Global sysops/Vote
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)
Global sysops (Vote) |
العربية:
مصرى:
( ساعدنا فى ترجمة الرساله دى) و تم فتح التصويت على الفكره و ينتهى التصويت فى 31 يناير.
Беларуская:
(дапамажыце перакласьці гэтае паведамленьне)
Български:
(помогнете ни да преведем това съобщение)
Bosanski:
(Pomozite nam sa prevodom ove poruke!)
Català :
(ajudeu a traduir aquest missatge)
کوردی:
( هاوکاریمان بکە لە وەرگێڕانی ئەم پەیامەدا)
Čeština:
(help us translate this message)
Dansk:
(Hjælp os med at oversætte denne besked)
Deutsch:
(Hilf uns bei der Übersetzung dieser Nachricht!)
Dolnoserbski:
(Pomagaj nam toś tu powěźeńku pśedłožyś)
Ελληνικά:
(βοηθήστε μας να μεταφράσουμε αυτό το μήνυμα)
English:
(help us translate this message)
Esperanto:
(Helpo pri la traduko de tiu noto!)
Español :
(ayúdenos con la traducción de este mensaje)
Euskara:
(Lagun gaitzazu mezu honen itzulpenarekin)
فارسی:
(به ما در ترجمه این متن کمک کنید)
Suomi:
(auta meitä kääntämään tämä viesti)
Français :
(Aidez nous a traduire ce message)
Frysk:
(Help ús dit berjocht oer te setten)
Galego:
(axúdanos a traducir esta mensaxe)
Alemannisch :
(Hilf is bi dr Ibersetzig vu däre Nochricht!)
עברית:
Hrvatski:
(Pomozite nam prevesti ovu poruku!)
Hornjoserbsce:
(Pomhaj nam tutu zdźělenku předłožić)
Magyar:
(Kérjük, segíts más nyelvekre is lefordítani ezt a szöveget!)
Interlingua:
(adjuta nos a traducer iste message)
Bahasa Indonesia:
Italiano:
(aiutarci a tradurre questo messaggio)
日本語:
ភាសាខ្មែរ៖
한국어:
Македонски:
(помогнете ни да ја преведеме оваа порака)
Bahasa Melayu:
(Bantu kami menterjemah pesanan ini)
Nederlands:
Occitan :
(Ajudatz-nos a traduire aqueste messatge)
Kapampangan:
(saupan yu kami king pamaglikas ning kapabaluan a ini)
Polski:
(pomóż nam przetłumaczyć ten komunikat)
Português :
(ajude-nos a traduzir esta mensagem)
Русский:
(помогите нам перевести это сообщение)
Slovenčina:
(pomôžte nám preložiť túto správu)
Српски / srpski:
(Помозите нам са преводом ове поруке!)
Svenska:
(Hjälp oss översätta detta meddelande)
ไทย:
Türkçe:
(bu iletiyi çevirmemize yardımcı olun)
Українська:
(допоможіть перекласти це повідомлення)
Tiếng Việt:
(giúp chúng tôi dịch thông báo này)
粵語:
(幫手譯)
中文(简体):
(help us translate this message)
中文(繁體):
(協助翻譯)
|
Yes
Please place your vote at the bottom of the list.
- NuclearWarfare has contributed to wikis which will be affectedAs proposer[1] NW (Talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - NuclearWarfare checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Maximillion Pegasus is a sysop on an affected wikiMaximillion Pegasus 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Maximillion Pegasus checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Barras is a sysop on an affected wikiBarras talk 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Barras checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Jamesofur has contributed to wikis which will be affectedJames (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.
