.  Support ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Addshore checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

139.  Support Sounds like a good plan, why didn't we think of it before?--AnthonyBurgess 11:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - AnthonyBurgess checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - AnthonyBurgess checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

140. The RedBurn 12:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - The RedBurn checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

141.  Support --Einstein2 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Einstein2 checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

142.  Support Icairns 12:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Icairns checked by (RT) 13:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

143.  Support On ne peut plus logique... --Tadeo59370 12:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Tadeo59370 checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

144. --He3nry 12:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - He3nry checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

145.  Support I am leery of having too many stewards given their immense power. This proposal will reduce the demand for more stewards, which I see as a good thing. UncleDouggie 13:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - UncleDouggie checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

146.  Support - I believe that this is necessary to protect smaller wikis until they establish their own local culture.--Danaman5 13:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Danaman5 checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support 15versts 13:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not enough edits (29 on en.wiki), too young an account (22:59, 15 November 2009) Erik Warmelink 14:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. Agreed, see here and also here - 15versts checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

147.  Support Grzegorz.Janoszka 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Grzegorz.Janoszka checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

148.  Support Jérôme 13:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jborme (Jérôme) checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

149. --Hei ber 13:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC) "non-controversial maintenance"(Argumente auf Deutsch: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:DerHexer#Global_Admin?)

      Eligible Rechecked - Hei ber checked by (RT) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

     Could you explain how you think a locally blocked user can do "non-controversial maintenance"? Erik Warmelink 13:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

150.  Support - Hopefully the process will be made as transparent and accountable as possible. It's iffy to give global powers when you don't have a full-fledged system to police that. Ariedartin 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ariedartin checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

151. --voyager 13:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Voyager checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

152. --MOTOI Kenkichi 13:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC).Σ|D<It's a nice design.

      Eligible Rechecked - MOTOI Kenkichi checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

153.  Support --Glenn 14:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Glenn checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

154. Ferbr1 14:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ferbr1 checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

155.  Support Of course. -Nard the Bard 14:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Nard the Bard checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

156.  Support Much more sensible than the previous proposals. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - ChrisiPK checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

157. En passant 14:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - En passant checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support--88.54.198.242 14:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     ip vote, please login to vote. Davewild 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

158.  Support --WikedKentaur 14:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - WikedKentaur checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

159.  Support Sir Shurf 14:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sir Shurf checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

160.  Support -- Mr George R. Allison 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Mr George R. Allison checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     support--82.226.91.108 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     ip vote, please login to vote. Davewild 15:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support-- AshleyMorton 15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - AshleyMorton checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - AshleyMorton checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

161.  Support--Ellery 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ellery checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

162.  Support René Schwarz 15:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - René Schwarz checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

163.  Support--Dardorosso 15:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login but link provided - Dardorosso checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

164.  Support--Fondudaviation 15:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Fondudaviation checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

165.  Support--André Oliva 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - André Oliva checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

166.  Support-- Daniel Seibert 15:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Daniel Seibert checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

167.  Support Zerblatt 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login but links provided - Zerblatt checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

168.  Support --junafani 16:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Junafani checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

169.  Support Plyd 16:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Plyd checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

170.  Support -- Ssilvers 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ssilvers checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

171. faithless (^speak) 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Faithlessthewonderboy (faithless) checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

172. --Zombi 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Zombi checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

173.  Support Scienceman123 talk 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Scienceman123 checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

174.  Support -- Matthias Schalk 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Matthias Schalk checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

175.  Support -- Guaca 16:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Guaca checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

176.  Support It is a very important for small proyects --Wilfredor 17:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Wilfredor checked by (RT) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

177.  Support --Cyrus Grisham 17:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Cyrus Grisham checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

178.  Support --Sdornan 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sdornan checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

179.  Support --trm^ger 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Theredmonkey (trm) checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

180.  Support -- NastalgicCam 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - NastalgicCam checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

181.  Support -- Djlayton4 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Djlayton4 checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

182.  Support Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ponyo checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support This is a good idea--Talismania 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not enough edits (51 on it.wiki) Erik Warmelink 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. Agreed, at time of voting not enough edits - see also here - Talismania checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

183.  Support Fangfufu 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Fangfufu checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

184.  Support Mvc 18:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Mvc checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

185.  Support Lymantria 18:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Lymantria checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

186.  Support AleXXw 18:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - AleXXw checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Clemwang 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Clemwang checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Clemwang checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support 68.83.216.91 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     Please login to vote. Erik Warmelink 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

187.  Support many little projects needs global sysops. --Fabexplosive The archive man 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Fabexplosive checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

188.  Support Alterboy 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Alterboy checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

189.  Support Good idea. Helpful assistance for smaller wikis. --High Contrast 18:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - High Contrast checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

190.  Support Ideally, all Wikis would be self-policing, but that's simply not realistic. This proposal keeps smaller Wikis from being handicapped by a lack of native admins.Fyre2387 19:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Fyre2387 checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

191.  Support --Jodo 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jodo checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

192.  Support, with reservations. The Global sysops will need to work with the local sysop(s), who should have the technical and social authority to overrule whatever is done locally by the global sysop (who should only intervene if it is such blatant vandalism that overruling it is illogical). Also, global blocks should only last for a short time before going before locals and stewards to decide on possible extention. (If there are NO local admins, then Robsters makes an interesting point.) Chamberlian 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Chamberlian checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

193.  Support Dspradau 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Dspradau checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

194.  Support -- Scray 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Scray checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

195.  Support --ScottyWZ 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - ScottyWZ checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

196.  Support Icestorm815 • Talk 19:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Icestorm815 checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

197.  Support -- TheLastNinja 20:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - TheLastNinja checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

198.  Support Recognizance 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Recognizance checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

199.  Support. LairepoNite 20:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - LairepoNite checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

200.  Support Longliveemomusic 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Longliveemomusic checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

201.  Support Stobs 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Stobs checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

202.  Support Matthias Becker 20:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Matthias Becker checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

203.  Support Dutchdean 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Dutchdean checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

204.  Support Mifter 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Mifter checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

205.  Support Béria Lima ^Msg 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Beria (Béria Lima) checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

206.  Support here's to progress Murraytheb 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Murraytheb checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

207.  Support — the Man in Question (in question) 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - The Man in Question checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

208.  Support Long overdue for dealing with some of the more persistent Wikimedia's Most Wanted. —Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jéské Couriano checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

209.  Support --Seraphie 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Seraphie checked by (RT) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support With the safeguards included, this sounds like a very good idea. --Blackfyr 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     [3] Seb az86556 00:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Blackfyr checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

210.  Support There is a dire need here. As an admin on the English Wikipedia, I know how needed we truly are. Look at how big of an archive I have. :) And yes. Plenty of safeguards. --Woohookitty 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Woohookitty checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

211.  Support. Looks like it will give smaller WP's some added protection. Alan Liefting 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Alan Liefting checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

212. Kalan ? 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Kalan checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     --Wechu 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

     [4] Seb az86556 00:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Wechu checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

213.  Support. It's fine because projects can opt in an out of this. It's good that small projects can get help fighting vandalism if they need it. --X-Man 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Alexey Feldgendler (X-Man) checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

214.  Support. This is a good way to share the custodial burden. However, this starts with the smaller wikis where oversight is already thin. Because of that, it might make it easier for a patient, malicious user to slowly infiltrate the community using fragmentary, poorly coordinated support from smaller wikis in order to gain general blocking rights. Thus at the very least I'd like to see strong contributions to and consensus within one of the bigger wikis (perhaps even English Wikipedia itself) as an additional criterion for the status. Decoy 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Decoy checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

215.  Support Good idea.--Jonesy 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jonesy checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Globalisation ! --Virus 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)--Virus^ger

     [5] Seb az86556 00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Virus checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

216.  Support Chuckiesdad 00:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Chuckiesdad checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

217.  Support Magog the Ogre 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Magog the Ogre checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

218.  Support It makes sense to me: a global project, a global community, global sysops, of course!--Marjorie Apel 01:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Eligible Rechecked - Marjorie Apel checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     We already have "global sysops" - they are called stewards. This proposal will create a second set, who don't have checkuser, and are not subject to a well advertised election, but still have the ability to globally block. i.e. this proposal waters down who can do global blocks. John Vandenberg 08:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Support My support you have ! --RSchmoldt 01:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - RSchmoldt checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - RSchmoldt checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

219.  Support shaka 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Shaka checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

220.  Support Jed 20012 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jed 20012 checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

221.  Support Makes good sense and frees up the limited number of stewards to do other things. fr33kman ^{t - c} 02:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Fr33kman checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

222.  Support — Balthazar ^(T|C) 02:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Balthazar checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

223.  Support Sounds good. Neil Clancy 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Neil Clancy checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

224.  Support Sensible and pragmatic without creating another layer where it's not needed. Webmink 02:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Webmink checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

225.  Support LSX 02:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Global patrolling is needed to keep sync, but I worry that there will be overlap problems from locals.

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - LSX checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Account unified - LSX checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

226.  Support Yup! Lets 'ave it! If this model does not work we may iterate and repair it. Svaha B9 hummingbird hovering 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - B9 hummingbird hovering checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

227. --Harald Krichel 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Seewolf (Harald Krichel) checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

228.  Support Gribeco 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Gribeco checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

229.  Support Robin Patterson 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Robin Patterson checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

230.  Support Pharos 05:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Pharos checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

231.  Support --Holder 05:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Holder checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

232.  Support sounds like a good idea, despite the reasons below. Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Singlish speaker checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

233.  Support Mmaick 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Mmmaick (Mmaick) checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

234.  Support Not a permanent solution, but it'll have to for now Gaara the Fifth Kazekage 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Gaara the Fifth Kazekage checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

235.  Support The Thing That Should Not Be 06:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - The Thing That Should Not Be checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

236.  Support FrankyLeRoutier 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - FrankyLeRoutier checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

237. --Nikcro32 16:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Nikcro32 checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

238.  Support - yes. Ale_Jrb^talk 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ale jrb checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

239.  Support in principle, but 1. their tenure/performance would need to be reviewed at regular intervals. 2. The high number of invalid votes (mine? - I'm not even sure about the difference between Wikpedia & Wikimedia) on this page already demonstrates that tighter controls, and more clarity in the maze of bureaucracy is required.--Kudpung

      Eligible Rechecked - Kudpung checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

240.  Support Szymon Żywicki 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC) If it may improve Wiki, I agree.

      Eligible Rechecked - Szymon Żywicki checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

241.  Support -- Marcika 08:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Marcika checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

242.  Support Sounds reasonable. Any person in place of authority has the potential to abuse power; using that as a reason to deny power from existing is absurd. We can deal with those kinds of people if they happen to show up. Until that occurs, I fully support this. -- Mike | Contrib 09:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Mikekearn (Mike) checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

243.  Support quality control --penubag 09:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Penubag checked by (RT) 16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

244.  Support Morgan May 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Zorblek (Morgan May) checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Zorblek (Morgan May) checked by (RT) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

245. EMU CPA 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - EMU CPA checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

246. --Roo1812 10:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Roo1812 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

247. --Thesupermat 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Thesupermat checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

248.  Support Lost Boy

      Eligible Rechecked - Lost Boy checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

249.  Support Ali1 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ali1 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

250.  Support --Vlad 10:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Vlad checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

251.  Support --Wagusi

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Wagusi checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

252.  Support -- Cdinesh 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Cdinesh checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

253.  Support --风之清扬 11:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - 风之清扬 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

254.  Support -- Maniago 11:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Maniago checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

255.  Support --Sverrir Mirdsson 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sverrir Mirdsson checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

256.  Support <flrn> 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - FLrn checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

257.  Support Alpertron 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC). Definitely a help for stewards.

      Eligible Rechecked - Alpertron checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

258.  Support -- I propose a WikiProject to monitor the activity of the global sysops. This WikiProject could maintain a list of RSS feeds for all global sysops on all targeted wikis. This list could be available as a configuration file for some popular RSS readers. This would make it easy for anyone to monitor the global sysops, or a few of them. We could easily reach a ratio of 3 people to monitor each global sysops. Monitoring is very convenient using an RSS reader software. Nicolas1981 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Nicolas1981 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

259.  Support Obelix 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Obelix checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

260.  Support --Markus Schulenburg 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Markus Schulenburg checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

261.  Support Njaelkies Lea 14:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds good to me.

      Eligible Rechecked - Njaelkies Lea checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

262.  Support --Xkoalax 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Xkoalax checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

263.  Support --DerNews 15:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - DerNews checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

264.  Support --Alaniaris 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Alaniaris checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

265.  Support -- Good for the smaller wikis, but only until they can take care of themselves. A good process is needed to ensure that only users with proven records get the bit; any power can be abused, but that's no reason not to have it. 1ForTheMoney 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - 1ForTheMoney checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

266.  Support Tim Song 16:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Tim Song checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

267.  Support Good Idea. Why Not? --Der Messer 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Der Messer checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

268.  Support Good Idea. --Zabia 17:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Zabia checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

269.  Support I think that's a good idea. --Алексей Шиянов 17:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Алексей Шиянов checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

270.  Support Eloquant 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Eloquant checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

271.  Support PS11 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - PS11 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

272.  Support --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Lightsup55 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

273. Yes --David1982m 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - David1982m checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Larrikin 18:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 17:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

274.  Support Great idea, particularly for small wikis Cruccone 19:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Cruccone checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

275.  Support --NSH001 19:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - NSH001 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

276.  Support Ytfc23 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ytfc23 checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

277.  Support -- Tilmandralle 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Tilmandralle checked by (RT) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

278. --Inductor 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Inductor checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

279.  Support Absolutely. --Sovereign92 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sovereign92 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

280.  Support --Denis Barthel 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Denis Barthel checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

281.  Support --DrGaellon 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - DrGaellon checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

282.  Support --Abutkeev 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Abutkeev checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

283.  Support Kokorik It's a very good idea!

      Eligible Rechecked - Kokorik checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

284.  Support --Marianian 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) This will be very useful when carefully used.

      Eligible Rechecked - Marianian checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

285.  Support --Aineias 21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC), idea is o.k.

      Eligible Rechecked - Aineias checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

286.  Support -- raveman 21:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - vote actually by Hardcoreraveman (see evidence) who is entitled to vote (see here and also here) - Hardcoreraveman (raveman) checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

287.  Support --Paperoastro 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Paperoastro checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

288.  Support Though I think the removal section needs work to ensure dedicated vandals can't put together a small group that appears mistrustful and throw a big wrench in things. Staxringold 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Staxringold checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

289.  Support --Marcl1984 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC) jup

      Eligible Rechecked - Marcl1984 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

290.  Support --Oxguy3 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC) "Oh so observant, watch as the Wikipedian catches a bad sysop within moments of the admin's bad deed." P.S. 1044 is my lucky number!!!

      Eligible Rechecked - Oxguy3 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

291. Xaura 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Xaura checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

292.  Support Now that I understood why that is needed, I've changed my mind. I'd still prefer opt-in (instead of opt-out) though. --Pberndt 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Pberndt checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

293.  Support --Echtner 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Echtner checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

294.  Support Enigmaman 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Enigmaman checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

295.  Support DidiWeidmann 22:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - DidiWeidmann checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

296.  Support --BloodDoll 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - BloodDoll checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support Vladimir.mencl 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

     [6]. – Innv | d | s: 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Vladimir.mencl checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

297.  Support I must confess that I am dismayed that we need another layer of bureaucracy... but given that we do, I must support its creation, given the safeguards in place. Chazz 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Chazz checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

298.  Support --Majestic6 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Majestic6 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

299.  Support --Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ks0stm checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

300.  Support - Davecrosby uk 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Davecrosby uk checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

301.  Support - Techman224^Talk 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Techman224 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

302.  Support, with the understanding that at the slightest issue of abuse, this privilege will be removed. - Jmabel 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Jmabel checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

303.  Support — Bdb484 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Bdb484 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

304.  Support - Chris a Liege 02:10, 12 January 2010 (CET)

     ^ Ineligible to vote? --(RT) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

     is eligible (name spells lowercase "l") Seb az86556 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - note correct username here - Chris a liege checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

305.  Support - Vinicius Lima 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I agree, we need more admins for Wiki

      Eligible Rechecked - Vinicius Lima checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

      Support - Ede11 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC) ok.

     Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

306.  Support – Adavidb 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Adavidb checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

307.  Support – Infrogmation 03:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Infrogmation checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

308.  Support – ageoflo 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Ageoflo checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

309. Support - Sounds good to me. -Royalguard11(Talk·@en) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Royalguard11 checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

310.  Support - This will also, to some extent, help bridge the culture gap between different language projects. B Fizz 03:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - B Fizz checked by (RT) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

311.  Support. Hehe. Erwin Springer 03:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Erwin Springer checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

312.  Support - Because of all the languages. Chucky 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Chuck Marean (Chucky) checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

313.  Support - Not sure what I think of the 6 months before losing their position. Is this standard for an admin positions? Seems like it should be shorter. MetricSuperstar 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - MetricSuperstar checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

314.  Support --관인생략 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - 관인생략 checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

315.  Support Randalf 06:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Randalf checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

316.  Support G.A.S 07:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - G.A.S checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

317.  Support Someone stepped on my vote! Reechard 07:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Reechard checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

318.  Support I hate additional heirarchies. But things are getting too unweildy, too fast. These folks will need to be purer than Ceasar's wife, tho. David in DC 07:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - David in DC checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

319.  Support Get it done --Rembertbiemond 07:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Rembertbiemond checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

320. --Yaroslav Blanter 08:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Yaroslav Blanter checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

321. Ar son - Yeah, we definitely need this - Alison ^❤ 09:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Alison checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

322.  Support --Einmaliger 09:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Einmaliger checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Einmaliger checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

323.  Support (criteria met with ENWP account) -- Sk8er5000 09:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sk8er5000 checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

324.  Support Good idea! --MarkusZi 09:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - MarkusZi checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - MarkusZi checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

325.  Support --Phrontis 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Phrontis checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

326.  Support Yes, it sounds good. -- Sherenk 10:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Sherenk checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

327.  Support Sounds like a good idea to help out the younger Wikipedias. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Thejadefalcon checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

     200.211.91.140 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Ip don't vote. Alex Pereira ^falaê 11:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

328.  Support --Blackjogger 11:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Blackjogger checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

329.  Support Alex Pereira ^falaê 11:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Alexanderps (Alex Pereira) checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

330. Xico CLJ 11:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Xico CLJ checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

331. --Uwe Gille 11:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Uwe Gille checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

332.  Support Good idea! --JCAILLAT 11:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - JCAILLAT checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

333.  Support -- Flexman 12:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link to Flexmaen on de wiki provided - Flexman checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

334.  Support Seems like a reasonable idea, with modification below --SteveMcCluskey 13:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - SteveMcCluskey checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

      Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - SteveMcCluskey checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

335.  Support makes perfect sense. Garkeith 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Garkeith checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

336.  Support Azmi1995 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Azmi1995 checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

337.  Support -- RacoonyRE 13:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - RacoonyRE checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

338.  Support --Zorglube 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)--

      Eligible Rechecked - Zorglube checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

339.  Support There are enough admins on en.wiki who speak other languages to help out on sister wikis that need it. Throwaway85 14:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Throwaway85 checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

340.  Support --Jorunn 14:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jorunn checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

341.  Support - If they can be trusted on one, they can be trusted on all! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 14:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Thesevenseas checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

342.  Support This sounds like a good idea. I support. --Jesant13 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Jesant13 checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

343.  Support SoWhy 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - SoWhy checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

344.  Support It's certainly worth a try. GreenGourd 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - GreenGourd checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

345.  Support --Lcawte 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Lcawte checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

346. --Quaro75 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

      Eligible Rechecked - Quaro75 checked by (RT) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

LadyofShalott has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

Sounds reasonable. LadyofShalott 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - LadyofShalott checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

DeeMusil has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support This will prevent abuse globally. Good is that it does not influence the local content --DeeMusil 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but links provided - DeeMusil checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Benji 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Benjism89 (Benji) checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Aristeas 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Aristeas checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support I think there are individuals who can handle this responsibility; I know I could. David spector 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - David spector checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Rsocol has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support Especially useful for smaller projects (like wikinews, wikisource, etc) in languages other than english. Rsocol 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Rsocol checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Angry bee 18:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Angry bee checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Aye. But watch out for abuse. Horst Emscher 18:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Horst Emscher checked by (RT) 14:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Bruno Leonard has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support Bruno Leonard 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Bruno Leonard checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support but weak - what we need are "multi-project sysops" where multiple projects can band together and create a "multi-project sysop" with powers that stretch across just those projects. See #Proposal to amend wording #2 below. Davidwr/talk 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Davidwr checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support seems to be the lesser evil choice. Tavatar 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Tavatar checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

4. --Karl.Kirst 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Karl.Kirst checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Message From Xenu 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Message From Xenu checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

6. --Jarhed 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Jarhed checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Jarhed checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support --Artur Weinhold 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Artur Weinhold checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Artur Weinhold checked by (RT) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Strong support In any wiki-related project, there's always tons of vandalism and abuse, and never enough admins, sysops, or high-privelaged users to take action upon the vandals. --TrekCaptainUSA, English Wikipedia User

    Eligible Rechecked - TrekCaptainUSA checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support This makes sence. --85.180.166.79 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

   Please log in to vote. John Vandenberg 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

9. Sumurai8 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Sumurai8 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support it seems like a good idea--Mark0528 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Mark0528 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support - With the projects having the power to opt-out, I see no problem with this. Hello32020 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Hello32020 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Una giornata uggiosa '94 has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support IMHO userful --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Una giornata uggiosa '94 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - MWOAP checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Chris-marsh-usa 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Chris-marsh-usa checked by (RT) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Chris-marsh-usa checked by (RT) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Sam8 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Sam8 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Greyskinnedboy 21:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Greyskinnedboy checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Jisis has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Jisis 22:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Jisis checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Tarheelcoxn 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Tarheelcoxn checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Cactus007 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Cactus007 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Gentgeen 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Gentgeen checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Miyagawa 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Miyagawa checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support My comments are in TALK page --Tombaker321 23:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Tombaker321 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support Dusti 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Dusti checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support PdebartPdebart 00:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but links provided - Pdebart checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Stepro has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

--Stepro 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Stepro checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support RadManCF 01:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - RadManCF checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Robinbanerji 01:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   [7]. – Innv | d | s: 03:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Robinbanerji checked by (RT) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support The hunter1986 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - The hunter1986 checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Joaquín Martínez Rosado has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

YES. --Joaquín Martínez Rosado 01:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Joaquín Martínez Rosado checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2. I agree Raktop 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Raktop checked by (RT) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support More hands for maintenance is a good thing. Smokizzy (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Smokizzy checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support December21st2012Freak 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - December21st2012Freak checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support DoubleAW 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - DoubleAW checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Nihonjoe has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support I think this will be a useful safety net. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Nihonjoe checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

MER-C has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

Sure. MER-C 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - MER-C checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Edwod2001 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   [8]. – Innv | d | s: 03:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked and reinstated. At the time of voting had been registered for 3 months, and had about 1663 edits on es.wikipedia (see here) - Edwod2001 checked by (RT) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Torin has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Torin 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Torin checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Jptwo 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Jptwo checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Sbb 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Sbb checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Tilman Berger has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Tilman Berger 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Tilman Berger checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Marc Gabriel Schmid

   Voted added by IP user. -Barras ^talk 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Voted whilst not logged in (see evidence); no vote by Marc Gabriel Schmid recorded (see here) - 89.206.81.112, Marc Gabriel Schmid checked by (RT) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Xionbox 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Xionbox checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support JonathanWinarske 09:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - JonathanWinarske checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Werdna has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support Werdna 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Werdna checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Volkov has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support This might be very helpful for small-sized wiki-projects. --Volkov 09:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC), sysop @ ru-wiki

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Volkov checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Saschaporsche has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Saschaporsche 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Saschaporsche checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Jan Friberg is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Jan Friberg 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Jan Friberg checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Foux 10:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Foux checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Root66 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Root66 checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support — I have delayed voting to see what the other side says – having read their reasons I can see no compelling reasons not to support this. Saga City 11:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Saga City checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support 11:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   The preceding unsigned vote is by Pymouss --(RT) 05:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Pymouss checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Ftkurt has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support--.ftkurt..⍌. 12:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Ftkurt checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support - I think this is an excellent idea. It is frustrating to see vandalisers not being blocked for a while because of a backlog. This would help do this quicker before more pages have been vandalised. Neutralle 12:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here)) - Neutralle checked by (RT) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support ChrisHodgesUK 12:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - ChrisHodgesUK checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Sk Rapid Wien has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Sk Rapid Wien 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Sk Rapid Wien checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Lionel Elie Mamane 14:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Lionel Elie Mamane checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Khoyobegenn 14:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Khoyobegenn checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support --Cho M.cher 14:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Cho M.cher checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support More policemen might not imply a more peaceful world, but perhaps thats one of the better things we can do :) --Anoopkn 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Anoopkn checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support Given the significant proportion of interwiki vandalism, such a measure should have been implemented sooner. Yet, better later than never… Alexander Doria 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Alexander Doria checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

George Chernilevsky has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --George Chernilevsky 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - George Chernilevsky checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Notnd has contributed to a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Notnd 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Notnd checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --Mayer Bruno 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Mayer Bruno checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support On the provision that any misuse is treated with appropriate severity Topperfalkon 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Topperfalkon checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Alno is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Support as such global admins will help reducing trivial vandalism on small projects. -- AlNo (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Alno checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support I can only agree with the above. --Tomalak geretkal 15:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 15:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Tomalak geretkal checked by (RT) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Kirikou 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked - Kirikou checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support ElCharismo 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - ElCharismo checked by (RT) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - ElCharismo checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Mesphito 16:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Mesphito checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Bubinator 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Bubinator checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support --Haneburger 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Haneburger checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support Ruhrfisch 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Ruhrfisch checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support Inclusivedisjunction 17:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Inclusivedisjunction checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Lajsikonik is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Support Lajsikonik 17:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Czamu ńy? Ńy zawadźi jak u nos globalne admińistratory bydům dować blokady lo wandalůw a roztomajtych chacharůw. I tak byda wszyjsko widźoł we logach a podźyrańu wyćepanych zajtůw.

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Lajsikonik checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Dirkpetsch 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Dirkpetsch checked by (RT) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Dirkpetsch checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support As long as the persons given the power are tightly monitored, a lot of power to be given away but I believe it is a step in the right direction. Sirkad 18:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Sirkad checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support generated1183

   User is not eligible for voting. – Innv | d | s: 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Vote was by QASIMARA (see evidence), who did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also also here) - QASIMARA checked by (RT) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support RJC 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - RJC checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support D-Rock 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - D-Rock checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support --Egrian 20:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Egrian checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Zimin.V.G. has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --Zimin.V.G. 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Zimin.V.G. checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Nolispanmo has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --Nolispanmo 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Nolispanmo checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support --Johannes Götte 23:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Johannes Götte checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Elkelon 20:54, 13 Janury 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Elkelon checked by (RT) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Elkelon checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support --Bduke 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Bduke checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

5. Bigmantonyd 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Bigmantonyd checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

DaSch has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support --DaSch 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - DaSch checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support If it helps... Yes --Amada44 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Amada44 checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Sounds quite usefull. --Akrause91 22:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Akrause91 checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support If people are trustworthy and willing to help, I don't see why not. Jason L. Gohlke 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Jason L. Gohlke checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support The Arbiter 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - The Arbiter checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support Haseo9999 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Haseo9999 checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support Anything that helps to rid the project of trolls and vandals. David A 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - David A checked by (RT) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - David A checked by (RT) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Pulsar may have contributed to kawiki, which will be affected, however that account is not unified

 Support Pulsar 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Pulsar checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Seems like a good idea. Lambdoid 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Lambdoid checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support -- Don't see why not... -- Whaatt 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Whaatt checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Ryan Postlethwaite 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

   You have already voted. John Vandenberg 02:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

4.  Support Joshuaingram 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Joshuaingram checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Bubamara is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Support --Bubamara 01:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Bubamara checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support TheTechFan 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - TheTechFan checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Marek69 is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Support -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Marek69 checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support--Alain Darles 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - is the same as Alain.Darles (link provided and see here), who is entitled to vote - Alain Darles checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support It has enough positive potential that I'd like to see it in action. Sistermonkey 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Sistermonkey checked by (RT) 15:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Continuous improvement ist always good! -- PDCA 02:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - PDCA checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support PokeYourHeadOff 03:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - PokeYourHeadOff checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Freshacconci 03:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Freshacconci checked by (RT) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support --Stormie 04:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Stormie checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support--Hammy64000 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Hammy64000 checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support This is a good idea! David290 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - David290 checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support Go!--Cerejota 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Cerejota checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support - this should allow small wiki projects to have the benifits from being part of the large super-project. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Od Mishehu checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support - as long as the given rules are followed regarding avoiding potential conflict of interest, POV pushing, abuses of power... it should be OK Mjharrison 09:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Mjharrison checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  SupportAjcheema 10:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Ajcheema checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    --Wanderer777 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 05:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Wanderer777 checked by (RT) 15:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support Xfigpower (yak yak) 13:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Xfigpower checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Support Yzmo 13:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Yzmo checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Jo Shigeru has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Jo Shigeru 14:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Jo Shigeru checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Castelobranco has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support (I hope there will be no conflict between local and global sysops...) CasteloBranco^msg 14:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Castelobranco checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Sephia karta 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Sephia karta checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support If they are trusted in one wiki, they should be trusted in all.Nmajdan 17:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Nmajdan checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

4. The limitations seem strict enough that it looks like global sysops will not be able to cause any problems on any wikis on which they aren't needed. --Cyde Weys 18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Cyde (Cyde Weys) checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support --Eabadal 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Eabadal checked by (RT) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Eabadal checked by (RT) 18:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

Amikeco is a sysop at one on a wiki which will be affected

Support Some people here commented that an active Wikipedia should have enough local admins, but even a somewhat active writing community may lack a person with required knowledge and desire to administrate. Also, when there are, say, 3 admins in a smaller wiki, there is a large probability they will all be absent during several days. Amikeco 20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Amikeco checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Hires an editor 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Hires an editor checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Seb35 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support ~ Seb35 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Seb35 checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Yes in principle but concerned somewhat about abuse of power. Perhaps a test of the system could be trialled on a limited basis first? Antarctic-adventurer 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Antarctic-adventurer checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Feydey has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Seems like a good idea. feydey 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Feydey checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Good idea. Andrewrhchen 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Andrewrhchen checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support. Yes we can. Joe9320 23:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Joe9320 checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Jordan Brown 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Jordan Brown checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Jpatokal has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Jpatokal 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Jpatokal checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - SuperHamster checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Magicknight94 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support--Lê 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Rechecked - Magicknight94 (Lê) checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support More stewards are needed, yes, but there is a higher required standard for steward selection, especially given the potential damage that a steward can cause versus that of a global sysop. Having a larger pool of people willing and able to handle obvious vandalism alone is worth implementing this proposal. I'd encourage people to reconsider opposes based on inability to understand the local language: Stewards don't understand all the local languages now, and yet manage to assist these projects in adminstrative duties. Kylu 04:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Kylu checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --VS ^talk 04:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - VirtualSteve (VS) checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Mark.s.shaw 05:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Mark.s.shaw checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Pjr 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Vote made whilst logged in as Petri (see here) who is ineligible (see here and also here). No link provided to eligible Pjr account - Pjr (Petri) checked by (RT) 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Mkubica 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Mkubica checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support Lemonsawdust 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Lemonsawdust checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support This might be what is needed to keep these smaller wiki's going. --Kraftlos 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Kraftlos checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support Captain panda 06:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Captain panda checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support --Skenmy ^talk 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Skenmy checked by (RT) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support--MaulYoda 08:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - MaulYoda checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - MaulYoda checked by (RT) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support -Vcelloho 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Vcelloho checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Support Needed before. Szalakóta 12:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Szalakóta checked by (RT) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support Paul2387 14:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Paul2387 checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Support Claymore 15:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Claymore checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Support ShinePhantom 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - ShinePhantom checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support--Mstislavl 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mstislavl checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support DigitalCatalyst 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DigitalCatalyst checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

18.  Support -- Ra'ike 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ra'ike checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support I should be like a giving a general key to the cleaning team. At the bigger amounts of vandalism I am seeing all time when editing or inspecting histories a joint defense is something that I have no doubt it can be beneficial. We are all only "departments" of a big company. I hope the critical companions got it. --Alexander.stohr 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alexander.stohr checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Support I'm satisfied that the opt provisions are robust enough that there is little danger of overiding local autonomy. -- Xymmax 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Xymmax checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

21.  Support I believe this is a worthwhile attempt, and possible solution. Naturalnumber 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Naturalnumber checked by (RT) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Support Due to the fact that more and more articles and edits have to be controlled this could be a solution. --Gruhland 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Gruhland checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support Globalknowlage needs globalsysobs. HBR 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - HBR checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  Support Good idea...these issues have come up a lot Alphachimp 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alphachimp checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Support This is an idea whose time has certainly come. Strongest possible support. Ginsengbomb 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ginsengbomb checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support A proposal that will greatly enhance cross-wiki collaboration. Perfect Proposal 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Perfect Proposal checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  Support However, I wish to make it a requirement that any potential global sysops be an op in an wiki before nomination. SYSS Mouse 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - SYSS Mouse checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Support --Brandsen 02:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Brandsen checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support Guusbosman 02:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Guusbosman checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Support Dweekly 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dweekly checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  Support Theshowmecanuck 05:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Theshowmecanuck checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Botsad 10:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Botsad checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Botsad checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Support --Yowuza 11:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Yowuza checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

33.  Support -- Axyjo 14:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Axyjo checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  Support Altes 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Altes checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Support Vziel 18:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Vziel checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Vziel checked by (RT) 11:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

36.  Support SWMNPoliSciProject Positive addition to overall wiki structure and management. Stewards should strictly monitor for and control any abuse situations. Maybe eventually implement regular elections for same. 19:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - SWMNPoliSciProject checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  Support Роман Беккер 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Роман Беккер checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Support rubin16 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rubin16 checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  Support –Saruwine 18:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Saruwine checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support--Samuelwn 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Great idea- Would allow users whom have shown a history of trustworthy maintenance over the site to further their influence. Viva la Wiki!

