Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Stewards/Elections 2014/Votes/Rschen7754

< Stewards | Elections 2014 | Votes
The following discussion is closed: This election is closed and these pages are an archive of that event.

Rschen7754

edit
ContentsYes • No • Neutral

Rschen7754 talk • contribs • SULutil (accounts) / stalktoy • globalcontribs • crosswiki-ness • confirm eligibility
translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

English:

  • Languages: en, es-2
  • Personal info: Hi! I'm Rschen7754, and I began editing the English Wikipedia in March 2005. I became an administrator on the English Wikipedia in December 2005, and am a content contributor, sockpuppet investigations clerk for the CheckUser team, and an Arbitration Committee clerk. I am a part of OTRS, and an administrator and oversighter on Wikidata, and an administrator on the English Wikivoyage. I have played a role in the development of core policies on Wikidata and the English Wikivoyage, promoting both due process and sensible solutions to problems. As my work spanned over more projects, I took an interest in crosswiki affairs, and became an administrator here on Meta as well as a global sysop. My passion is helping people discover the joys of editing multiple projects, as well as improving relations between projects and the greater Wikimedia environment. If elected, I will focus on access management and countervandalism, though I have experience in many other steward areas, such as oversight requests. I can offer high availability in the hours where stewards are currently not very active. I have some understanding of the Spanish language, and am experienced in fighting vandalism and spam in languages that I do not understand through my work on the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. Finally, I believe in communication, collaboration, and transparency between stewards, CheckUsers and oversighters on other wikis, and the community at large, as we all must work together to remain effective in carrying out the mission of Wikimedia, as well as to maintain accountability for our actions. I agree to abide by the relevant policies, and am familiar with them through my work as a SPI clerk and oversighter, as well as making requests to stewards, oversighters, and CheckUsers across Wikimedia.

Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2014/Questions#Rschen7754


  Yes

edit
  2. Snowolf (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Rschen7754 has been very active on the SWMT and across multiple projects. They have the strong global perspective and cross-wiki experience required for the job and I have full confidence in their ability to be an effective steward. Snowolf How can I help? 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Vogone (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  You are a polar bear. Vogone talk 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John F. Lewis (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  I have known Rschen for around a year now. I trust their judgement fully and have no concerns about how they'll actually use the tools. Plus the enwiki failed CU request is an example of how poorly thought out enwiki's proceedures are and not an accurate represenation of their trust or ability. Also per Vogone :p John F. Lewis (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TCN7JM (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Rschen7754 has been very active cross-wiki and he definitely knows that things work differently on each wiki, which is something I like to see in a steward. He already holds OS on Wikidata and adminship on many projects, so I have no doubts in his ability to handle the steward bit well. TCN7JM 18:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PiRSquared17 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  I agree with the comments above (except the polar bear one, that seems to be an in-joke...) PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alan (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Of course Alan (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ajraddatz (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Rschen is active, trusted, and has some use for the steward bit. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JurgenNL (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  JurgenNL (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Igorwindsor (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Igorwindsor (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. LlamaAl (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Definitely! LlamaAl (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. JurriaanH (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  JurriaanH (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Érico Júnior Wouters (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Érico Wouters msg 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. MF-Warburg (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Rschen7754 is a very active cross-wiki user who all the time shows that, despite being relatively newly active in the SWMT, Meta etc., he has a reasonable judgement and also gained cw administrative experience already (in addition to his years-long experience on enwiki). MF-W 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. İncelemeelemani (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Related user. İncelemeelemani (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Wiki13 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  I don't have anything to add right on what's has been said already. Wiki13 talk 18:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Petronas (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Of course! Petronas (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Admrboltz (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  I trust this user. Admrboltz (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Ulflarsen (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Ulflarsen (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Odder (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Absolutely! Although I haven't worked with Rschen7754 too closely, I only have the best of experiences from those times that we had collaborated. You'll make a great steward. odder (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Brateevsky (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Brateevsky (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Nicolas1981 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Nicolas1981 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. kasir (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Kasir talk 18:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Natuur12 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Natuur12 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. DerHexer (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Okay. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 분당선M (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  I love you DangSunM (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Scott5114 (Eligible, checked by Vogone)2014 •  I have worked with this user for years on enwp and trust his judgement. Scott5114 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. MoiraMoira (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  MoiraMoira (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Vituzzu (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Wise guy. Vituzzu (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Jasper Deng (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  DanielTom's allegations hold no water (particularly because he was involved with a dispute with the candidate some time ago). Nor do Danny B.'s (the RfA on Wikidata was only the tip of the iceberg), nor do Goldenburg111's. And finally, Rschen7754 does not import enwiki issues elsewhere - please see his essay w:en:User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Stryn (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  sure Stryn (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Eminn (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Emin • message 19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Ralgis (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  --Allan Aguilar • /t/ 19:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Jmvkrecords (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jmvkrecords ⚜ (Intra Talk) 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Tryptofish (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Excellent work with responsible positions on the English Wikipedia, and well-qualified to be a Steward. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Stas1995 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  /St1995 19:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. AmaryllisGardener (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Trusted user. I'm sure they'll make a great steward. AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Guycn2 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Guycn2 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. INeverCry (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Commited and experienced. I've disagreed with him on a few things, but I think he'd be a good steward. INeverCry 20:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Widr (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Widr (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Taysin (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  taysin (message) 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Rzuwig (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Rzuwig► 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Techman224 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Techman224Talk 20:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. M7 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  --M/ (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Ebe123 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. D Eaketts (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  D Eaketts (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Frank Schulenburg (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Assayas (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Assayas (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Sjoerddebruin (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Davey2010 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  100%. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Legoktm (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Sure. Legoktm (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Trijnstel (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Active cross-wiki vandal fighter and helps where he can. Trijnsteltalk 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Southparkfan (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Per Vogone. Southparkfan 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Openbk (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Openbk (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Sportsguy17 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Highly active user, admin on several wiki's, and active Meta participant...I say yes. Sportsguy17 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Hosiryuhosi (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Hosiryuhosi (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. AGK (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  AGK [•] 23:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Kolega2357 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Kolega2357 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. SamanthaPuckettIndo (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Sure. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Zerabat (Eligible, checked by MF-Warburg)2014 •  His global experience makes him a good candidate. Zerabat (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Zhuyifei1999 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Good GS, at least. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Daniel Mietchen (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Good candidate. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 콩가루 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  콩가루 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Byfserag (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Byfserag (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Hahc21 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Long overdue. — ΛΧΣ21 03:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Armbrust (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Armbrust (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Hym411 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Why not? —레비Revi 04:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Liuxinyu970226 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Very well on wd Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. John Vandenberg (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  John Vandenberg (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  70. David1010 (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  David1010 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Henryk Borawski (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Henryk Borawski (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Conny (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Conny (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Macdonald-ross (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Gabrielchihonglee (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Imzadi1979 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I trust this editor to fulfill the role. Imzadi 1979 → 09:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Jan eissfeldt (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  jo Jan eissfeldt (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Mihewag (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  convincing application Mihewag (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Bene* (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  Bene* (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Mehran (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Mehran Debate 11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Takamaxa (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Takamaxa (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. GiantSnowman (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  GiantSnowman (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Laaknor (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Laaknor (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Inkowik (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  IW 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Buffbills7701 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Buffbills7701 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  85. FriedrickMILBarbarossa (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  86. ТимофейЛееСуда (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Hoo man (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Hoo man (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Secretalt (Eligible, checked by Buffbills7701)2014 •  Secretalt (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Gobbler (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Rschen7754 is very helpfull and encourages other users. He's very involved in voy's policy and guidelines and stuff Gobbler (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  90. JB82 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  JB82 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  91. GyaroMaguus (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Appears to be responsible enough for the role. GyaroMaguus (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Taichi (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Taichi - (あ！) 