Eligible - Jamesofur checked by (RT) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 wikivvvt 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - VasilievVV (vvv) checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- J.delanoy has contributed to wikis which will be affectedJ.delanoygabsadds 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Eligible - Katerenka checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Lar has contributed to wikis which will be affectedCare in choosing these folk is key but this is a needed and useful thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lar checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
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)
Eligible - Tempodivalse checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
- GSMR has contributed to wikis which will be affectedGSMR 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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]
- Laaknor is a sysop on a wiki which will be affectedHelp needed! Laaknor 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Laaknor checked by (RT) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Masrudin has contributed to wikis which will be affectedMasrudin 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- --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]
- Juliancolton has contributed to wikis which will be affectedDurr. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Juliancolton checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedNifky? 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- TRYPPN's home wiki will be affectedYES. 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)
Eligible - TRYPPN checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Mike.lifeguard has contributed to wikis which will be affectedThe 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)
Eligible - Mike.lifeguard checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- blurpeace has contributed to wikis which will be affectedDefinite necessity for our smaller projects. –blurpeace (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - blurpeace checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Ejs-80 has contributed to wikis which will be affectedAll 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)
Eligible - Ejs-80 checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedPer my comments at Talk:Global sysops. Tiptoety talk 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tiptoety checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedLong overdue --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Herbythyme checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affected3s 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - 3s checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- ZorroIII has contributed to wikis which will be affectedZorroIII 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - ZorroIII checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Leinad has contributed to wikis which will be affectedLeinaD (t) 14:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC) cross-wiki patrollers are very helpful and part of them should have GS priviliges
Eligible - Leinad checked by (RT) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Ulflarsen has contributed to wikis which will be affectedUlflarsen 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ulflarsen checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
(UTC) [✖ not eligible—VasilievVV]Support --Ellysse 15:43, 7 January 2010
- Bjoertvedt has contributed to wikis which will be affected-- Bjoertvedt 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Kjetil_r is a sysop on a wiki which will be affected--Kjetil_r 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kjetil r checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Erwin is a sysop on a wiki which will be affectedWould definitely be helpful. --Erwin 16:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Erwin checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Dungodung is a sysop on a wiki which will be affectedI'm a bit skeptical about global blocks, but the rest of the permissions seem fine. --FiliP ██ 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Dungodung (FiliP) checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- DerHexer has contributed to wikis which will be affectedSame as dungy. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Longer German explanation: w:de:Benutzer:DerHexer/Blog#Global_sysops
Eligible - DerHexer checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Jon Harald Søby has contributed to wikis which will be affectedJon Harald Søby 16:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jon Harald Søby checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Multichill has contributed to wikis which will be affectedMultichill 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Multichill checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Atluxity 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Atluxity checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- (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).
- Petter Bøckman 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Petter Bøckman checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedFruggo 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Fruggo checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Sustructu 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Vito Genovese has contributed to wikis which will be affectedPer Mike.lifeguard--Vito Genovese 20:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Vito Genovese checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Coffee has contributed to wikis which will be affectedCoffee (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Coffee checked by (RT) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectediAlex 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - iAlex checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Mezelf14 has contributed to wikis which will be affectedMezelf14 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
Eligible - DaB. checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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)
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)
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)
Eligible - ZaDiak checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Bibliomaniac15 has contributed to wikis which will be affectedbibliomaniac15 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bibliomaniac15 checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Cirt has contributed to wikis which will be affectedCirt (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Cirt checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Pmlineditor is a sysop on a wiki which will be affectedYes. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Eligible - MF-Warburg (MF-W) checked by (RT) 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Cumulus has contributed to wikis which will be affectedCumulus 14:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Cumulus checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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)
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 affectedA333 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - A333 checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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 affectedEdBever 08:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - EdBever checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Red 81 has contributed to wikis which will be affectedRed 81 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Red 81 checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Lampak has contributed to wikis which will be affectedLampak 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lampak checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedTaketa 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Taketa checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Beany 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Beany checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedRobotje 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Robotje checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Mhaesen has contributed to wikis which will be affectedMhaesen 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mhaesen checked by (RT) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedErik1980 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Erik1980 checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Herr Kriss is a sysop on a wiki which will be affectedHerr Kriss 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Herr Kriss checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Mwpnl has contributed to wikis which will be affectedm:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mwpnl (Mark W) checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedEncy 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) pl why not
Eligible - Ency checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedMerdis 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Merdis checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Aotearoa has contributed to wikis which will be affectedAotearoa 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Aotearoa checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Trivelt has contributed to wikis which will be affectedTrivelt 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Trivelt checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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 affectedRubiksMaster110 04:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - RubiksMaster110 checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- Angela has contributed to wikis which will be affectedAngela 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Angela checked by (RT) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
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.