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You have not been registered for at least 3 months. --(RT) 04:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

40.  Support Jimcripps 20:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jimcripps checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  Support Tristan Liardon

     Eligible - Tristan Liardon checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

42.  Support --SPKirsch 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - SPKirsch checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

43.  Support --BRG 21:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - BRG checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

44.  Support -- pity I don't have the time to help right now though Agathoclea 21:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Agathoclea checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Zwilson14 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

    Duplicate vote (Sorry, you have already voted on 7 January) --(RT) 03:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

45.  Support Sebletoulousain 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sebletoulousain checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

46.  Support -- OscarPremium 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - OscarPremium checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

47.  Support -- Gulmammad 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Gulmammad checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

48.  Support -- KevinCuddeback 02:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - KevinCuddeback checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

49.  Support -- MIKADO,Sakura (御門桜) 03:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - 御門桜 (MIKADO,Sakura) checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

50.  Support -- Arenlor 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Arenlor checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

51.  Support -- The time has come... TRosenbaum 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - TRosenbaum checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support <--Kargin Kargin 05:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 04:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

52.  Support -- Reiknir 07:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Reiknir checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Piisamson has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support -- Piisamson 10:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Piisamson checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support It appears that the safeguards built into this proposal are sound. -- Kushal one 11:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kushal one checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Franco56 13:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Franco56 checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support --UrLunkwill 13:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - UrLunkwill checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support --Loupeter 17:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Loupeter checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support -- EOZyo 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) It could help to control some other despotic wikis

    Eligible - EOZyo checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support -- AroundTheGlobe 19:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC) We need more manpower that has "power"!

    Eligible - AroundTheGlobe checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support It's about time we got something like this. Mendaliv 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mendaliv checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support -- Jan Sende 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jan Sende checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support -- Mglovesfun 21:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mglovesfun checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support -- CardinalDan 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - CardinalDan checked by (RT) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support -- --Awaler 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Awaler checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Awaler checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Support Andrei Romanenko 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Андрей Романенко (Andrei Romanenko) checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support --ArnoldReinhold 04:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - ArnoldReinhold checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Support -- Aaronchall 04:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Aaronchall checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Support --Ytrottier 04:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ytrottier checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support -- Rohan nog 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rohan nog checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support -- FAThomssen 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - FAThomssen checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

18. --Scorpion-811 11:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Scorpion-811 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support, but the global sysops should meet strict requirements (stricter than the usual admins), since working on a foreign wiki is a great responsibility not everyone can handle. --Cvz1 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Cvz1 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Support. However I do not believe that a large number of g. sysops will be appointed (judging by the number of global rollbackers). Ruslik 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ruslik0 (Ruslik) checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

21. В принципе, дело полезное. Только ни в коем случае не давайте такой флаг администраторам из русской Википедии.--Agent001 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Agent001 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Support -- Chstdu 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Chstdu checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support -- -RF- 14:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - -RF- checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  Support -- xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Xaosflux checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Support. It will help revive some projects with few contributors.Andrei Stroe 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Andrei Stroe checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support -- AKA MBG 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - AKA MBG checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  Support. Makes sense and will help small projects. Evolve75 18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Evolve75 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Support.Ryangiggs69 19.08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ryangiggs69 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support Rinfanaiel 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Δ

     Eligible - Rinfanaiel checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Support Smartse 00:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Smartse checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  Support CmaccompH89 03:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - CmaccompH89 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Support Williamborg 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Williamborg checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

33.  Support --Sum 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sum checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  Support --Hintswen 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hintswen checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Support. If only in case of real need and not as a local sysop. As they will not have checkuser access, there will be more users on vandalism combat, but the number of users with access to private log will keep the same.Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} 05:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Teles checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

36.  Support Я только ЗА. Roma pi 08:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Roma pi checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  Support John-vogel 08:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - John-vogel checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Support Sounds like a great plan. Keep on wiking Wikipedia, and get rid of abusers. Borninlyoko 11:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Borninlyoko checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Vinhtantran has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Support Small wikis will have benefits from this policies. Tân (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Vinhtantran (Tân) checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support As long as local sysops can override global sysops if they wish. ...Aurora... 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Aurora checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support Visible Light 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Visible Light checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Tckma 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tckma checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Airplaneman ^talk 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Airplaneman checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support --V2k 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - V2k checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Yeah!!! --MisterWiki (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

   Duplicate vote (You already voted on 1 January) --(RT) 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

7.  Support commons and svwiki user Korall under global account name --Passion4carrots 23:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Passion4carrots checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support It will be very useful --Dima io 01:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Dima io checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  SupportCenya95 Cenya95 02:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Cenya95 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support Explanation is in my crossed-out oppose !vote below. (Thanks to those who replied to me to answer my objection.) -- Soap 03:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Soap checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Shashank Reddy.P Good luck Wikipedia, we are there for you...! 3:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

     Support Sreed888 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Sreed888 checked by (RT) 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support --Seidalex 08:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Seidalex checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Seidalex checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Support Because there's a problem: cross-wiki vandals, and this is the solution folks I respect advocate. I feel that if a project can't find enough volunteers to accept admin rights on their own, the project should be frozen. But a small set of admins with advanced vandal-fighting tools and skills wielded cross-wiki makes sense. I guess this grants this group sufficient rights without making them stewards.--Elvey 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Elvey checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support --Steffen 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Steffen checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Support --Xqt 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Xqt checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Support -- Asr 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Asr checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified and link provided - Asr checked by (RT) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support Matvilho 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Matvilho checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support --Masz 19:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Masz checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

18.  Support --Airon90 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Airon90 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support - seems like a good idea.--Labattblueboy 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Labattblueboy checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Support --AJH16 16:27, 20 January 2010 (EST)

     Eligible Vote by Ajh16 (see evidence) who is entitled to vote (see here) - Ajh16 (AJH16) checked by (RT) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

21.  Support --Bettercom 21:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bettercom checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Support --Parent5446 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Parent5446 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --HansM 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    You are not eligible for voting (150+ edits required). – Innv | d | s: 03:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - HansM checked by (RT) 15:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support --Enti342 03:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Enti342 checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  Support — I figure if we allow editors to have the power to grant and remove sysop status on any Wiki, then a Global Sysop access level shouldn't be too much of a stretch. Master&Expert 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Master&Expert checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Support -- I support the proposal. As wikipedia keeps growing new approaches are needed to combat vandalism. Unified login will make this proposal even more important (in regard to cross-wiki vandalism). Dylansmrjones 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dylansmrjones checked by (RT) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support -- Seems to be a logical proposal. Ecw.technoid.dweeb 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ecw.technoid.dweeb checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  Support --Warionm 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Warionm checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Support It will be help for small wikis. MaxiMaxiMax 18:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Maximaximax checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support –Mucus™ 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mucus™ checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Support- Uri afanasevshirocov™

     Eligible - Uri afanasevshirocov checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  Support – GreenZmiy 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - GreenZmiy checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Support – Flyguy649 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Flyguy649 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

33.  Support – Kijek93 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kijek93 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

34. Okay, might be necessary. –-Wolf-Dieter 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Wolf-Dieter checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Support - Frederic 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Frederic checked by (RT) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

36.  Support Siebrand 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Siebrand checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  Support Edonovan 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Edonovan checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Support Talkstosocks 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Talkstosocks checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  Support I've read through the objections and agree with many of them. The problem is, I see a real problem here, and even if this isn't an ideal solution, I don't think that wishing and hoping that the problem goes away is a viable strategy. - AyaK 01:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - AyaK checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

40.  Support Seems reasonable. Elekhh 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Elekhh checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  Support I fully agree that such a proposal would be extremely helpful.

     Eligible Unsigned vote is by Tdxiang (see evidence) who is eligible (see here and also here) - Tdxiang checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Nahum is a Beurocrat on one wiki which may be affected

 Support If a project feels this is unnecessary or counter-productive, they can opt-out. I se no harm in this proposal and lots of potential good. -- Nahum 11:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Nahum checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support sounds reasonable --Klaeren 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Klaeren checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Mazbln 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mazbln checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Greenman 12:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Greenman checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support | I agree - it's reasonable. I care for small wikis. I hope that those global sysops who shall be elected will do their jobs HONESTLY. - Kampfgruppe 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kampfgruppe checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support - Shureg 14:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Shureg checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support - Gracz54 15:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Gracz54 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support - Conny 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible - Conny checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support - Terloup2 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Terloup2 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support → Moipaulochon ☎ ← 17:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Moipaulochon checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support - Tim Ross (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Duplicate vote (Sorry, you have already voted on 8 January) --(RT) 03:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

11.  Support - Chartinael 22:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Just don't forget to provide for checks and balances

     Eligible - Chartinael checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Support --Ixfd64 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ixfd64 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support --Bff 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bff checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

14. --DENker 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DENker checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Support Kbh3rd 06:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) - Vandalism is the problem of Wikipedia.

     Eligible - Kbh3rd checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support Local contributor 07:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Local contributor checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

17. Yup --Sankarip 08:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sankarip checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

18.  SupportVolt4ire 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC) seems reasonable

     Eligible - Volt4ire checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support This proposal is beneficial to wikipedia. --Winhunter 15:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Winhunter checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Support Yarl 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Yarl checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

21.  Support I think it's very reasonable. Panther991 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Panther991 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Support No big deal...go for it. Seth Whales 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Seth Whales checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support si ayuda a terminar con el vandalismo, adelante.

    The preceding unsigned vote is by Roquemontoya --(RT) 05:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Roquemontoya checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

24.  Support Into it. Improves database control.--MichaelProcton 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - MichaelProcton checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Support: This seems like an excellent idea to me. -- IRP ☎ 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - IRP checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support --Dispe 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dispe checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

27. --Valentim 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Positive effects clearly outweigh negative effects.

     Eligible - Valentim checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Gadfium is a sysop on mi: which is an affected wiki

 Support -Gadfium 05:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Gadfium checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Shubinator 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Shubinator checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support --Mahatee 10:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mahatee checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support Simo ubuntu 13:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Simo ubuntu checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support EtäKärppä 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - EtäKärppä checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support --Djuneyt tr 18:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Djuneyt tr checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Useful for small Wikis. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   Duplicate vote (Sorry, you have already voted on 9 January) --(RT) 03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

7.  Support RuB 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - RuB checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Support for the same reasons as Kbh3rd. --Crossman33 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Crossman33 checked by (RT) 23:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Support NBS 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - NBS checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Support Chirlu 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Chirlu checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Support Finn Rindahl 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Finnrind (Finn Rindahl) checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Support Zatoichi26 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Zatoichi26 checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Zatoichi26 checked by (RT) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Support Mrrightguy10

     Eligible - Mrrightguy10 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Support [[SeanJA 06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)]]

     Eligible - SeanJA checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Support Lars Ola Eide 08:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Lars Ola Eide checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Support Torinir 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Torinir checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Torinir checked by (RT) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Support This will probably make things easier. I do not share the fears of the opposers. Absolute freedom and power-less structures are overrated. At least for a serious international encyclopedic project. Michbich 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Michbich checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    The projects included in this mostly already have a functional power structure, and the majority of them are not encyclopedic projects. They include dictionaries and transcription projects, where there is extremely little cause for dispute, and consequently very few persistant vandals who have a bone to pick. John Vandenberg 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

18.  SupportChristopher1968 12:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC), As long as it works, we have people we can trust, and we can vote to change things if it doesn't work.

     Eligible - Christopher1968 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Support User:Etore.Santos

     Eligible - Etore.Santos checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

20. Roger360 14:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Roger360 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Spartanbu 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Duplicate vote (Sorry, you have already voted on 8 January) --(RT) 03:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

21.  Support Lewenstein 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Lewenstein checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

22. WS62 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - WS62 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Support Ronhjones 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ronhjones checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support MarkusZi 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Duplicate vote (Sorry, you have already voted on 12 January) --(RT) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

24. RonaldB 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - RonaldB checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Support --NukeOperator 09:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - NukeOperator checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Support Sponge 10:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sponge checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  Support --Creeper 12:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Creeper checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Support downloadmeh 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Downloadmeh checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

29.  Support J Raghu 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - J Raghu checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Support --Kmw2700 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kmw2700 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

31. Vernanimalcula 19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Vernanimalcula checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Support --Mmaxx 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mmaxx checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

33.  Support I can't see any rational reason to oppose. It strikes me that the oppose voters are showing a good bit of reflexive anti-authoritatian paranoia. RGTraynor 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - RGTraynor checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  Support Zvika 06:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Zvika checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Support Zuse 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Zuse checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

36. --Stefan64 10:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Stefan64 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  Support -- Tofra ^Talk _{contributions} 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tofra checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     SupportEseki 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 04:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

38.  SupportFkmd 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Fkmd checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  SupportIf you have this idea (that I don't really understand because I don't know the adminitration), it's because you need it (you know that better than me...) 5 desperate 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - 5 desperate checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

40.  Support --Lerdsuwa 15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Lerdsuwa checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  Support--Neduvelilmathew 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Neduvelilmathew checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

42.  Support--Alex S.H. Lin 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alexsh (Alex S.H. Lin) checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support--CB 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible (see here and also here). You need a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project. --(RT) 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

43.  Support Alanmaher 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alanmaher checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

44.  Support D82 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - D82 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

45.  Support Dglynch 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dglynch checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

46.  Support Dedalus 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dedalus checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

47.  Support Kleuske 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kleuske checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

48.  Support Kirrages 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kirrages checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

49.  Support If it strengthens and improves pro-social functions of and within Wikimedia projects, I concur. But one cannot allow some forms of social dynamic to develop unchecked, so checks-and-balances are of course essential. Wotnow 06:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Wotnow checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

50.  Support --kuvaly|d|p| 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kuvaly checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

51. Armagedon^Discussão 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Armagedon checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support This is a good idea, but it seems to be a killer group if they dont have a any limit. Goostaw 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Note Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - link on user page is needed to verify eligibility to vote - Goostaw checked by (RT) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Goostaw checked by (RT) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

52.  Support Nunobaton 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Nunobaton checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

53.  Support Kinhull 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kinhull checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

54.  Support --Quartermaster 19:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Quartermaster checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

55.  Support Purplebackpack89 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Purplebackpack89 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

56.  Support Phil13 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Phil13 checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

57.  Support -- gildemax 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Gildemax checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

58.  Support PBona 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pierre Bona (PBona) checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

59.  Support -- Optimus Pryme 21:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Optimus Pryme checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

60.  Support UninvitedCompany 22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - UninvitedCompany checked by (RT) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

61.  Support --Stuttgart1950 22:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Stuttgart1950

     Eligible - Stuttgart1950 checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

62.  Support RandorXeus 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - RandorXeus checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

63.  Support --Xander89 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Xander89 checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

64.  Support GreyWyvern 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - GreyWyvern checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support Aldo samulo 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

    Duplicate vote (Sorry, you have already voted on 7 January) --(RT) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

65.  Support --Dogcow 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Dogcow checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Support --However there must be strict critrions.Sheepunderscore 05:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

    Fraud/double-vote Seb az86556 04:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Voted previously on 9 January, see here - Sheepunderscore checked by (RT) 11:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

66.  Support Wfplb

     Eligible - Wfplb checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

67.  Support! I often imagined stewards as desperately skipping through hundreds of small wikis deleting and blocking (which isn't their main task). Advantages outnumber drawbacks. - εΔω 09:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - OrbiliusMagister (εΔω) checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

68.  Support Topfive 09:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Topfive checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

69.  Support --Coquidragon 10:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Coquidragon checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

70.  Support Антон Черный 10:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Антон Черный checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

71. -- Perrak 12:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Perrak checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

72.  Support Jonathan Haas 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jonathan Haas checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

73.  Support --GreyCat 17:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - GreyCat checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

74.  Support --Annamaria.dmr 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Annamaria.dmr checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

75.  Support --Pipep 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pipep checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

76.  Support Ninetyone 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ninetyone checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

77.  Support Comte0 20:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Comte0 checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

78.  Support Explained very well by Willscrlt. While some of the "no" arguments seem fair, a substantial proportion seem unfounded (e.g. failure to understand that a non-native speaker can detect obvious spam; global sysops would not be involved in content politics), others seem to assume the worst motivations on the behalf of sysops (if they are doing the thankless task of interwiki antispam, it would be very unfair to accuse them of being "little Napoleons" or "powerseekers"; I fail to see why this proposal is "anti-democratic"), others seem due to a bias against "useless" small wikis "draining" (wo)manpower from "useful" larger ones. If an editor wishes to be involved in anti-spam and anti-vandalism, it isn't for us to dictate how to do it in the most "useful" way, or accuse them of bad motives - but we should ensure that editor is equipped with the tools required to do the job efficiently and with minimum hassle. TheGrappler 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - TheGrappler checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

79.  Support I imagine problems in both situations. Problems without G-SOPs would could be bigger Mario23 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Mario23 checked by (RT) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

80.  Support--Ahonc 00:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ahonc checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

81.  Support Estillbham 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Estillbham checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

82.  Support --Bernardoni 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bernardoni checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

83.  Support Richwales 03:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Richwales checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

84.  Support SchfiftyThree 04:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - SchfiftyThree checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

85.  Support --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - LegitimateAndEvenCompelling checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

86.  Support --Jyothis 04:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Jyothis checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

87.  Support Samuel Contré 06:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Samuel Contré checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

88.  Support Grotte 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Grotte checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

89.  Support DoppioM 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DoppioM checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Milda is a bureaucrat an affected wiki and sysop on another affected wiki

 Support --Milda 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Milda checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Support Mabdul 15:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mabdul checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Support Harald Krichel 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fraud/double-vote Seb az86556 23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Agree this is a duplicate vote (shown here) - Seewolf (Harald Krichel) checked by (RT) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Support CathFR 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - CathFR checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Support As proposed. ~ Tommy Kronkvist 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tommy Kronkvist checked by (RT) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Support Game-M 13:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Game-M checked by (RT) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Support Us441 15:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Us441 checked by (RT) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Support PierreAbbat 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible See here and also here - PierreAbbat checked by (RT) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

No

Badbread/Pakman has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Badbread checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

   --User:patsfanczar

   You are ineligible to vote as you do not have 250 edits, sorry. John Vandenberg 03:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   Didn't you mean 150? --Trickstar 10:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked - less than 150 edits on any project - see here - Patsfanczar checked by (RT) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

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)

    Eligible - Robster2001 checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

Jeblad has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Jeblad checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

Quistnix is a 'crat on a wiki which will be affected

Agree with Robster2001 = Quistnix 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Quistnix checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Abigor has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Only stewards should use globalblock. Huib talk 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Abigor (Huib) checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Nick1915 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Nick1915 checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

2. 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)

    Eligible - Tjako checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Spacebirdy/geimfyglið is a 'crat on a project which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Spacebirdy (geimfyglið) checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Pjahr has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Pjahr 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Pjahr checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2. I completely agree with Robster and also see some truth in Jeblad's words. Masur 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Masur checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

KamStak23 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Robster2001 is right. KamStak23 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - KamStak23 checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Maikking has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Maikking 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Maikking checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2. Per the comments above regarding global blocking. - Rjd0060 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Rjd0060 checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Krinkle has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Agree with Huib, and Robster also has a good point. Krinkle 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Krinkle checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Klondek has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Klondek 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Klondek checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Brimz has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Brimz checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

   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)

LidiaFourdraine has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--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.