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  93. TeleComNasSprVen (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  I have always had a pleasant interaction with him, on any wiki where he is found, including Wikidata and Wikivoyage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Juliancolton (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  –Juliancolton | Talk 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Tiyang (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Tiyang (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Jafeluv (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Павел Петро (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Павел Петро (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Wagino 20100516 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Saqib (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Even though this user disappointed me on Wikivoyage and I should give him oppose vote to show my strong feeling. But I must say he's active cross-wiki with good knowledge on policy so actually he deserve a support vote, not oppose. Saqib (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While the concern that I raised was serious (as the majority of the other admins thought), I am saddened at how things turned out, and it was nothing personal. I wish I had been a bit more clear about that; apparently, I wasn't. --Rschen7754 13:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Tom Morris (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  102. GZWDer (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  --GZWDer (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Kazkaskazkasako (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Bms4880 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Bms4880 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Pratyya Ghosh (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Pratyya (Hello!) 15:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Arkanosis (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  — Arkanosis ✉ 16:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Rosser1954 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Rosser1954 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Clockery (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Clockery Fairfeld (talk • enWS) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Wikiwind (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Wikit 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Tucoxn (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  A trusted editor and admin. - ʈucoxn\talk 19:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  111. NativeForeigner (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Perhaps quite stern, but I think he's very well suited to the role. NativeForeigner (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Midnight Gambler (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  He will be a good steward. Midnight Gambler (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Niesy74 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Niesy74 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Jusjih (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jusjih (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Neutron (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Neutron (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Courcelles (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Courcelles 02:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  117. BuffaloBob (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  BuffaloBob (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Epicgenius (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  119. John Reaves (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  John Reaves (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Slazenger (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Slazenger (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Drzewianin (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Drzewianin (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Balou46 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Balou46 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Erne Mogilevich (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Erne る Mogilevich (ノート • 投稿記録) 21:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Demart81 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Demart81 (Qualcuno mi cerca?) 22:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Ginsuloft (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Ginsuloft (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Mark Arsten (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Glaisher (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  per Vogone and PiRSquared17 (except the part within the parentheses in PiRSquared17's comment). Glaisher [talk] 17:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Reception123 (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Per vogone. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Żyrafał (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Żyrafał (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Aldnonymous (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  A silly good guy. --AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Defender (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Defender (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  132. QuiteUnusual (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  More than confident. QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Wpollard (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  He has good experience and says he is committed to cooperation with others. Wpollard (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Guerillero (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Guerillero 02:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Beyond My Ken (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Jonathunder (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Jonathunder (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  137. NaBUru38 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  NaBUru38 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Buggia (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Buggia 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Jc86035 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Jc86035 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Xqt (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •   @xqt 11:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Daniel749 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Daniel749 talk 13:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Pundit (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  definitely Pundit (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oursana (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Oursana (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Ronhjones (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  Ronhjones (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Wrh2 (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  I've worked with Rschen7754 on English Wikivoyage and found him to be patient, fair, and hard-working. Ryan • (talk) • 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Rome2 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Rome2 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  147. EKMK (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  EKMK (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Tgo9176 (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Tgo9176 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Shizhao (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Shizhao (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Mr. Stradivarius (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Pharaoh of the Wizards (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Abaddon1337 (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  I trust him. Abaddon1337 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  153. JamesR (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  — JamesR ≈talk≈ 14:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Technical 13 (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Technical 13 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  155. KundaliniZero (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  in "es" wikipedia, i think vandalism has increased. KundaliniZero (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  156. វ័ណថារិទ្ធ (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  វ័ណថារិទ្ធ (Vantharith) (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Waka Waka (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Waka Waka (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Bluerasberry (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Chrumps (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Chrumps (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Gamma127 (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Gamma127 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       Tremonist (Not eligible, checked by Avraham) •  Tremonist (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  161. The Anonymouse (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Opposers (which are not convincing at all) mostly seem to have a personal agenda against the candidate. CU request on the English Wikipedia was rejection from the Arbitration Committee, not the community. Crosswiki experience and activity is good. The Anonymouse [talk] 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  162. NE Ent (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  NE Ent (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  163. ශ්වෙත (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  ශ්වෙත (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Bpierreb (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Bpierreb (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  165. John Carter (Eligible, checked by John F. Lewis)2014 •  John Carter (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC) ompetent, reasonable editor with knowledge of and activity in multiple WF projects. Should provide some useful input on matters relating to some of those sister projects.[reply]
  166. Beeblebrox (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 • Demonstrably competent administrator with significant cross-wiki experience. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Harlock81 (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Harlock81 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Dwaipayanc (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  All-round ability, great experience. Dwaipayanc (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Minihaa (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  Minihaa (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Sitic (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  Sitic (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  171. DoRD (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  Very competent administrator with cross-wiki experience. —DoRD talk 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Doctree (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  Competent and trusted. Doctree (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  173. JzG (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  I believe that Rschen7754 would make an active and dependable Steward. JzG (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Matticusmadness (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  I've only seen him floating around SockPuppet Investigations on En Wiki and occasionally in discussions when I've looked around but he seems to have his head screwed on.
    (I'm probably also the only one voting at 3:12AM local time. Wahey.) MM ("You called?") - ("He's over theeere!") 03:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Rcsprinter123 (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Rcsprinter123 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Denny (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  denny (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  177. TheGeneralUser (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Maestro Ivanković (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  Maestro Ivanković (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Chenzw (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Chenzw (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Mala chaubey (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  Mala chaubey (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Fastily (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  FASTILY 09:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Tar Lócesilion (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Tar Lócesilion|queta! 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Pjoef (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Grondin (Eligible, checked by MF-Warburg)2014 •   Bertrand GRONDIN   → (Talk) 17:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Drmies (Eligible, checked by Einsbor)2014 •  Drmies (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Ahonc (Eligible, checked by MF-Warburg)2014 •  Anatoliy (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Soap (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Soap (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Bjelleklang (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Bjelleklang -- talk 08:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Lymantria (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Lymantria (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  190. FocalPoint (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  FocalPoint (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       Benjamlikesjam (Not eligible, checked by Avraham) •  Benjamlikesjam (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  191. I am One of Many (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  Good candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Zyephyrus (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Zyephyrus (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  193. OrbiliusMagister (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 • - εΔω 15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your great work on it.wikisource.[reply]
  194. Geraki (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Geraki TL 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Ruslik0 (Eligible, checked by DerHexer)2014 •  Ruslik (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No