- Logan Talk Contributions 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Logan checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- – Innv | d | s: 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Innv checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Karol007 ✉ 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Karol007 checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- -- Avi 04:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Avraham (Avi) checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- - miya 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - miya checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Bsadowski1 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bsadowski1 checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- -- Razorflame 06:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Razorflame checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Gdarin | talk 10:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Gdarin checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Cycn 11:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Cycn checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Kaganer 13:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kaganer checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- Diegusjaimes 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Diegusjaimes checked by (RT) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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)
- --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).
- Kafziel 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kafziel checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Taichi - (あ!) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Taichi checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Frank 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Frank checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)Odehammar 01:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC) The stewards must need help, as this proposition has been made. Granting more users stewardship is complicated, as they are already too few. Ergo, this proposition seems to be a solution, at least for now.- Jeffwang16 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Emrahertr 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Emrahertr checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Geni 01:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Geni checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- ZooPro 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - ZooPro checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Bradybd 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bradybd checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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!
- Guettarda 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
- Syohei.A(talk) 02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Araisyohei (Syohei.A) checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Blodance 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Blodance checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Saebjorn 02:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Saebjorn checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Sander Fraga 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Sander Fraga checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Ryan Postlethwaite 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ryan Postlethwaite checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- oscar 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Oscar checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- DrNegative 02:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - DrNegative checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Maxima m 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Maxima m checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Evalowyn 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Evalowyn checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Mind the gap 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ktr101 (Kevin Rutherford) checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
- 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).
- Tarheel95 02:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tarheel95 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
- Editor182 13:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Editor182 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
OurDigitalVision Please be more responsible
- I don't see why not. Bloodmerchant 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bloodmerchant checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)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.
- billinghurst 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Absolutely.
Eligible - Billinghurst checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
- --Taweetham 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Taweetham checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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).
- This change is long overdue, as experience with chr wikipedia demonstrated a few years ago. Wikiacc (§) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Teinesavaii 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Teinesavaii checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Zwilson14 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Zwilson14 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Shooter16101 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Shooter16101 checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Yes. --The New Mikemoral 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - The New Mikemoral checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- DerAndre 04:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Shivashree 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Shivashree checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Calebrw 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Calebrw checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
- --Bellayet 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bellayet checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Atu 04:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Atu checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- Yk Yk Yk 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Yk Yk Yk checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)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).
- Yes. Logical proposal providing necessary help. Ezratrumpet 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ezratrumpet checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Juan Miguel 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Juan Miguel checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --J Hazard 05:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - J Hazard checked by (RT) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
- 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).
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).
- User ineligible
- Alvaro qc 05:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Alvaro qc checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Yes --Delivi 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Delivi checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
Support. It is very good idea. Mondalor 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mondalor checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Geanixx 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Geanixx checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support IlyaHaykinson 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - IlyaHaykinson checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Aldo samulo 06:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Aldo samulo checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Nixón 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Nixón checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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).
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).
- 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)
Support--Shizhao 06:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Shizhao checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Heiko 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Heiko checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Hohohob 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Hohohob checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support - Wysprgr2005 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Wysprgr2005 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Djlordi 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Djlordi checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Supportמתניה 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - מתניה checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Dovi 07:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Dovi checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Caponer 07:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Caponer checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support CaribDigita 07:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I read through many of the "No"s and I believe Global sysops might be able to guide new upstart projects in the right direction until they get more established. As it was stated, if it just simply deleted because it is small, then nothing new will ever obtain the chance to become firmly established.
Support Kimchi.sg 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kimchi.sg checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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.
Support --Petri 08:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- Great idea! —what a crazy random happenstance 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Happenstance checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --DS-fax 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Hat600 (DS-fax) checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Merlissimo 08:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Merlissimo checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Kenrick95 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kenrick95 checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Wvk 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Wvk checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Treublatt 08:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Treublatt checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support VMS Mosaic 08:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - VMS Mosaic checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Lutz Terheyden 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lutz Terheyden checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Faizhaider 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Faizhaider checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support, I like this idea. --Mercy 09:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mercy checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Ragimiri 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ragimiri checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support good idea for small projects --Tlusťa 09:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tlusťa checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
Support --Vigilius 09:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Vigilius checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
- --Euku 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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).