1.  Eligible - LidiaFourdraine checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Pieter2 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Pieter2 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I can't see the need to create more jobs when people already are leaving.

1.  Eligible - Pieter2 checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2. 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)

   Please confirm that you are Kubura from either enwiki/frwiki/hrwiki/itwiki. Thank you. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but links provided. Meets eligibility criteria (with over 4500 contributions on en wiki at the time - see here and also here) - Kubura checked by (RT) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

3. Rafostry 18:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Rafostry checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Paelius has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Paelius 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Paelius checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked - agreed, insufficient edits - Zhouf12 checked by (RT) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Natkeeran is a sysop for a wiki which will be affected

--Natkeeran 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Please confirm that you are Natkeeran from either tawiki. Thank you. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - no unified login, but link provided - Natkeeran checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2. I like the idea, but this proposal has much more administrative overhead than needed accomplish this goal. Brianski 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Brianski checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Xania has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Xania checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

Prodego has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Globalblock affects all wikis, should not be given to this group. Prodego ^talk 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Prodego checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

2. 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)

    Eligible - El bes checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

3. --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[9] --John Vandenberg 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - Rockfang checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Eligible - Degen Earthfast checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

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

    Eligible No unified login, but link provided - Heyitspeter checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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!

    Not eligible At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Tim Tebow Rocks! checked by (RT) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Conbo has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Conbo checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

   First of all one example doesn't prove "most vandalism". Secondly, it isn't unmistakable gibberish, it's a "Stinky & Loof" level file. Thirdly, you haven't even proven this single example is vandalism, inserting "not" at position where it is grammatically correct would be less work for the alleged vandal and more work for the self appointed "vandal fighter". Erik Warmelink

   I surely am able to make a good guess as to what language a text is in. Ukrainian would for example be written in Cyrillic; Vietnamese tends to have quite a few accented characters. Both have an average word length that is well below 30 characters. So I can be quite sure that "asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf" is not a valid article in either language. - Andre Engels 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinik has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Cinik checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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!

    Not eligible Invalid and duplicate vote - Tim Tebow Rocks! checked by (RT) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Jcwf is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

-- 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)

1.  Eligible - Jcwf checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Resident Mario has contributed to wikis which will be affected

-- 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)

1.  Eligible - Resident Mario checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 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)

Shobushin has contributed to wikis which will be affected

-- 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)

1.  Eligible - Shobushin checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

爱学习的饭桶 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Different project has different policy. --爱学习的饭桶 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Info Voter decided to withdraw vote (see here) - 爱学习的饭桶 checked by (RT) 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Well,neutral.--爱学习的饭桶 09:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

J. Patrick Fischer has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - J. Patrick Fischer checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible At time of voting not registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - SQ Minion checked by (RT) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

2. coldacid 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Coldacid checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Absolutely not Deathgleaner 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Deathgleaner checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4. 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)

    Eligible - Wifione checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Carolina wren has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Carolina wren checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

O has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - O checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   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)

2.  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)

    Eligible - SweetNightmares (Ashley) checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible At time of voting not registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Wolfpackfan1234 checked by (RT) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Seb az86556 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Seb az86556 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

2. I vote no.User:Samsamcat 06:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Samsamcat checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3. 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)

    Eligible - Trackinfo checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

4.  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)

    Eligible - Erpbridge checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

5.  STRONG No. : centralization of power ... lack of sensitivity to cultural/linguistic differences ... not needed Jrtayloriv 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jrtayloriv checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Cosmia has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Cosmia checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Wikitanvir is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Wikitanvir (T@nv!r) checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Pamputt has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Pamputt 07:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Pamputt checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Cassius1213 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Kriddl has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Kriddl checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

Supreme Unmanifest has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Strongly Oppose Supreme Unmanifest 07:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Supreme Unmanifest checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - FUZxxl checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Rui Silva has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Rui Silva checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Bombe checked by (RT) 22:01, 9 February 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)

    Not eligible At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - ShawnIsHere checked by (RT) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Webmajstr has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Webmajstr checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

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

    Eligible - TheKaspa checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - MvonAugustenburg checked by (RT) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

A1 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - A1 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Cirimbillo has contributed to wikis which will be affected

No. Cirimbillo 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Cirimbillo checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Grifter72 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Grifter72 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

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

    Eligible - Achsenzeit checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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.[10] John Vandenberg 06:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   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)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Linksfuss checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked - agreed, see also here - TorriTorri checked by (RT) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Justass has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Against one more level of admins --Justass 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Justass checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose This proposal gives me far too much insight into what ruined DMOZ. Downstrike 09:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Downstrike checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

3.  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)

    Eligible - Xjs checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

   It might seem unlikely, but I'm a bit touched by the conflict currently occuring on the German wikipedia, where many users don't agree with the general administrative consensus about deleting pages. The privileges the global sysop right grants to the sysop may seem ordinary for the sysop's position, but I think since the global sysop's privileges apply to a quite large range of projects, they should be cut down even further to reduce the risk. Even the stewards cannot overlook a large range of projects and so a lot of abuse originating from the global sysop can happen before they get their rights removed. With even lowered permissions (I'm talking especially nuking pages and autopatrol) I see a lower risk in that. – But that's only my opinion, feel free to object against it! Perhaps I'm also seeing things too critical. Yet I have not been convinced to draw back my vote, however. In my opinion, a wiki does not live from administrators, but from users, anyway. --Xjs 18:16, 11 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked - agree, at time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - CHfish checked by (RT) 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

4. 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)

    Eligible - Mnh checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Chinmay26r has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Chinmay26r checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible IP vote invalid - you must be logged in - 173.5.245.32 checked by (RT) 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Merlin G. has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Merlin G. checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked - agreed, not logged in see here - Racepacket checked by (RT) 22:26, 9 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Vote whilst not logged in, see evidence; no vote from Fornax indicated here - 217.185.116.246 checked by (RT) 11:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

NickK has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - NickK checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 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)

   I  Support this statement. My actualy vote is below. --Buntfalke 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Actually John Vandenberg explained what I was talking about. I considered global sysops as normal sysops after having a look at the set of their rights. I understand why they have to be able to revert or delete pages, to supress redirects, to block users etc. I can understand why they can edit interface, assuming we want to see a global sysop as an advanced "global rollbacker + editinterface". That would be a good idea. But rights... global blocks, marking edits as bot edits, patrolling (not autopatrolling), import rights — is that really needed for uncontroversial mainentance? The new intro at Global sysops makes it clearer that global sysops will use those rights only in emergency situations, like vandalism or spam, but what is the meaning of that uncontroversial mainentance? Stewards page clearly mentions dealing with emergencies, and intervening against crosswiki vandalism, aand that's fine. However, are speedy deletions an example of uncontroversial mainentance? There are situations like Requests for comment/Mass deletion request on Haitian Wikipedia: a project has one sysop, who is active enough, and no deletion policy, so will global sysops delete pages like that, or will they make community decide? In my opinion, this system would work only in case global sysops act when there is clear vandalism or spam or when local community needs help with some speedy deletions or something like that and all local sysops are away. The phrase uncontroversial mainentance, unfortunately, is not that clear — NickK 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   The situation on htwiki is obviously one that is not "uncontroversial".  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

   You're missing NickK's point. (I think the word "will" in his statement was misleading; "can" would have been clearer.) Of course it's obviously not uncontroversial - but only after you read the explanation! Without knowing the background, such deletions can easily appear "uncontroversial" to an outsider, and a a global sysop who speedily deleted such pages would be completely in accordance with policy. SebastianHelm 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

   I'm responding here because this seems to be the most recent comment about it but I can put it below if thats better. I noticed that you were talking about marking edits as "bot edits" by which I assume you mean the markbotedits rights. That is actually a part of normal local admin tools and is also a tool that is part of the global rollback global group as well. It doesn't actually allow you to mark your own edits as bot edits on whim what it allows you to do is to rollback vandalism edits marking both the rollback AND (retroactively) the vandalism edit as a bot edit. This is a little known but very powerful ability that is actually given to all local sysops as far as I know and can be invaluable during an attack on a small wiki where the recent changes can be totally flooded by a spammer alone let alone the rollbacks, this would allow us to hide the attack so as not to give the abuser the recognition the often seek. You can see an explanation of how it's done at mw:Manual:Administrators#Rollback, I generally use a great script by pathoschild that makes it easier. I'll be happy to explain and/or show it to you off the page as well. Global Blocking is obviously controversial and while I think its benefit outweighs the risk I understand the concern. If I remember correctly Import was left on the list because a couple stewards commented that it would be good for them to have it to help them set up new wikis (this was on the old discussion page I can find it if you want. James (T|C) 19:29, 12 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Strafvollstrecker checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Yyy has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Yyy checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

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

    Eligible - Ddalbiez checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible see also here - Ykargin checked by (RT) 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

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

3. 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)

    Eligible - Emppu checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked - At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - The nuts checked by (RT) 22:26, 9 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Vote whilst not logged in - see evidence; no vote from Is_zuddas, see here - 79.7.195.175 checked by (RT) 11:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Rrmsjp has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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.

1.  Eligible - Rrmsjp checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   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)

2.  Oppose --Grasso83 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Grasso83 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Mikeo checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

4.  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)

    Eligible - Sulmues checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

5.  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)

    Eligible - B.Mothes checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

    Oppose I like the idea, but we better explain the concept — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikilalexander (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not eligible. --Nemo 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked - At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Wikilalexander checked by (RT) 22:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose Too much power given to the sysops. Unsigned vote made User:Mylife2702 [11]

    Eligible - Mylife2702 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   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)

John Vandenberg is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - John Vandenberg checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Hugo.arg is a sysop on two wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Hugo.arg 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Hugo.arg checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Memmingen 15:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Memmingen checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Vituzzu has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Vituzzu checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

Rbrausse has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Rbrausse 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Rbrausse checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

LexArt has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - LexArt checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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) [12]

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - IndieCondor checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

KTo288 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)  Info Voter decided to withdraw vote (see here) - KTo288 checked by (RT) 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

1. 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)

Pjetter is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Pjetter checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

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

    Eligible - Itsnotuitsme checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

    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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months (see also here) - Erwan1972 checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 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)

Ooo86 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Ooo86 checked by (RT) 12:02, 21 February 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)

   How about instead of cheerleading and begging people to trust you, you build some stats which demonstrate the problem and allow others to assess whether this solution is appropriate. John Vandenberg 09:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Quedel has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Quedel 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Quedel checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Barcelona 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Barcelona checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose PsychoInfiltrator 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - PsychoInfiltrator checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  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)

    Eligible - Hersfold checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Javierito92 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose I don't like the idea. --by ----> Javierito92 (Talk to me) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Javierito92 checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose One step towards centralization, bureaucratization, homologation Marcello ferrero 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Marcello ferrero checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

    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)

    Moved vote See evidence - Pberndt checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 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)

   Ineligible to vote due to account creation date and number of edits. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months (see here and also here) - AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - HCPUNXKID checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 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)

ОйЛ is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - ОйЛ (OiL) checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

2.  Oppose --Glysiak 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Glysiak checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

LinDrug has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --LinDrug 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - LinDrug checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    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)

    Info User withdrew vote, see evidence - Ajbpearce checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 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)

   Okay that seems a reasonable response to that concern, reading other comments concerns have been raised about the operation of the opt-in opt out mechanic. I am going to remain neutral in recognition of those Ajbpearce 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Piotr967 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Piotr967 checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Taam 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Taam checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Ineligible to vote with less than 150 edits. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See here and also here - ToxicOranges checked by (RT) 17:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Remontoire checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

Alex Esp has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose--Alex Esp 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Alex Esp checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Yonaka 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Yonaka checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Copana2002 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Copana2002 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Copana2002 checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Tscherpownik checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - Bllasae checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Registered 6 December 2009 - less than 3 months before voting - (see also here) - Koronenland checked by (RT) 23:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Hamtechperson checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

Thovt has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Thovt 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Thovt checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

RP459 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - RP459 checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

Ssola has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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

1.  Eligible - Ssola checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - Hacky checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --Vanger 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Vanger checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Helohe has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Helohe 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Helohe checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

O.W.J. te Nijbroek has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --O.W.J. te Nijbroek

1.  Eligible - O.W.J. te Nijbroek checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose For all the reasons above. And even more.Regmoelle 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Regmoelle checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose It sounds like a conspiracy theory to take over the world almost. - Presidentman 21:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Presidentman checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

4.  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)

    Eligible - Soulman checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

AnjaQantina has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --AnjaQantina 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - AnjaQantina checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2. No. We need more stewards too. They do the same job. FAIL

    Eligible - Fail checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Luchsen 23:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Luchsen checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months (see also here) - Martin Morard checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Urdutext has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Urdutext 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Urdutext checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Iridescent checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - Kotra checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Genobeeno checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Just another way for wikimedia.gov to make sure everyone conforms.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Williamskidfears (talk • contribs) 2010-01-08T00:56:26 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Williamskidfears checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose - Windchaser 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Windchaser checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Registered 11 October 2009 - less than 3 months before voting - (see here) - AldanaN checked by (RT) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  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)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Chipuni checked by (RT) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

Toby Bartels has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Is this a discussion to seek consensus or just a numerical vote count? Toby Bartels 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Toby Bartels checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

Avemundi has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Quoting Achsenzeit. --Avemundi 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Avemundi checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Bfigura checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose A bad idea. RMHED 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - RMHED checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Difu Wu checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose Giving someone global power reduces their focus and effort on individual topics Chsh 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Chsh checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Stephen G. Brown is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Stephen G. Brown checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Marfiadi 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Marfiadi checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Petiatil 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Petiatil checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Yair rand has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Yair rand checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here and also here) - MAKootage checked by (RT) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Saltose has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Saltose checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Wwahammy checked by (RT) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Erik Warmelink has contributed to wikis which will be affected

ipblock-exempt, proxyunbannable and globalblock-exempt are not needed. Erik Warmelink 07:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Erik Warmelink checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   I  Support this statement. My actualy vote is below. --Buntfalke 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose if wikipedia had started out this way, our growth would have been stunted. info imperialism, this is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MAKootage (talk • contribs) 2010-01-08T07:36:58 (UTC)

   Ineligible, and duplicate vote. see "05:12, 8 January 2010" above. John Vandenberg 07:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Still ineligible due to less than 150 edits when vote cast (see here) - MAKootage checked by (RT) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

DarkSTALKER has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose — DarkSTALKER 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - DarkSTALKER checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Nerusai checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Δζ checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - MartinStennert checked by (RT) 17:30, 14 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - MQDuck checked by (RT) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose — Guy M ^(Talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Guy M checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose - the proposal is awkward and the rules too arbitrary. - Richardcavell 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Richardcavell checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Kicior99 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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).