Support Makes sense. rursus 10:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Rursus checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Klaus Eifert 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Klaus Eifert checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Yes/Kyllä --Jepse 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jepse checked by (RT) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Seems sensibly bounded by parameters. --Dweller 10:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Dweller checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support--Rsmn 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Rsmn checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Harald Haugland 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Harald Haugland checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support --Wedderkop 10:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Wedderkop checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Great idea. Pitke 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Pitke checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
Support Seems like a good idea. Alan16 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
Support Sahmeditor 11:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Sahmeditor checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support ThorJH 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - ThorJH checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Razimantv 11:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Razimantv checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support notafish }<';> 11:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Notafish checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --თოგო (D) 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Thogo (თოგო) checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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).
Support Daniel (‽) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Dbmag9 (Daniel) checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Support --ThT 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - ThT checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Vladimir.frolov 12:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Vladimir.frolov checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --alexscho 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Alexscho checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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).
- --Nemo 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Nemo bis checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Mheart 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mheart checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Redvers checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --BokicaK 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - BokicaK checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
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).
Support J-L Cavey 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - J-L Cavey checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
Support Muro de Aguas 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Muro de Aguas checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Tostan 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tostan checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support Good idea. Raychut 14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Swatjester 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Swatjester checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Evet! --Goktr001 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Goktr001 checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support I support. Albertus Aditya 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Albertus Aditya checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Linedwell@frwiki 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Linedwell checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --FischX 14:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - FischX checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support--VincenzoX 14:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - VincenzoX checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --амдф 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Amdf (амдф) checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --TheGrimReaper NS 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - TheGrimReaper NS checked by (RT) 17:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Sanbec 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Sanbec checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Joe N 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
Support --Frank schubert 15:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Frank schubert checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support -- small wikis need some help. Renata3 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Renata3 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- Sandstein 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Sandstein checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Christian Giersing 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Christian Giersing checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
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)
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).
Support --ゆきち 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Yukichi99 (ゆきち) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
Support Neeters 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Neeters checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Juliabackhausen 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Juliabackhausen checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- zur887 16:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Zur887 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Morten Haan 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Support --Lépton ✉ 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lépton checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Transmissionelement 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Transmissionelement checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Jonathan Groß 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jonathan Groß checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support –neurovelho 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Neurovelho checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support. JamieS93 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - JamieS93 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Kubłok31 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kubłok31 checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support /Poxnar 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Poxnar checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Tpt 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tpt checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Tuvalkin 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tuvalkin checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Hosiryuhosi 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Hosiryuhosi checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --FlügelRad 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - FlügelRad checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support --Anthony Ivanoff 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Anthony Ivanoff checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Hrcolyer 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Hrcolyer checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Catherine 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
Support Kaldari 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Kaldari checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- Laser brain 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Laser brain checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support The Anome 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - The Anome checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
Support SBC-YPR 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - SBC-YPR checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --DieBuche 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Stefaniak 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Stefaniak checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Support. -AlexSm 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Alex Smotrov (AlexSm) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Support --M/ 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - M7 (M/) checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Rajiv Varma 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Rajiv Varma checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Amrum 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Amrum checked by (RT) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Very yes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Cocoaguy checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Krdan 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Krdan checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Raysonho 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Raysonho checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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!
- --Thalan
Eligible - Thalan checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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).
Support Sebk. 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Sebk. checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Amir E. Aharoni 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Amire80 (Amir E. Aharoni) checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
Support - Eric-Wester 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Eric-Wester checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Cozzycovers 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Cozzycovers checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Seems a good idea - Lnegro 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lnegro checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support - Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jeffrey Mall checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support - Rainmonger 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Rainmonger checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support --Alterego 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Alterego checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- Shii 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Shii checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Osd@ruwiki 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Osd checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Philippe 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Philippe checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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).
Support Sole Soul 21:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Sole Soul checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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).
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.
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).
Support Pschemp 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Absolute power corrupts absolutely; it's a Good Thing this isn't absolute power. Dhatfield 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Support --Gereon K. 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Gereon K. checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Daemorris 21:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
Support --Abaumg 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Abaumg checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Nbarth 21:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Nbarth checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - QuiteUnusual checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- You are ineligible to vote
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).
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).
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).
Support I like this idea --Adrille 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Adrille checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Zinnmann 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Zinnmann checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support ok -Kacembepower 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Support I support the motion Endo999 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Endo999 checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support - Much needed. -- Avenue 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Avenue checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --ysangkok 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ysangkok checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Majorly talk 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Majorly checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support --Pelz 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Pelz checked by (RT) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
Support --Computerjoe 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Computerjoe checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Montgomery 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Montgomery checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support I agree with Paginazero. --Fredericks 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Fredericks checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Makes sense to me.-LtMuldoon
Eligible - LtMuldoon checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Yup. Makes perfect sense. BG7 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bluegoblin7 (BG7) checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --MoRsE 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - MoRsE checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Schmendrik881 23:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Schmendrik881 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Adambro 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Adambro checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Something12356789101 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Something12356789101 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Royalbroil 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Royalbroil checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Emes 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Emes checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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.
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)
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
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).
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)
Eligible - St. Alex checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --E020613 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - E020613 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
Eligible - Ukexpat checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- Support, sounds like a good idea--Jac16888 02:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jac16888 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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.
Eligible - Wikitiki89 checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Themfromspace 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Themfromspace checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Jodoform 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jodoform checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support--Christian Lindecke 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Christian Lindecke checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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 affectedYup, 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)
Eligible - The ed17 (Ed) checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Slark 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Slark checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Patar knight 02:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Patar knight checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
Eligible - Starblind (Andrew Lenahan) checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support ~fl 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Fl checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Bouchecl 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bouchecl checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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.
Support--Personplacething 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC) I strongly agree with this proposal.
Support--9548coolgirl 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This is the best idea I've heard of. I for one support this cause. Oh, and my vote is yes.
Support --Plommespiser 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
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?
- 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).
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).
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))
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)
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)
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).
- --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)
- 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).
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)
Eligible - Closedmouth checked by (RT) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
Support Steven Walling (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Steven Walling checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
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).
- 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)
Eligible - Paradoctor checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
- Grandmasterka has contributed to wikis which will be affectedEMPHATIC
Support. This is a long overdue solution to the abuse of small projects. Grandmasterka 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Grandmasterka checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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).
Support Jclemens 05:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jclemens checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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)
Eligible - Sirozha checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Eligible - Dcoetzee checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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 affectedSupport only purpose is to assist. Graeme Bartlett 06:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Eligible - Woraponboonkerd (Worapon B.) checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- EVula has contributed to wikis which will be affectedEasiest choice I've made all day. Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- .snoopy. has contributed to wikis which will be affected
Support --.snoopy. ✉ 07:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Eligible - Orderinchaos checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --JohnMarcelo 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - JohnMarcelo checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --newspaperman 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Newspaperman checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Needed it for years. Biem 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Biem checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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)
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).
Support --Klaws 08:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Klaws checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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)
Eligible - Gabriel Kielland checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
- --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 affectedSupport Clem23 08:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Clem23 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Andre315 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Andre315 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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)
Eligible - Physchim62 checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
Eligible - Stifle checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
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)
Eligible - Altenmann checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Bschandramohan
Support Ahmad87
- Cryngo has contributed to wikis which will be affected
Support Cryngo 09:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Eligible - Pjoef checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Akkifokkusu 10:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Akkifokkusu checked by (RT) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC).
Support--Bdell555 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bdell555 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support BabelStone 10:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - BabelStone checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Eligible - Michail checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Gz260 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
Eligible - Boivie checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
SupportYeah, I'm OK with this.--Mktsay123 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mktsay123 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support MichaelSchoenitzer 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - MichaelSchoenitzer checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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)
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).
- --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)
Eligible - MacCambridge checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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 affectedLukas9950 12:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lukas9950 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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 affectedTim Ross (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Eligible - Hut 8.5 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
Eligible - Olaf2 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Eligible - Usien checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- Per J.delanoy's comment below. AGK 13:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - AGK checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Samyn97 13:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Samyn97 checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Eligible - Vajotwo checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- annotation finishes here
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).