1.  Eligible - Kicior99 checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here - 68miko checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

    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.

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Captain Courageous checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Nejron has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose nejron 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Nejron checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Ohms law 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ohms law checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Useless to my mind. Ascaron 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ascaron checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose Never the Global Sysops will have enough language skills to work on other language projects.Gryzon 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Gryzon checked by (RT) 13:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Otto ter Haar has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Otto ter Haar checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Zwiadowca21 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Zwiadowca²¹ 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Zwiadowca21 checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Meisterkoch has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Strongly Oppose--Meisterkoch 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Meisterkoch checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   You are ineligible to vote. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Stepri20xx checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Cicero Oliveira checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Angusmclellan has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

1.  Eligible - Angusmclellan checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Frakturfreund has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose I’m also not convinced. --Frakturfreund 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Frakturfreund checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose This will only drive away users and admins of already small wikis. --Beefball 15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Beefball checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Körnerbrötchen has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Körnerbrötchen 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Körnerbrötchen checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Bad idea D100a 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - D100a checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Mogelzahn has contributed to wikis which will be affected

--Mogelzahn 16:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Mogelzahn checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose see comments below. good luck! Macevoy 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Macevoy checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Bausparfuchs checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose I like the idea, but I oppose granting them global blocking. CRGreathouse 17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - CRGreathouse checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

JessicaRapha has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - JessicaRapha checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Atlantas has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Atlantas checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - ula5 checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

   ((oppose))--Bouilletmichel pas 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here - Bouilletmichel checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Sp5uhe is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Oppose Sp5uhe 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Sp5uhe checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Karanacs checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Frommbold has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose I'm not convinced this is for the best. Frommbold 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Frommbold checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Matsmannen 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Matsmannen checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose If you've ever seen the edit wars over single letters ([13]) [14][15]), 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)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - BAPACop checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 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)

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

    Eligible - Scheppi80 checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Ruinia checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - MoN24 checked by (RT) 21:48, 14 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - LinkNY checked by (RT) 21:48, 14 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - RenagadeX checked by (RT) 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  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)

    Eligible - GrahamColm checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

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

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - Alphred checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Did not have 150 edits at time of voting - see also here - Chrishibbard7 checked by (RT) 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  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)

    Eligible - Wehwalt checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Oppose Lack of discussion about the effects of "global policy" needed to implement this makes me oppose. --Xeeron 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Xeeron checked by (RT) 14:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  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)

    Eligible - Przsak checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Oppose Btornado 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Btornado checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Pruitt checked by (RT) 21:48, 14 February 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)

अभय नातू is a 'crat on a project which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - अभय नातू checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Me6620 checked by (RT) 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose I prefer a flat hierarchy. --Eberhard Cornelius 04:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Eberhard Cornelius checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Dontworry has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Dontworry 06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1. User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Dontworry checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Lithorien checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Erkan Yilmaz has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose ----Erkan Yilmaz 07:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Erkan Yilmaz checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

OhanaUnited has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - OhanaUnited checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Bduddy checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Stechlin 09:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Stechlin checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Tobias1983 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Tobias1983 09:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Tobias1983 checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose VisualBeo 09:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - VisualBeo checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Brownout has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Brownout checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Tenautomatix 11:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tenautomatix checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see here) - Tim1337 checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Birczanin has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Birczanin 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Birczanin checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2. 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)

    Eligible - RegentsPark checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Stewards undergo a well advertised election, and are required to be identified to the WMF. I oppose steward candidates who have lack demonstrated language skills, and/or have little experience on small wikis. John Vandenberg 08:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cidel has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Cidel 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Cidel checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Frukko 13:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Frukko checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Demart81 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 13:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Demart81 checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Sannita has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Sannita checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose -- I don't see the need for creating a group of super sysops. Off2riorob 14:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Off2riorob checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Eligible - WJBscribe checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose Is Wikipedia getting more and more stalinistic? --stern89 14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Stern89 checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

Sir Anguilla has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Sir Anguilla checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Kragenfaultier 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kragenfaultier checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Unnachamois checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

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

    Eligible - Wikiwoohoo checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Friendly Ed checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose - we don't need any more of this sort of nonsense. --Mcginnly 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mcginnly checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Joku Janne has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose. There should be more stewards instead of the proposed system. --Joku Janne 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Joku Janne checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Davewild checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Eleman checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 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)

Valepert has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --valepert 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Valepert checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - SlimVirgin checked by (RT) 14:25, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Farthen checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Undue centralisation. - prat from English Wikipedia

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Pratyeka checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Retaggio has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Retaggio 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Retaggio checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Magzan68 checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Ace of Spades has contributed to wikis which will be affected

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)

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

   Not eligible. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked and reinstated. User registered on 4 March 2009 on en.wikipedia and had sufficient edits (see here and also here) - Ace of Spades checked by (RT) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2. --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)

    Eligible - Decora checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Camahuetos has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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.

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

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Camahuetos checked by (RT) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Los3 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  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)

    Eligible - Île flottante checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 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)

Nickanc has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose--Nickanc 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Nickanc checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Рашат Якупов has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose--Рашат Якупов 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Рашат Якупов checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 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)

    Not eligible Rechecked. Also had not been registered for 3 months (see also here) - RunnerHarold checked by (RT) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Andyzweb checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

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

   Sorry, you are ineligible for voting. John Vandenberg 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Alex norway123 checked by (RT) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  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)

    Info Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - a unified account or a link is needed - Doboz checked by (RT) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Doboz checked by (RT) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  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)

    Eligible - Suomi Finland 2009 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Strainu has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 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)

1.  Eligible - Strainu checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  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)

    Eligible - Cum Deo checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    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)

3.  Oppose Goodone121 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Goodone121 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose A lot of power, few hands. --EmilioPin 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - EmilioPin checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Ragib is a 'crat on a project which will be affected

 Oppose At present, Stewards are doing a fine job, and I am not comfortable with giving non-native language speakers full admin rights in a wiki. If a language lacks admins, then perhaps there are not too many users working on the project? That can't be a justification of giving someone rights on all wikipedias. --Ragib 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Ragib checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Kwj2772 is a sysop on a project which will be affected

Agree with Erpbridge Kwj2772 (msg) 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Kwj2772 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Jhessela 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

   I unified my accounts. Jhessela 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified and link provided - Jhessela checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose The first thing developing project needs is a strong base of community; that could be difficult with foreign bureaucrats hanging around. Mr. G. Williams 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mr. G. Williams checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose --Buntfalke 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Buntfalke checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose Too much power for one person. --Flori999 09:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Flori999 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose I agree with Flori999. Zapyon 09:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Zapyon checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Amarhgil has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Amarhgil 10:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Amarhgil checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose As an editor on both English and German (very much less the latter) and aware of the unique user communities as well as language difficulties, I can't see this a being beneficial. The practical problems of smaller projects have to be solved locally. Or they will not be solved at all.Mwasheim 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mwasheim checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

BRUTE/ბრუტ has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose I agree with Flori999 too. ბრუტ 11:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - BRUTE (ბრუტ) checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose I agree with Flori999 too. --Christian 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Christian.Winterstein checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose --INS Pirat 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - INS Pirat checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

BalthCat has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose For the moment, I'm opposed. I may be under-informed but when I read it I immediately questioned the need for global block capabilities, and from reading a few other comments I've come to agree that this should default to an opt-in system, not opt-out. - BalthCat 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - BalthCat checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Roterraecher has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Roterraecher 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Roterraecher checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Xavier Dengra is a sysop on two wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Xavier D. (Talk!) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Xavier Dengra (Xavier D.) checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose, because it is not limited to, say, two years. There is a necessity, but this procedure might result in a censoring of small wikipedias by sysops of the mighty ones. --Eidum 14:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Only 2 edits (the vote and userpage on meta). Erik Warmelink 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Eidum checked by (RT) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Góngora has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Góngora _(T•ES) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Góngora checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

KRLS is a 'crat and sysop on two wikis which will be affected

 Oppose There are a lot of wikis that vandalism is almost null.--KRLS 15:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - KRLS checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose -- Each wiki should opt-in to a system like this after proper consideration, not have to opt out. If the primary aim is to limit vanadlism, powers can be more limited in scope. --(RT) 15:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible If some else wishes to check this one you can! - (RT) checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose -- Boxerfan 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Boxerfan checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Sbazzone has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Sbazzone 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Sbazzone checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose DrFishcake 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - DrFishcake checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Openskye2 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   Ineligible to vote with less than 150 contribs. John Vandenberg 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. See also here - Openskye2 checked by (RT) 23:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose--Call me berti 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Call me berti checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose Strong no. Again, too much power in too few hands without demonstrated need for it. Global sysops will not replace the jobs that must be done by stewards and concentration should be placed on improving steward coverage. ERK 17:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - ERK checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5. --Auanika 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Auanika checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Pigr8 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Absolutely no. Responsibility is the price of liberty. If a project doesn't have enough admins, it's better to close it or let it go to its destiny. --Pigr8 17:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Pigr8 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified and link provided - Pigr8 checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose –Whitehorse1 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Whitehorse1 checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Dezidor has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Agree with RT. These sysops also should not have rights like global block. --Dezidor 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Dezidor checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose -- Too big a change, too little justification for it. Townlake 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Townlake checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose - No. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Fastily checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose There's too many ranks already. The proposition fails to really justify the necessity of such a new rank as opposed to getting more stewards. The Userboxer 20:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - The Userboxer checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose No convincing argument was put forth by this proposal (per the above) and this strikes me as rule cruft and unecessary. If a project can't get enough dedicated people to administrate it we should question whether it needs to exist not band-aid a solution. Cat-five 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Cat-five checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

6. There's already enough paternalism in the wikis. The system won't be free anymore, if things keep going the way they do. --Bachsau 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bachsau checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Oppose This proposal will needlessly centralize decisionmaking authority; the fact that the proposal contains opt-out rather than opt-in language makes smaller projects subject to it by default unless they are large enough to muster support for the opt-out. Also there are already procedures in place to enable interested parties to become sysops/admins on small projects. This is a solution in search of a problem. KASchmidt 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - KASchmidt checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Oppose KinHikari 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - KinHikari checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Guidomac has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Guidomac 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Guidomac checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose We need less bureaucracy, not more. --Lewis 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Lewis checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Definitevly NO. We have enough Dictators. --SwissAirForceSoldier 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - SwissAirForceSoldier checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

4. Sadly  Oppose while I support the concept and even understand the need the current proposition doesnt address the necessity for communication, once you start blocking especially at a global level you need to be able to communicate your reasons effectively and actively participate in discussions over your actions. This means a multilingual requirement on sysops, an area to discuss/review actions, methods of notification over actions and dispute resolution process Gnangarra 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Gnangarra checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose Mkoyle 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Mkoyle checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose --Theghaz 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Theghaz checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Oppose--Yo987 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Yo987 checked by (RT) 15:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Oppose delegating power to a select few is a bad idea when there can be a decentralized technical solution in place that doesn't employ such a tactic. EvanCarroll 03:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - EvanCarroll checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Oppose --Wagaf-d 03:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Wagaf-d checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Roberto Mura has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose for global blocking expecially. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 08:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Roberto Mura checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose fight elitist stupidity, not globalize it --Jhartmann 09:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jhartmann checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Epbr123 10:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Epbr123 checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Snek01 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Too much power over too many projects to very few people. Nobody need so much privileges, because nobody knows all languages. --Snek01 11:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Snek01 checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose--130.92.9.58 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

   Login to vote, thanks. --KrebMarkt 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua has contributed to wikis which will be affected

I am concerned about global blocking/unblocking. I have known of several cases which would have led to a highly destructive wheel war had this been in place at that time. KillerChihuahua 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - KillerChihuahua checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Fossa has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Globalization rocks, but conscious cultural imperialism? No, thank you, I don't want hordes of American and European geeks to administrate languages spoken mainly in Africa Fossa 15:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Fossa checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

   The "hordes of American and European geeks" are not going to administrate "languages spoken mainly in Africa". They are going to delete pages that consist of "JOHN DOE SUCKS", and block people who keep creating the aforementioned pages. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2.  Oppose strongly Insufficient checks. Give projects individual discretion to use or not use individual stewards and I'll accept. Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Kevin Baas checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

3. Strongly  Oppose If there's a lack of qualified people, a thoroughly justified global request for cooperation should be made in order to enlist users who might be able to help. Even well developed Wikipedias suffer from rampant abuse. A glaring example is the Portuguese Wikipedia that is run by a criminal administration who does not respect human rights and its own policies and regulations. Please see my discussion page for irrefutable evidence. Vapmachado 16:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Vapmachado checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Park4223 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose There is too much power.--Park4223 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Park4223 checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Jan Luca 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Jan Luca checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose I think that this is an admirable attempt to solve a real problem, but it completely ignores any context of how a local wiki chooses to do things. Just because someone understands the community on one wiki doesn't mean that they'll get it on another. Like someone said above, simply parachuting in a good admin doesn't really fix the problem. --Anabus 19:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Anabus checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   It's just for deleting obvious vandal pages & to block obvious crosswiki vandals! 84.139.107.174 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

4.  Oppose really good abstract from Anabus --Geos 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Geos checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose no weakening local wikis --O DM 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - O DM checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

   They are strenghtened, because they rid rid of vandals more easily+quickly! 84.139.107.174 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

6.  Oppose --Binome 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Binome checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Michalgarbowski has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose - I think it's an abysmal idea. Each one of all Wiki-lang-versions has its own local rules, and own local team of volunteers. It should be untouched in my humble opinion. I'm sure, that problem may really exist, but that way of solve is unacceptable for me. I suggest to create a web service just for local teams to report abusers. That kind of solve may be helpful to work jointly with another teams against abusers. I can understand a Wiki-teams with small communities. But nice idea to deal with vandalisms locally are approved versions and editor privileges. It works successfully within polish Wikipedia. -- Michalgarbowski 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Michalgarbowski checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Ghedo

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - Ghedo checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose - Less is more --Gibnews

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - Gibnews checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose - With stories of editors leaving in droves added to the existing oligarchical problems within the user-groups, this is an unnecessary distribution of absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. TorstenGuise 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - TorstenGuise checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose - This is too much power and I don't believe it is necessary. Even if it was, if someone wish to be sysop on many wiki, they should apply separately on each wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yayay (talk • contribs) 2010-01-12T01:22:20 (UTC)

    Eligible - Yayay checked by (RT) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose - This specific proposal only, not the general concept. I think something like this is needed and perfectly reasonable, but certain aspects of this, like granting globalblock to these sysops, is not reasonable. Also, projects should have an "opt-in" rather than an "opt-out". By default, any project should manage its own affairs by its own standards; and should only resort to needing global sysops by its own request. --Jayron32 01:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Jayron32 checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose - Lexo 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Info Rechecked. No unified login (see here) - a unified account or a link is needed - Lexo checked by (RT) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

    Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Lexo checked by (RT) 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Panic2k7 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose - There are good enough motives (as presented above) to object to this... --Panic 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Panic2k7 checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

HalanTul is a 'crat on a project which will be affected

 Oppose - --HalanTul 02:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - HalanTul checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Not at all convinced that there is any true usefulness for this. Sorafune 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Sorafune checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Not convinced. Vietinghoff

    SUL does not exist - Vietinghoff checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Vietinghoff checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose unnecessary centralisation of power, will favour enwiki. Craftyminion 08:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Craftyminion checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Timir2 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Timir2 08:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Timir2 checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose – Too much power, terrible idea. Acdx 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Acdx checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose – No, not convinced. Too much power, horrible! --4Frankie 09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - 4Frankie checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Ruthven has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose - Serious doubts on the available tools or the capacity of someone not speaking the language (we are talking about moribund languages or little wikis). -- Ruthven 11:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Ruthven checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Caltrop has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose - It's Brazil (movie) -- with the unhappy ending. Caltrop 12:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Caltrop checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

2. oppose ---Notedgrant 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Notedgrant checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose - I vehemently oppose this policy. Its a bad, bad idea. Aside from concentrating power in a few individuals it will favour the English language wikipedia by sheer weight of numbers. There is the language issue. It ignores cultural differences, where acceptable behaviour in one place, gets the ban hammer in another. This proposal has not been thought through properly and I would generally oppose this as a general principle. Justin A Kuntz 12:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Justin A Kuntz checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Marcus Cyron has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose - Global Sysops sollen als Arbeitstiere buckeln, aber auch ganz leicht wieder abzuschießen sein. Nö. Und zudem zu viel Macht für die Stewarts, die da ja nach gut Dünken entscheiden dürfen. Marcus Cyron 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Marcus Cyron checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

FollowTheMedia has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --FollowTheMedia 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - FollowTheMedia checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Peadara has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Peadara 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Peadara checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Vchorozopoulos has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose So much power is too dangerous. It may totaly destroy the WP. Especially the 'nuke' command. It's sure too much.--Vchorozopoulos 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Vchorozopoulos checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Skorp24 has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --SkоrP²⁴ 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Skorp24 checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Gorigori has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose -- No, too much power concentrated. This ignores cultural differences. WP can grow in each region without Global Sysops who may not understand local priorities. These privileges will encourage the development of enwiki versus other languages. --Gorigori 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Gorigori checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose - Echo the "too much centralized power" arguments. 5minutes 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - 5minutes checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Jpeeling has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose - per Iridescent. --Jpeeling 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Jpeeling checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Péeuh has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose--Péeuh 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Péeuh checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

SebastianHelm has contributed to wikis which will be affected

Not as "opt-out"; imposing (as is currently proposed) a minimum vote count for opt-out shows no respect for minorities. (Like user:Seb az86556, I don't have any problem with the global blocks, but with the unfairness of people voting on something that doesn't affect them. While, theoretically, Nil Einne's reply is correct, it is wrong in practice: For most of the voters, it is extremely unlikely that they ever would be affected by the vote.) SebastianHelm 20:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - SebastianHelm checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Lycaon is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Oppose--Lycaon 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Lycaon checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose - Do we need an international police force in Wikiland? This proposal does not convince me of the necessity. Would not it be better to archive (and make read-only) wikis which are too small to look after themselves? --Thüringer 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Thüringer checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose I'm afraid I oppose this. Wikipedia has become increasingly opaque and hierarchical, and I've been largely discouraged from editing. This isn't the right direction: I'd much rather we looked at why any wikis didn't have this many admins in the first place. Tompagenet 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tompagenet checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose -against centralized hierarchies.--Marvin 101 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Marvin 101 checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

ゆいしあす's home wiki will be affected

 Oppose--ゆいしあす@jawikisource(My home project is Japanese Wikisource.) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - ゆいしあす checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Jarvin has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --Jarvin 00:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Jarvin checked by Seb az86556 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Doesn't make any sense to me. I, for example, wouldn't recognize vandalism in Russian or Tagalog if it bit me in the butt. Who would other than speakers of those languages? If a project is so small that it doesn't have enough admins then it needs to promote more regular editors to adminship and/or seek admins from other projects, who actually at least marginally understand the language in question. If it can't successfully do any of this, maybe it isn't a viable project to begin with. This proposal puts too much authority into too few hands, and too many questions and proposed modifications have been raised. If this idea is, underneath, actually a good one, this needs to be demonstrated more clearly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - SMcCandlish checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose for reasons given above. Sadistik 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Sadistik checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

Guido den Broeder has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Would allow for a whole new layer of wikigaming. Guido den Broeder 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Guido den Broeder checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

DanielBF's home wiki will be affected

 Oppose I agree with EvanCarroll.--DanielBF 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - EvanCarroll checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Expand the number of admins to make up for the growing need of manpower. There is no need for individuals to have this much power. Rouge568 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   See please: You are ineligible to vote. – Innv | d | s: 04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Rouge568 checked by (RT) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose --Sparrowhawk64 06:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Sparrowhawk64 checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose --Wj32 10:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Wj32 checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose --Eistreter 10:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Eistreter checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose While not without its merits for fighting vandalism (a highly overrated problem), this opens the potential for admins interfering with the operation of wikis they aren't positively contributing to, when it comes to conflict of opinions. And yes, I know it says "only in urgent cases", but what it says doesn't necessarily reflect what it becomes in practice, seeing as the interpretation is left to the user. CP\M 11:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - CP\M checked by (RT) 18:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose see #2 --Schmiddtchen 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Schmiddtchen checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Oppose Full admin rights for non-native language speakers in foreign "small" wikis? Just some compliant gofers for the Stewards? No, thanks. --Ms Anna Nass 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   Where did you get the idea that global sysops will get "full admin rights"? Full admin rights include the trust of a local community to make judgment calls—global sysops don't have that. They simply pop up when there's a spam attack. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   Please just accept my right to vote according to my beliefs. We should not abuse a voting section for personal discussions. And hairsplitting arguments don't help further, anyway. --Ms Anna Nass 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ms Anna Nass checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose No. Thank you. Too much job for a global administrator. They have work enought at their home.--Roger469 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Roger469 checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Oppose Who will decide what is an "urgent case"? Too much responsibility in one person, too little grassroots democracy. --Sleepingbeauty 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

   User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - Sleepingbeauty checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Oppose Seems like a good idea to improve the quality of smaller Wikis that lack manpower. But how could it be realised? To work properly as a Global Sysop you'd need to actually speak the language of the Wiki you are supervising. And if you do, why not participate in the project as a user, and maybe later as an admin, if you qualify? But if you haven't got theses qualifications what should give you the right to intervene? So if one thinks it through it's a very silly proposition indeed. No thanks. Vicki Reitta 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Vicki Reitta checked by Seb az86556 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Oppose No thanks. Axl 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible has link on meta-userpage - Axl checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Oppose --ComputerHotline 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - ComputerHotline checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Oppose see User:Erpbridge --Siechfred 19:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Siechfred checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Oppose such rights cant be used faithful in a wiki which uses a language the global sysop is not fluent in. --Mykarn 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mykarn checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Utvik has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose Utvik 20:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Utvik checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Manuel Trujillo Berges is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected

 Oppose --Manuel Trujillo Berges 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (an:Usuario:Manuel Trujillo Berges). (Aragonese) Ta partecipar en cualsiquier procheuto, a primera condición ye tener conoxenzias d'a luenga d'ixe procheuto. Yo no charro vietnamita y no voy á Wiki.vi á creyar articlos ni á tresladar pachinas ni à resolver cualsiquier problema d'os usuarios: ixo ye una custión d'ixa comunidat y d'os suyos almenistradors. Qui no puet entender ixo que escribo no puet estar almenistador en una biquipedia escrita en aragonés. --Manuel Trujillo Berges 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Manuel Trujillo Berges checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

NERIUM has contributed to wikis which will be affected

 Oppose --NERIUM 21:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - NERIUM checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose I see this as a possible start towards centralization in Wikimedia projects. Urgent cases can be controlled by intervention from Meta, there is no real need for creating this new institution. I do not see any way that the authonomy of small wikis can be meaningfully guaranteed if this proposal is accepted. --TimBits 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - TimBits checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Lascorz is a sysop on two wikis which will be affected

 Oppose I oppose to this just because as speaking on behalf of the aragonese wikipedia community of users, I disagree with one of the suggested criteria that have been formuled to decide wether a wiki should host external sysops or not. We don't have the total amount of 10 sysops that is requested (actually, we are 6 there) but we do actually manage to keep a 18,000 article wiki in good condition, being that each one of us is currently doing the loggin every day. Such exceptions should be born in mind. --Lascorz (Tell me) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Lascorz checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose -- Pretobras 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Pretobras checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose Luckz

    Eligible - Luckz checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose iBen

    Eligible - iBen checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose Wiki has already moved much too far from the original decentralized concept to an institution where a small elite exercises disproportionate power. For all the assurances that banning/blocking authority would only be used "rarely" in cases of "extreme abuse" we know that just ain't so- admins already are way too eager to ban and block for nakedly political or personal reasons. We've only just emerged from a period wherein a certain (former) admin madly locked, blocked and banned in over 5000 articles just to ensure that nothing which contradicted his ideological hobbyhorse ever appeared. No more hierarchy, no more hall monitors, no more junior assistant scoutmasters. NO. Solicitr 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    ' SUL does not exist - Solicitr checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

    Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Solicitr checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose I would only support if the powers of global admins were explicitly limited to fighting global vandalism (easy to detect, as it will, by definition, be in an inappropriate language), and helping to set up new wikis (actually, that sounds more like a job for a global bureaucrat, or at least a separate office; maybe a global interface editor?). I'm sure local admins can handle local vandalism, local deletions, local interface improvements, etc. Ben Standeven 04:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Ben Standeven checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose No way. Having global admins who don't understand what's going on in each small wiki sounds like a nightmare. We can't even solve admin problems on *one wiki* for God's sake — look at the constant accusations of abuse and the brokenness of RfA on enwiki, for example. Kyle Barbour 04:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kyle Barbour checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Oppose I think it's better if users focus on individual projects. It could lead to people roaming around trying to exert power over individual projects they know little about based on work they did elsewhere which may not related to it. Ty 07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Tyciol checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Oppose --Pecalux 10:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Pecalux checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Oppose --Willtron 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Willtron checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

10.  Oppose per Marcus Cyron --Hardenacke 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hardenacke checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose I do not support – will bring more diskussion with it. Giacomo1970 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Giacomo1970 checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Oppose --Apie 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Voter not logged in and user not eligible James (T|C)

     Eligible Rechecked and reinstated. Voter was Bezur (see evidence) who was entitled to vote (registered on de.wikipedia on 22 August 2007 with 475 edits at time of voting - see here and also here). Also note that the Apie user page also links to Bezur - Bezur (Apie) checked by (RT) 18:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Hesperian contributes to a wiki that would be affected.

Changed to oppose; John Vandenberg's comment above convinced me this is problematic. Culture varies immensely from wiki to wiki. A functional community with nine active administrators should not be beholden to outside influences. Hesperian 13:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1.  Eligible - Hesperian checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

2.  Oppose Contradictory. Global blocking ability whereas their role is supposed to be extended to a "small" group of small wikis only. Better, much better, to elect more Stewards instead. --Piero Montesacro 13:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Piero Montesacro checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

3.  Oppose The global sysops' rights go far too far into the cultures of each wiki, they would have to be masterminds or supermen in anticipation of sociological issues in each wiki community. Just can't do. Stewards could be granted rights to fight global vandalism. -- KPT@NY 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible ([http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge&dir=prev&target=KPTNY since June 2004) - KPTNY checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

4.  Oppose »xxx has contributed to wikis which will be affected « Well, it's their afair, why shouldn't they vote? --Kockmeyer 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Kockmeyer checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

5.  Oppose Sidar 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Sidar checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

6.  Oppose First of all, uncontroversial maintenance would be the main task of a local sysop; the controversial stuff is a minor part of the job, I expect, particularly on a small project. I therefore agree with John Vandenberg's assertion that it would be better to leave this type of maintenance to local sysops who are growing a project rather than having them leave it all to global sysops. I also think giving these global sysops the ability to institute global blocks is a decidedly bad idea. And lastly, global sysops may not be able to understand the local language and therefore the local policies. There are shades of imperialism in this proposal. A Stop at Willoughby 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible has link on meta-page - A Stop at Willoughby checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

7.  Oppose This vote is not correct, because small wikis have not been aware of this vote.Bolo1910 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Bolo1910 checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

8.  Oppose Too much power in the hands of an elite. Sv1xv 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - Sv1xv checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

9.  Oppose It's a false good idea in the long term. GLec 12:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Eligible - GLec checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

    Oppose I am worried that the globalblock user right will be used to overrule local administrators in a power struggle when they disagree with a global sysop about whether or not a particular user should be blocked ... and since, unless I'm mistaken (I've read every page including of course m:Global blocking), there is no way to overrule a global block without going to meta, the global sysops will always win. (note: my account is not fully unified under this name, but under User:3centsoap it is.) -- Soap 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Moved vote User switched vote - see evidence here and also here - Soap checked by (RT) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

   Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist can override a global block locally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Well, you're linking to a page on Meta ... can I assume that each wiki has its own "Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist", or is there only one of them and that one is on Meta? -- Soap 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   I assume that each one does. (choosing one at random) The Afrikaans Wikibooks has one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

   Just to confirm, overruling a global block is indeed a power of local sysops at all WMF wikis. I'd also say that if it ever gets to the point that they are "fighting" for whether a user is banned or not the Global Sysop most definitely should be going through a review. James (T|C) 09:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I'm indenting my !vote because that was my main concern. -- Soap 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

10. OPPOSE -- WIKIPEDIA already has a problem with arrogant, power-hungry Little Napoleons. There's already a problem with the inner-circle elite mentality. Why make it even worse? We don't need yet another level in the hierarchy. Another group of pasty-faced power-trippers who "know the right people," have ultimate power and "above the law" mentalities, playing favorites and dispensing "justice" from their keyboards at a whim. Tragic romance 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tragic romance checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

11.  Oppose SnoozingInTheLemonGrove 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - SnoozingInTheLemonGrove checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

12.  Oppose Juanpabl 08:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Juanpabl checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose -- Maykel 2 11:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. James (T|C) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Rechecked. At time of voting had not been registered for 3 months and did not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project (see also here) - Maykel 2 checked by (RT) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

13.  Oppose --OosWesThoesBes 13:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - OosWesThoesBes checked by Seb az86556 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

14.  Oppose --Miquel puig 13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Miquel puig checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

15.  Oppose Virtlink 14:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Virtlink checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

16.  Oppose --Joshua Issac 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Joshua Issac checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

17.  Oppose, Boretti 19:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Boretti checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

18.  Oppose I don't think this is necessary. Every wiki should have their own moderators. Global ones can't be sure if one action is vandalism or against the policies. --すけ 04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry but you are inelibible to vote. --Bsadowski1 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Has over 500 edits on es.wiki and registered on October 14. - すけ checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - account now unified. At time of voting was registered for 3 months with sufficient edits (see also here) - すけ checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

19.  Oppose no--David1010 10:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - David1010 checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

20.  Oppose Ack Fossa, #263 -- Sozi 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sozi checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

21.  Oppose nein danke too many power hungry cops already. If there's not enough stewards, it may well be addressed through steward selection. NVO 11:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - NVO checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

22.  Oppose. "Global sysops will automatically lose their access if it is unused for more than six months." Six months of what access? (see "Six months" discussion below) As an editor who is already sysop on two projects, this proposal is nonsense to me unless the issue is resolved. --Deryck Chan 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Deryck Chan checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

23.  Oppose I'm not yet convinced of the necessity of this proposal or whether it is the right way to solve the problem. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bryan checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

24. I oppose giving GlobalBlock to an additional group of people, unless it is restricted to wikis that have opted in (or not opted out). I opposed the application of Global Sysop rights to all wikis including e.g. enwiki which probably has higher standards for admins than those for global sysops here on meta; it looks like the proposers didn't learn from that failed vote. -- Eugene van der Pijll (m) 17:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Eugene van der Pijll checked by Seb az86556 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

25.  Oppose Heck no! I'm not at all convinced that this would work for the benefit of smaller projects. I also perceive language/cultural differences presenting a major issue. Sugarfish 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sugarfish checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Additional info: Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Sugarfish checked by (RT) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

26.  Oppose -- GregChant 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - GregChant checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

27.  OpposeKal-El ^{drop me a line!} 08:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Kal-El checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

28.  Oppose The proposal, to its credit, describes itself in detail, but I perceive neither a finite problem nor measurable goals to establish its necessity. It seems to rest instead on "continued abuse" of open wikis -- not a finite problem, but an inevitable part of the wiki process. How can it address a problem without defining the problem's boundaries? How can it be evaluated against the status quo, or other alternatives, without goals? Matt Fitzpatrick 08:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - account now unified - Matt Fitzpatrick checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose Zapyon 09:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Duplicate vote -> Jan10 - Zapyon checked by (RT) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

29.  Oppose At the risk of (extreme) redundancy, I'm not convinced that this is either needed or properly defined.Tyrenon 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Tyrenon checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

30.  Oppose As per above comments. I cannot see how it is beneficial to put so much power in the hands of so few. Booksworm 11:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Booksworm checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

31.  Oppose Centralization of power is not beneficial.--Vindheim 13:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Vindheim checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose. --Stoljaroff 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Stoljaroff checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Stoljaroff checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

32.  Oppose Per 264, not convinced this is necessary, opt-in needed.--Pontificalibus 19:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pontificalibus checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

33.  Oppose This is a power grab. If there are not enough stewards, then we need to get more stewards. This proposal grants near-steward powers to those who would not, or could not qualify as stewards. Stewards have to meet a high-bar set of qualifications because these same powerful tools are entrusted to them. Under this proposal, a person who can't pass the 'trustworthy' test will still get the Power Tools through this back door. There is a reason why these powerful tools are only entrusted to those persons who can demonstrate a high level of trustworthiness, fairness, and honesty. But this proposal would grant (through this newly created back door) those same powerful tools to lesser beings. (break) Without doing any research. I can already tell (but can't prove) that this proposal is driven by persons who are tired of being 'reverted' on their 'Small Wiki Project'. This will be their 'trump card' to block legitimate users who have contributed legitimate content that conflicts with the content the 'Newly Minted Global Sysop' had previously put on the page. If the proposers had included language that 'Global Sysops' would be prohibited from using their power on ANY page that they are 'currently' editing on, and prohibited from using their powers against ANY user who reverted their (the GS's) recent edits, then we could consider whether this is really meant to fight 'Cross-Wiki-Vandalism'. (break) Oh, and to Mike and Nuke and similar ilk, don't 'sub-comment' here. This is a vote page, not a 'damage control' page. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about my vote or comment, it goes on the Discussion Page, or in the 'Comments' section at the bottom of this page... not here. Joe Hepperle 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Joe Hepperle checked by Seb az86556 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

34.  Oppose TheReincarnator 21:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - TheReincarnator checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

35.  Oppose--Cyrilb1881 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Cyrilb1881 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