- --Bahnmoeller 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support--Иван Прихно 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Иван Прихно checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support. Yes indeed! -- OlEnglish 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - OlEnglish checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Strong support That'll be good for smaller Wikis --231013-a 14:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support --Jpfagerback 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jpfagerback checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
- sounds reasonable to me -- pne 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Pne checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Certainly would help the smaller wiki's. -Djsasso 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support --Maha 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Maha checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- There are concerns with this, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages I think. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Diyan.boyanov 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
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).
Support - Colin dla 15:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Colindla checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- Good idea. --Dimitris 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Dimitris checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support yes--Alexander Timm 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Alexander Timm checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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).
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).
Support Perfect iniciative. --Rolf Obermaier 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Rolf obermaier checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support - Taqi Haider 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Taqi Haider checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- ×α£đes 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - XalD checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support About time that this happened. Woollymammoth 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Woollymammoth checked by (RT) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
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)
SupportWe need more anti-vandals.Zoravar 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
SupportDefinitely.Lewis82 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lewis82 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Jacoplane 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jacoplane checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Feudiable 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Feudiable checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Kanman 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Support - useful and reasonable --Jfblanc 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jfblanc checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support - Ike9898 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ike9898 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Mordan ( talk - de - de-talk ) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mordan checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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).
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)
Support Galessandroni 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Galessandroni checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Density 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Density checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support Mlaffs 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Support agree Mathmo Fulldecent 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Fulldecent checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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).
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)
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)
Support --Epiq 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Epiq checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
SupportThe Magnificent Clean-keeper 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - The Magnificent Clean-keeper checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- Annabel 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Annabel checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support--Bartiebert 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bartiebert checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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
Support Let's try it out --Tschips 19:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Tschips checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support —Paul Erik 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Paul Erik checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support —Longbow4u 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
Support --BradPatrick 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - BradPatrick checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Firilăcroco discuție / talk 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Firilacroco checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- Nothing controversial, really. --Mormegil (cs) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mormegil checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Pbsouthwood 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nakor 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Nakor checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
WeakSupport. 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)
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).
- --habakuk 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Habakuk checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Jeroen 20:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support — The Earwig @ 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - The Earwig checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Nro92 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Nro92 checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- --Matthiasb 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Matthiasb checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Bob bobato 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Bob bobato checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Item 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC) of course :-)
Eligible - Item checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
- → crazytales 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Crazytales checked by (RT) 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
- 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)
Support --AnRo0002 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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"><sup> ©</font></sup>''']] 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)</small>
Support Jarkeld 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jarkeld checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Jnthn0898 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jnthn0898 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Malafaya 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Malafaya checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support HistoryStudent113 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - HistoryStudent113 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Mark Nowiasz 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Mark Nowiasz checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --Woodstock1 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Woodstock1 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --ZX81 talk 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - ZX81 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support --Tone 22:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Btphelps 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Btphelps checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Rotsee 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Rotsee checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support --ST ○ 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Steschke (ST) checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
- --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)
Support --Alexanderaltman 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC) elegant
{{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).
Support -- Pistnor 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC) seems reasonable
Eligible - Pistnor checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- CristianCantoro 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - CristianCantoro checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support Hportfacts5 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Hportfacts5 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Acer 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Acer checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Weblaunches
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).
Support Blahma 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Blahma checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support It sounds usefully. — Jagro (cs.wiki) 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jagro checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
Support --Hormold 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Hormold checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support--Unionhawk 01:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Unionhawk checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Saemikneu 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Saemikneu checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
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)
Support MikeLacey 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
WeakSupport. 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.
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)
Support --Bctrainers 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
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).
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).
Support -- Njrwally 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Njrwally checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Jtico (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Jtico checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support -- Lenitha 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lenitha checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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).
Support -- William915 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - William915 checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Support Ottava Rima 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Ottava Rima checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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)
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).
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)
Support. →Lwalt ♦ talk 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Eligible - Lwalt checked by (RT) 12:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
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)