36.  Oppose - I have read the arguments about the problems that supposedly stewards are facing in terms of crushing overload of work they should be working on. I've strongly considered in the past to become involved as a steward, and I think I could meet the standards required to get that sort of status.... provided that I cared. If there aren't enough stewards, get the word out and seriously try to start recruiting stewards that could meet this challenge. I am very certain that there is an element of the community who could meet just about any standard of trustworthiness that you could throw at them that would qualify as stewards but haven't bothered to be involved yet. No, I don't think that such a significant effort has been made, even if "calls for stewards" have happened in the past. This proposal seems to be creating a new class of users, of which I see that the standards are being lowered compared to stewards but are given nearly the same authority. I only see glory hounds and a small handful of legitimate users that really should be considered for stewardship anyway, but will be kept from the "inner circle" of stewards because of increasing stratification of the Wikimedia community. Too much of that exists anyway, from my perspective. --Roberth 08:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Roberth checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Additional info: Account not unified, but link to Robert Horning provided which is eligible (see here and also here) - Roberth, Robert Horning checked by (RT) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

37.  OpposeTo keep wikipedia more horizontal. --Ecureuil espagnol 11:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ecureuil espagnol checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

38.  Oppose Can't support something that's being rewritten as we speak. Take it away, come back with a finished proposal, and I'll think about it. Elen of the Roads 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Elen of the Roads checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

39.  Oppose Want to support the preceding opinion, and: The more admins, the less wikipedia. --Between the lines 18:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Between the lines checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

40.  Oppose Much too complicated.Hieronymus38 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Hieronymus38 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

41.  Oppose I'm very leary of giving administrative powers to persons who may not be completely fluent in the language of the wiki to be administered. -- User:Firstorm 20 January 2010

     Eligible - Firstorm checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

42.  Oppose --Wok lok 09:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Wok lok checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

43.  Oppose --Rymich13 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rymich13 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

44.  Oppose Simply elect more stewarts instead. --Wahrerwattwurm 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC), SysOp in de:wp

     Eligible - Wahrerwattwurm checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

45.  Oppose – No, not convinced. Too much power, horrible! --Mediatus 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mediatus checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

46.  Oppose - Too much Centralization of power --Sultan Edijingo 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Sultan Edijingo checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

47.  Oppose- Everytime we see a power concentration and a precise hyerarchy in power, it is always justified for the well and the sake of mankind. The best thing we can say about this proposal is that it will never really work.--Stefanomencarelli 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Stefanomencarelli checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - link now provided - Stefanomencarelli checked by (RT) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

48.  Oppose – Stho002 03:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Stho002 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

49.  Oppose - I object for two reasons: it isn’t clear that we have a problem requiring this level of attention; and I really don't like the structure of this voting procedure. One has to scroll past all the “Yes” votes before even finding the “No” votes. Interspersing votes would be far more fair. Further, I strongly object to the argumentative comments inserted after so many votes, comments which belong in the Comments section below. Very bad form, people!DOR (HK) 06:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - DOR (HK) checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose - to much power in few hands [whose vote is this??? Seb az86556 01:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)]

     Not eligible This unsigned vote is by Jacdan (see here), who is not eligible to vote. Does not have a minimum of 150 edits on at least one project - only 133 votes on de wiki at time of voting (see here and also here). - Jacdan checked by (RT) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

50.  Oppose - "Keine Macht für Niemand!" - ALL FREE encyclopedias must be kept FREE from any tendencies of complete control by special admins' rights! And more sysops called administrators won't solve the highly overrated vandalism-problem neither at all. --Leiwandesk 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Leiwandesk checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

51.  Oppose - No more hierarchy --E235 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - E235 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

52.  Oppose - What Fossa said. --JBirken 13:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - JBirken checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

53.  Oppose - Different wikis have different rules. Global administration is dangerous. Edit/ time requisites before allowing global accounts would be nicer. (oops I forgot to sign --Josemoya 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

     Eligible - Josemoya checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

54.  Oppose - This centralization of power makes me uneasy. --Reise-Line 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Reise-Line checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

55.  Oppose - Not Necessary. Too many different centres of power can make thing more chaotic--SETI3

     Eligible - SETI3 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

56.  Oppose Maglocunus 19:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Maglocunus checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

57.  Oppose - Wikimedia projects have enough problems with unaccountable bureaucrats* as it is, and this proposal would make it much worse. (*Note: bureaucrats in the traditional, not wikijargon, sense) Cynical 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Cynical checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

58.  Oppose - As the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." As long as this defaults to on (even if it only affects small wikis), I cannot with good conscience support it. -- Powerlord 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Powerlord checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

59.  Oppose - can't say you've convinced me on the global sysop proposal. And I find the tagging of "this user has contributed to affected projects" taggings to be a bit one-sided. Can I go through and tag other users with "This user's primary project will not be affected by this proposal?" ^demon 13:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

    Feel free to do it, but note that some opposers started to come up with this template... --MF-W 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - MF-Warburg checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

60.  Oppose Moses 13:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Mosesofmason checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

61.  Oppose Maybe it will solve some problems but also it will create new. Globals admins wont be able to understand all circumstances around given project and their decision may be not acceptable for society. I think that any project should choose admin among active users involved into that project. Andrzej19 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Andrzej19 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

62. No need to have the ability to manage global blocks. --.anaconda 17:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - .anaconda checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

63.  Oppose --Rasmusbyg 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Rasmusbyg checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

64. Oppose Deb 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Deb checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Additional info: Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Deb checked by (RT) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

65.  Oppose -- Effeietsanders 11:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC) -- I like the general idea, but not the way it has been worked out, sorry!

     Eligible - Effeietsanders checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

66.  Oppose Too much power given to the sysops JJ Georges 16:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - JJ Georges checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

67. ((oppose)) I strongly oppose any measures which reduce local autonomy or increase wiki procedural load. If a wiki can't police it's own contributors, why siphon off labor from 'successful' projects to 'protect' other projects? Should wikinews admins be responsible for edits on the Catalan Wikipedia? (I'd use the example of the Klingon WP but I think it finally died. See my objection to this process Pedant 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Pedant checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

68.  Oppose Forpeterssake 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Forpeterssake checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

69.  Oppose Manticore55 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Without term limits I do not support this proposal as written.

     Eligible - Manticore55 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked. Login account now unified - Manticore55 checked by (RT) 13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

70.  Oppose Malosse This tool is too broad and too dangerous. What happens if a french administrateur decides that user xxx is legitimate but a foreign sysops decides that user xxx is a vandal? Malosse 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Malosse checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

71.  Oppose Ganesh J. Acharya I don't think global users will understand what is written in other languages. If someone explains how one can justify this problem I'd change my opinion.

     Eligible - Ganesh J. Acharya checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

72.  Oppose.--Ole Førsten 10:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ole Førsten checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

73.  Oppose.--Romihaitza 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Romihaitza checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

74.  Oppose Only if opt-in is the standard for all projects.--Rainer 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - RainerBlome checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

75.  Oppose --Brisbane 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Brisbane checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

76.  Oppose - This is only because there are too many unnecessary wikipedias. If there are ten people left in the world which speak an almost extinct language there is certain a wikipedia of their language. Ridiculous. --Micha L. Rieser 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Micha L. Rieser checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

77.  Oppose. -- This is dangerous. I worry that it will be inimical to small wikis taking the time to work out their own dynamics and modes of association. --Ori.livneh 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Ori.livneh checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

78.  Oppose --by Màñü飆¹5 ^(m†¹5™) 07:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Manuelt15 checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

79.  Oppose -- No more bureaucracy, there is enough abuse already.Twobells 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Twobells checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Additional info: Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Twobells checked by (RT) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose -- No more bureaucracy, there is enough abuse already.Artlondon 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Artlondon checked by Seb az86556 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

    User account is not linked to the one on Meta. --Nemo 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Links between wiki accounts are unproven, so cannot verify eligibility to vote - a unified account or a link from Meta user page was required for identification - Artlondon checked by (RT) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose Not is a good ideea, is dangerous for anything user. For proper that there is little robot in the world than to know all languages, (2) Users were not well placed on the post, for example, there are bad users will do more harm than good. Definitely against! —Sirty^talk 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible [16] / [17] - Sirty checked by Seb az86556 02:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

80.  Oppose Fraid not. Elwell 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Elwell checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

81.  Oppose any project support himself. i didn't think that a user from one project need to decide anythink for another project. -יונה בנדלאק 18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - יונה בנדלאק checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

82.  Oppose more stewards is preferable to a new layer of privileges Panscient 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Panscient checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

83. --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Cremepuff222 checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

84. --Das Ed 10:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Das Ed checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

85.  Oppose D’accord avec Ashley. On ne peut devenir administrateur sur un projet dont la langue lui est complètement inconnue. Bogorm 15:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Bogorm checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

86.  Oppose --Alchemist-hp 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Alchemist-hp checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

87.  Oppose --Das fehlt gerade noch. Weltweites mobbing. Keine erweiterten Rechte für niemand. Thomas7 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Thomas7 checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Additional info: Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - Thomas7 checked by (RT) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

88.  Oppose Sooit les tâches sont automatisables et un robot peut les accomplir, soit elles ne le sont pas et alors elles nécessitent de comprendre la langue. Diderot1 10:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Diderot1 checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

89.  Oppose If there aren’t enough contributors, you better just don’t have that wiki--Studmult 13:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible Rechecked - Studmult checked by (RT) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

     Oppose If it's been working fine all these years why do this now? --NERIUM 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Not eligible Fraud/double-vote (see above) - checked by Seb az86556 02:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

90.  Oppose Frightening!Harrypotter 20:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - Harrypotter checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

91. No. OTB 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - OTB checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

     Eligible Additional info: Meets eligibility criteria; no unified login, but link provided - OTB checked by (RT) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

92. No. I agree with Robster2001. And with Nick1915's objection. Kriddl has a good point too. And with many others. --SignorX 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

     Eligible - SignorX checked by Seb az86556 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Discussion

Requests for Explanations

List specific details you are concerned about here. Do not discuss in this section.

Why are these rights needed?

Rights which seem unneeded for fighting vandalism:

• Bypassing IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt) is needed because <develop explanation here>
• Bypassing automatic blocks of proxies (proxyunbannable) is needed because <develop explanation here>
• Bypassing global blocks (globalblock-exempt) is needed because <develop explanation here>
• globalblock-whitelist is needed because <develop explanation here>
• globalblock is needed to fight malicious bots and extrem vandals from wandering about all wikis.
• globalunblock is needed to undo globalblock once it was used.
• browsearchive is another local sysop right that goes with delete/undelete. It is used to assist with searching deleted contributions, which is mostly needed to see the vandalism history of pages and users or to undelete something mistakenly deleted.
• deletedhistory same as above, local sysop right that goes with delete/undelete
• editusercssjs is needed because (rarely) user CSSs/JSs can be used as parts of attacks or as the attacks themselves. If you post something in your CSS/JS it will show up on RC (FIXME: What's RC?)Special:RecentChanges et cetera. Vandals could edit other peoples CSS/JS because <further explaination needed>.
• editinterface is less useful for global sysops but could be useful to allow them to assist the local community or notify them when needed (the biggest thing I can think of is putting up a site notice in the, hopefully rare, chance that someone put the wiki up for closure so that they know what is happening).
• import was left in because stewards noted that it would be useful to have Global sysops be able to help them set up new wikis (where this is used )
• patrol is not needed because either the language is known to the global sysops and he will be able to what is abusive and is not to be marked as patroled, or the language is not known to the global sys op, and he will not be able to detect proper usage - again, not to be marked as patroled. (Is the following abusive or not? éí ayóo daniłchxon dóó beʼazdzą́ą́ éí kiyąąh sizíní.)
• autopatrol' is needed since there is no need for sysops to patrol edits of global sysops which will center around anti-vandal work.
• reupload to help combat file upload vandalism/abuse, the right allows you to overwrite a file (for example with the previous/good version)
• unwatchedpages is a local sysop tool generally used to see pages that are more at risk for vandalism because no one is watching them. Less useful for global sysops but serves almost no harm.

Aspects not specified by the Global sysop proposal:

• fighting vandalism is not stated as the goal, yet said to be it. Since spam, malbots and many similar issues need to be addressed, all of these are encompassed in "urgent cases of abuse.
• opt-out is mentioned without describing the procedure for opt-out. By now, there is the proposal to amend the wording of what has been suggested to be decided about. See below!
• No procedure for recourse/complaints in case of dispute between local and global sysops is given. There is such an informal procedure outlined in the Communication section of the proposal.
• Criterion unclear for "removal due to inactivity". "Global sysops will automatically lose their access if it is unused for more than six months" - what is an access? Log-in? Edit? Use of sysop tools? Use of sysop tools granted specifically by the global sysop position? See below.

General Improvement Requests:

• The chapter about the 'idea' (headline wording of german description) only lists cases for small and very small wiki sub projects as candidates auto inclusion. Thats just the minority of affected wikis. it should be clearly stated in teh beginning that the big amount of remainders need to vote in order to join this method.
• in the whole text and especially in the introduction the main scopes of works for that sysop class are not mentioned at all. That far as i understood, its vandalism, spam, illegal activity and similar that is applied across several databases and services that can be easier cleaned up when done by a more priviliged person or group than by dozends of individual project sysops.
• it should be put more emphasize on cleaning up the impression such a sysop class should care for "local" vandalism or "local" article disputes. that should only be the case when for some obvious reasons local sysops were not in state (e.g. natural catastrophe, time shift, etc.) to handle it on their own. such back up activity should be only up to a degree that it fixes the obvious problem e.g. avoid severe damage from the wikipedia system and its reputation, and stopping generally as abusive understood interfacing like edit wars. notifying the local sysops for carrying out final actions should take place manually if not the measure or situation already should have done that.
• activities of global sysops should be tracked for their own self control (detecting black sheep in their rows) and in a way that allows to fiddle out the most endangered project so that areas for long term improvements can be identified and probable unseen gaps in the local sysop area get unveiled. long term measures might be, closing rarely used parts to read-only or even fully, call for more local sysops in certain areas, call for more global participation of other qualified local sysops in certain areas, general approval of global sysops for deeper works in tiny project parts, and what else might help problematic situations.

Nota Bene: This section is to simplify the discussion below by eliminating or stressing common concern, if or if not a good explaination can be developed. It is an attempt to answer Frequently Asked Questions as well as questions left unanswered in the regular discussion, an attempt to enable everyone to jump-start into this discussion, to compile serveral explainations and answers for questions into a common argument, for everybody to benefit. Trolls, stop deleting this section - thanks.

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)

Spammers of any kind easily make up whatever entry is necessary. Unless, of course, "good" is understood as "each edit reviewed, signed and sworn by a trusted human" but there's not enough humans to write articles. I'd be more concerned with the threat of hatemongering sysops chasing their dead horses all over sister projects and the wheelwarring with native sysops that might follow in response. NVO 11:22, 17 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)

  All this effort into this global sysops could have been spent on setting up a steward election.

  I started the steward election pages last year, and will do it again if nobody else beats me to it. It only takes a few hours to create the pages. The hard part is advertising it so that suitable candidates hear about it and put their name down. John Vandenberg 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  user:Jamesofur has already started setting it up at Stewards/elections 2010. --John Vandenberg 23:47, 11 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)

---

Resolved. (reasonable answer, I guess. Seb az86556 11:54, 12 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)

• The first recourse would surely be to the global sysop since it's quite clear that global sysops have to be contactable by any wikis they take part in. If the response is not satisfactory, then the obvious next step is the stewards or failing that the foundation. If you don't trust either of these to do their job, then you might as well quit now since this proposal doesn't really affect their responsibilities or rights but simply provides a set of people to aide them. Wheel warring is always a bad idea and any sysops particularly global sysops who engage in it without very good reason should be removed. And in fact global sysops could easily be at far greater risk of removal since they have greater responsibility (generally speaking those who have greater responsibility also have a far lower threshold for removal) and the entire community has a way to remove them if they desire. I for one think it's quite clear that global sysops should not generally be going against local sysops except when they have a very good reason, and that reason would be one where a steward is likely to take the same action, so again, this proposal isn't changing the status quo in that regard. Nil Einne 07:44, 12 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)

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

• Probably going to be flamed, but, wth. I've always been for doing away with anon. edits. They both serve to discredit our efforts with the 'peer review' crowd (who rightly require transparency and accountability) and are a sandbox for bots. My last anti-vandal action (netzpolitik.org wiki) was very painful (I only sysop that one, none of the wikipedia projects) but in the end it was clear. We did NOT impose any qualifications, only required that you register. This only slowed down the attacker, who was determined. In the end we learned: those who are determined we can only block with a lockdown, those who are interested in contributing register. I'm for roadblocking bots and doing away with anon edits altogether.Mwasheim 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do not know enough about sysops and projects and stewards to make an informed decision. I have written new Wikipedia articles, added significantly and insignificantly to others, and have generally provided editing assistance and constructive comments. I assume that there are a great many users like me who like the Wikimedia concept, appreciate those who have developed more expertise, but don't have the time or passion to dive deep into the administrative issues. I feel somewhat bad for not voting, but think I would need to have more understanding for my vote to be of any value.--Rpclod 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Long since I already cast my vote in this debate, I have run into one of those abusive administrators with what is now obvious to me, a long history of Administrator abuse. When I come to this vote, there is his user name casting a vote in the affirmative along with a reasonable sounding statement expressing his willingness to "help" as one of these super administrators. These negative characters are exactly what this kind of power will attract. There is no accounting for the damage this kind of bully can do. As I look through his history, most low level wikipedians don't know their recourse, they just bend over and accept this abuse. I'm slightly more experienced and don't know the recourse, yet. But I'm going to learn. How many people will go on a heroic crusade to save articles? How many WON'T? WP, one of the top internet sites, is supposed to be open and free, but look--it is controlled the extreme minority of geeks who can figure out how to achieve administrative power. This proposal will allow the wrong people to consolidate their path of destruction. The clueless masses will not be able to defend themselves. This is a potential disaster.Trackinfo 02:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• A vote for a project that is supposedly anti-voting? Yes votes first? Each vote automatically given a number so whichever position has more initial momentum is almost certain to end up the favorite? A proposal by an administrator on En and Commons and Meta for there to be administrators with immediate power over hundreds of projects? This is farce. Insert ill-conceived admin retort here ↓ ¦ Reisio 06:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• NO NO NO! This is all wrong. I shouldn't even comment on the proposal itself; the method used to carpetbag it in is poisonous.

If I thought I had anything to say about this, then I would wonder why I didn't hear anything about it until a great big box popped up and demanded my VOTE. Then, of course, I'd be annoyed that anyone had the brass to do so.

But, since I'm primarily an en: editor, with (I believe) no content edits to any project that might be covered under these rules, I don't see that I have anything to say. How many "voters" are similarly disqualified?

Still, now that I think about it, this is a very bad idea. I want to see a much stronger firewall to keep global meddlers out of any place I might support. Our local meddlers are quite bad enough, thank you.

Anyone who even accepts this robe under protest should have it, and all others, stripped from him. Anyone who seeks it should be beaten severely.

My greatest fear is that some amok-timer will take even this comment of mine as some indication that "consensus" is in play here. Please do not dare to suggest that my comment; that the comments of others who have not lost sight of the Wiki Way; lend any legitimacy to this power grab. :— Xiong熊talk* 12:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The proposal seems reasonable and I cannot demonstrate evident flaws in it, but the oppose vote of Brimz deterred me from voting. A sysop making a lot of useful (and acknowledged) job, tends sometimes to undertake controversial steps and to ignore objections; this syndrome in quite common in ru.wiki. There is no grounds to assume that future global sysops will be immune to it. Therefore, fears that small projects may be flooded by the incompetence of a general public and, possible, even crushed by the majority tyranny IMHO have some grounds. The Foundation need some means to stop ignorant and harmful interventions, because this case has some probability and this probability will increase in the course of imminent future mass-production of global sysops. Incnis Mrsi 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• WIKIPEDIA already has a problem with arrogant, power-hungry Little Napoleons. There's already a problem with the inner-circle elite mentality. Why make it even worse? We don't need yet another level in the hierarchy. Another group of pasty-faced power-trippers who "know the right people," have ultimate power and "above the law" mentalities, playing favorites and dispensing "justice" from their keyboards at a whim. Tragic romance 15:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Wow. I can only assume that most of the people above have somehow run afoul of some admins along the way, and now they believe that the admins are all power-hungry and evil. I admit that when I first started out, it seemed like all of my best intentions were running into one policy or a guideline that seemed to only be in place to hamper all my seemingly wonderful contributions. But, I got over myself and discovered that most of the time, the admins were right. And when they weren't, it was usually because (a) they were overworked and under-appreciated, and had jumped to the wrong conclusion (i.e., they acted as humans), (b) because my actions matched those of problem-causers, even though I wasn't being one deliberately, or (c) somebody used an automated process that went wrong. Is that going to happen with Global Sysops? Sure. Like I said, these people are human. But if people recognize that fact and stop looking for conspiracies, power grabs, and so on, and start thanking admins for their efforts--or even better, start helping them out and not relying on these folks to mop up messes we all could go--then maybe their reactions to our actions would soften up a bit, and the opinions all-around might improve. Overall, I think that the admins do a "good-enough" job (and I set "good-enough" at a pretty high level in my mind), even if it is not a perfect one. So I really wish that all the trouble-makers and harbingers of conspiracies would turn down their volume and focus on the issue here rather than just using this as a forum to gripe. I will not turn down my own volume. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  I dont doubt that the global sysops will do their best to look after these projects, and they will be doing a "good enough" job. However, of the 47 Wikisource projects which will come under these global sysops, 44 already have local sysops who look after these projects - I have talked to the majority of them, and they respond promptly to email. As for a project without sysops, here is an example of the last 90 days on a project without sysops: [18] I have asked the people pushing this proposal to justify this imposition on small wikis, and they have failed to provide any metrics or evidence of having investigated the problem domain. So, where is the problem? It is not on the 47 Wikisource projects included in this "solution". I have carefully inspected the recentchanges and logs of all 47 Wikisource projects over the last fortnight, and I don't see a problem. This proposal will merely mean that it is non-native speakers, unaccustomed with Wikisource, who will be doing a "good enough" job. They will act sooner than local sysops, resulting in less local administration control, and they will act when local sysops have consciously decided not to act.
  So we will have global sysops doing a good enough job, effectively replacing local sysops. These global sysops will be thanked for being so effective; they will be heros.(i.e. a mediocracy) In reality, these global sysops will reduce the quality of the administration, both because of poor decisions and because the logs will be littering with English. Every log entry that is not written in the language of the project turns away native speakers who can't readily understand the decisions made, and are unable to communicate directly with the sysops making these decisions. The few people who can point out the erroneous or ill-conceived global sysop actions will be drowned out by the hordes of people who don't care to actually look at the public logs on these projects which stand as a testament to the fact that this proposal resulted in a take over of many projects without adequate justification. John Vandenberg 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

XSS issues

Giving editinterface rights to a large and relatively unchecked group seems like an invitation for XSS attacks. Somebody with that right can edit the site-wide js of some small wiki where no one is watching, post to a large wiki to direct, say, stewards or enwiki admins there, and steal their session cookies (this does not work on modern browsers, but there will always be a few people using older ones). If I understand correctly how single-login works, that would access to that users account on all language versions of the same project. I doubt this risk is worth the benefit of global admins changing siteniotices once in a while. (Of course this attack could be performed with local admin rights just as well, but global editinterface rights would open it up to significantly more people.) --Tgr 10:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, single Meta admin can organize XSS injection via CentralNotice now (and it will be really global), and almost all global admins would be Meta admins (since fighting crosswiki vandalism frequently requires editing global title and spam blacklist). So I doubt that it is really an issue. vvv^t 16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That Meta admin can do it, doesn't prevent it from being an issue. Actually, it's a bigger issue that meta admin could do this, and ought to be fixed too, but it's a separate issue you've pointed out. Letting global sysop do the same just makes it worse. Notices should be a separate facility, and incapable of including scripting on pages. XSS is not the only risk. And an admin does something bad intentionally is not the only threat. --Mysidia 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wider attacks such as changing the scripts on a large wiki are, in a way, actually less dangerous because such actions are noticed by a lot of other admins and can be reverted immediately. (I don't know the CentralNotice interface, but I assume it has some sort of watchlist...) Scripts on small wikis, possibly without a single contributor who would have the technical expertise to understand what's going on, would have a much larger chance to stay under the radar. --Tgr 23:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Six months"

As I've added the question above, the criterion for "removal due to inactivity" is unclear. "Global sysops will automatically lose their access if it is unused for more than six months" - what is an access? Log-in? Edit? Use of sysop tools? Use of sysop tools granted specifically by the global sysop position (ie. not if you're also a local sysop on the project in which you exercised your sysop power)? This is an especially likely problem if an editor who is already sysop on multiple projects become a global sysop. --Deryck Chan 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood this as "if you don't use your global sysop-tools globally for six months, you will lose the global sysop-status". Somebody confirm this please. Seb az86556 15:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you please define the exact scope of this "use your global sysop-tools"? Does that mean performing sysop duties on a project in which you're a local sysop doesn't count, even if that project has opted into the global sysop scheme? --Deryck Chan 21:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but that would make a lot of sense. The spirit of this seems to be "use'em or lose'em"Seb az86556 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This "not sure" is precisely the reason why I'm voting against the proposal - the "use'em or lose'em" clause doesn't make sense unless the exact scope of "access" is specified in the proposal. Can someone check with the writers of the proposal and reword this clause? --Deryck Chan 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, notice that both the Chinese and Japanese translations of the proposal have translated "access" in this clause as "to exercise the privilege". --Deryck Chan 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend wording

Proposal not passed

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) Yes  Support Goodone121 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I  Support this proposal, though I would still  Oppose the Global sysop suggestion for reasons stated above. --Buntfalke 08:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support This will prevent trolls from running small projects with their single vote. -Nard the Bard 14:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Stewards wouldn't allow that to happen.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support - I think providing guidance on what is expected to opt-in/out makes sense. Users shouldn't show up and be surprised at the expectations. We should also consider making similar guidelines for permanent sysop requests and the like, but that's probably a topic for elsewhere.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Chamberlian 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support only because common sense isn't so common these days...--Unionhawk 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support I would sort of prefer it left at "same procedures that apply to electing permanent local sysops" but thats more because as Mike said we technically don't HAVE official rules there, its always been stewards looking at the discussion and gaging if consensus exists generally if its only 2 or 3 people it usually ends up being a temp sysop and if you have 4-5 that usually ends up being called enough to be perm. James (T|C) 19:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) This is exactly what has a notion of nilly-willy. I saw the adminship request page last month with one request (4votes) put under scrutiny and rejected, and another request (3votes) processed without any further questions. If you want to avoid a backlog, you must give people a clear statement along the lines of "do not come here before XYZ is true." The same should be implemented for admin-requests, lest people will feel that they're treated unfairly and biased. It will also make it easier for stewards, and end arguments and discussions: less than 5[or whatever] -- rejected or temp, archived, next. Seb az86556 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support That will help to appease the fear that small wikis won't listened. --KrebMarkt 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Eloquant 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Support this proposal, though I would still  Oppose the Global sysop suggestion on the projects I participate. It should be up to each project community to opt-in or opt-out. --Panic 02:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Projects can opt-in or out. We're simply attempting to provide hopefully-sensible defaults to get the ball rolling.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC) That is why I support the clarification even if I still object to what the final goal would enable see the proposal as a bad approach to the problem, I will remove my stated opposition if this clarification is done. I was merely clarifying my opinion since it has implication on how it will be proposed on each project. I'm able to see some usefulness to at least Wikiversity but it could be archived a decentralized way, the issue here is the top-down approach. --Panic 06:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)  Support I think good idea. But I'll oppose global sysop. because It can replace with steward. --Badbread 07:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)  Support--Clemensmarabu 10:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Nice clarification --SteveMcCluskey 13:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Seems helpful to balance the workload with sysops. Chris-marsh-usa 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)  Support good idea IMO --George Chernilevsky 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)  Support --Cubefox 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Seems reasonable. --Nemo 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)  Support like George Chernilevsky --Schnobby 10:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Tuvalkin 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Watchover 13:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)  Support --Crossman33 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC) No  Oppose I want opt-in. This proposal is contradictory. If it is "according to the same procedures that apply to electing local sysops", then there are sysops who were elected without "5 votes" [sic]. The usual procedure on small wikis is "unless anyone objects". On Latin Wikisource, removing the tools from the previous 'crat was based on only two supports; our 'crat only had five supports; one of our admins only had four support. Currently we have a sysop candidate who only has two supports, after more than two weeks of the nomination being open. (see s:la:Vicifons:Magistratus and s:la:Vicifons:Magistratus/Vetera) On small projects, it takes a lot of effort to engage five people; it usually requires emailing people, which I don't like doing. Small projects should decide that they need help. A forced opt-in should require a vote by the stewards, after there has been a demonstrated persistent problem. On most projects, vandalism sprees are very infrequent (i.e. yearly), and they are caused by vandals who are importing their problems from the big wikis. Grawp et. al. don't have a problem with small wikis projects. They want to play with people from the big wikis. Global sysops enables them to justify playing their petty games on the small wikis, where global sysops can come to the rescue. John Vandenberg 09:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with your reasoning, but unfortunately that is not the way it is done, and that is not the way it will be done. My proposal is simply to add these lines to make clear what is already the procedure. It does not mean I support it; I simply want to avoid the confusion on what "opt-out" in this proposal really means. The constant re-assurances above are somewhat misleading since the proposal makes no mention of what actually happens, e.g. local consensus is frequently overruled, and (unfortunately, but good for you) you were lucky with "unless anyone objects" -- or maybe that particular steward had a good day. Whether or not that line is added, that's the way it will be done. I simply don't want people to be given the wrong ideas here. Secondly, you bring up an interesting point: the existence of global sysops could actually attract more vandals... of course - no-one's ever considered that around here... why am I not surprised... Seb az86556 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Why the hell should there be "forced opt-in"?!? That is retarded. Are we trying to be fascists? They just started their own wiki and have worked hard on it for a long time and now we want to take over control of it without their consent, after them having done nothing to harm or endanger us? Does that sound right to you? Permissible? Excusable? Sane? It should be discretionary opt-in on a per-steward basis. (But global vote needed to "certify" stewards.) Kevin Baastalk 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC) The current proposal, as it stands, is forced opt-in. that's precisely what I'm saying. If you don't like the idea of a forced opt-in, you will have to vote "no". Seb az86556 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose they should be able to opt-in and opt-out of individual stewards at their discretion. Kevin Baastalk 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose. There will be small projects where mustering 5 votes would be difficult (as John Vandenberg illustrates above) - the original wording at least allows local norms to be followed - this wording is too persciptive. With this amendment I can foresee situations where projects want to opt out and can't (yet they probably will have been 'opted in' without even being told about the proposal in their own language). If we are interested in local accountability go for an opt in system anyway - something this amendment does not address. -- (RT) 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Precisely: I, too, want "opt-in". Also, plese note the 5[or whatever] Seb az86556 23:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose -- Jwelchering 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose I have seen their contributions, and he don't deserve it --Der Künstler 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) ?? what do you mean by that? Seb az86556 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose --Manuel Trujillo Berges 11:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (an:Usuario:Manuel Trujillo Berges).  Oppose --Juanpabl 08:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose -- Arenlor 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose -- GregChant 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose I want opt-in. This is a voluntary website, folks!  Oppose -- As I understand it, this is supposed to help the small sites that don't have a lot of administration going on anyway. The default then, at least for smaller projects, should be to permit global sysopping, but there should be an easy way for even a small project to opt out if that is the consensus. So, setting requirements on opt-in is counter-productive (except maybe on large projects), but setting clear and easy opt-out procedures (though flexible enough to accommodate both large and small projects) is important. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 14:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose for the same reasons as Willscrlt. Torinir 09:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose for the same reasons as all of the above. Bci2 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose -- I hope that this proposed amendment is dead, since I don't see anyone posting down here, but I want to make sure to express my opposition to any change that refuses to permit a small wiki site from using its local standards with regard to this proposal (even though I'm in favor of the overall proposal). -- AyaK 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose bad idea. RP459 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend wording #2

Proposal not passed

Insert after Global blocks but before the bullet points: The intent is to grant global sysops merely the ability to block IP addresses from projects which are participating in the global sysop system. At the time of this writing there are no efficient technical means by which they could block IP addresses on participating projects only. As soon as such an instrument becomes available, its usage will replace the permission to use globalblock. Prop. 2 Yes As proposer. User:Davidwr/talk 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (Note: I tried to improve his wording; he proposed a different text --Buntfalke) Chris-marsh-usa 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Prop. 2 No The second part is not going to happen. The first part is certainly true, and I'd support adding that clarification. Additionally, it may make sense to clarify that such use constitutes abuse which can be grounds for removal of permissions. I think those changes would be better than what's presented above. Note that this is already true, it just isn't mentioned specifically in the text.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) It's my understanding that global IP blocks are just that, global, i.e. there is no technical ability to use them for anything other than globally. Therefore, "such use constitutes abuse" is not applicable. It is also why long-term we need something halfway between a per-wiki block and a global block. Davidwr/talk 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) "Such use" refers to the wording that was present at the time of my comment -- ie using global blocks target a user on a wiki not included in the wiki set. Such use would be a case of the user deliberately overstepping their bounds, and I would generally consider that abuse of the access.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC) As Mike says, the second part of this proposal is vapourware, and I doubt that any developer will build a "small wiki" block type & log. Blocks which only affect a set of wikis would be a nightmare, especially when the wikis affected are likely to be non-English projects where the (potential) contributors may not be able to understand the block log/message. Problems with "small wiki" block entries will not be reported as often, or if they are reported, it will be on a anon talk page in some strange language on a very quiet wiki. Who will find these complaints, and will they be able to understand why the anon is blocked? In the short term, global sysops should ask stewards for global (un)blocks at Steward requests/Global, just like everyone else needs to do. Long-term, we need local sysops on these small projects. John Vandenberg 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Since the global block is not a concern for me at all. Global blocks are probably the least worrying part of this whole deal. Seb az86556 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Anyway, local sysops can change global block local status. --Nemo 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Arenlor 04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Globalblock permission is too strong. So, I think enough give steward this permission --Badbread 05:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose --Panic 06:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose because I see this as only confusing the issue, not clarifying it. It also makes it sound wishy-washy and like this is a temporary thing. It's not, so that makes the "clarification" misleading. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 14:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Globalblock permission is too strong. --Bci2 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Not is a good ideea, is dangerous for anything user. For proper that there is little robot in the world than to know all languages, (2) Users were not well placed on the post, for example, there are bad users will do more harm than good. Definitely against! —Sirtytalk 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal #3 to Amend Wording

Proposal not passed

Under the Removal Criteria apply the following: Term Limit A user's status as a Global Sysop is automatically ended after two years. A user may not serve again as a Sysop for at least two years following their original term as Sysop. This ensures that there is a continaul cycling of users in the Sysops positions, and that no matter the circumstances, no one person is able to acrue to much influence or weight in an administrative position. Manticore55 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)