edit
  2. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Too rigid. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danny B. (Eligible, checked by matanya)2014 •  Strong oppose A person who judges others on single isolated thing, deliberately overseeing/ignoring/not minding (Apology of non-native English speaker: I don't know which term is best to use in this context.) the complex situation, has obviously "colts damn low", so can't be trusted to have an access to possible private or otherwise sensitive data which have been deleted. Such access must be used with discretion and with consideration of larger context. Stewarding is neither fishing nor a weapon for punishments nor even a tool to implement own opinions. Although typical misuse of admin tools such as improper deletion or block can be quite simply and quickly (because it is visible for everyone) repaired, privacy breaching (because of accessing deleted data) or other damage based on such access is usually once forever with no chance of reverse for the affected user.
    Also reading several discussions where the candidate has been involved in gives me the impression he makes a battlefield out of them instead, and his statements are far from the temperament or patience I'd expect from a functionary, especially the one which is able to access private and/or sensitive information. For all these reasons, I cannot obviously trust him.
    + I totally undersign DanielTom's statement.
    — Danny B. 22:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You have provided no evidence whatsoever for your statements. I believe his criticism is well-founded based on what other users have said on your Wikidata admin reconfirmation RfA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tony1 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Oppose—Rude, rigid, prejudges; and I'm uncertain about the intercultural, interlinguistic credentials. Leave it for a year and let's see how you do in 2014. Tony (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you mean 2015. TCN7JM 02:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe you're referring to this year and not the year Rschen would run again. I don't know. Whatever. TCN7JM 02:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See my vote comment above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ivan Štambuk (Eligible, checked by PiRSquared17)2014 •  Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Bill william compton (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  In agreement with Danny B. Rschen7754 can be trusted with the other maintenance tools, but, I'm afraid, not with the responsibility of steward. X/he opposed my RfA on Wikidata (later changed to neutral) because x/he had defined me by a single incident that happened when I was a newbie. I want to make it clear that I have no negative feelings towards them and voted in favor of their candidacy for oversight on Wikidata after my RfA, but not for this. Bill william compton (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Any other concerns? As it seem you are defining Rschen based on a single incident that happened. Plus the wording seems to be 'They opposed me for admin. I'll opposed them for steward' though this may be miscommunication. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just an example. If I had any animosity towards them, I wouldn't have supported their oversight candidacy. I have my doubts about their ability to judge other users.--Bill william compton (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the example that you mentioned, the "single incident" was serious and involved a user who was banned on two wikis. Regardless, I did reconsider my vote, which is what I think is being overlooked here. --Rschen7754 16:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Goldenburg111 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Strongest Oppose I do not appreciate this user's diminutive amount of patience. As being a steward, the user must have the sufficient amount of patience to handle issues. Next is his participants in discussions about me at Wikiversity, where the Wikiversity Community really understands my perspective view, and other issues their. Where he has vastly frustrated me with his actions, not understanding from each user's perspective view, and to mean to become steward. I don't care about the mentoring, the last action at Wikiversity has gotten me up to much. --Goldenburg111 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, [1] is the comment they are referring to. --Rschen7754 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is, but that is not the only reason I am opposing (Plus, I have gotten far embarrassed by Wikimedians already) --Goldenburg111 18:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his criticism of you is well-justified. Your comment makes absolutely no sense beyond the first two sentences.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasper Deng: I advise you to stop with the offensive comments, it shows a lack of maturity. And do you speak English? Can't you read? It obviously makes sense if someone agrees, again, sotp with the incivil comments. --Goldenburg111 21:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jni (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Has too many hats already. I also agree with criticism by Goldenburg111 and DanielTom. jni (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hats is usually used in the way of 'He has xx, xx, xx,xx and xx but never uses them'. Yes Rschen has an amount of rights more than any normal user but then again, half the stewards at the moment have even more than Rschen. Plus I know Rschen uses all rights to benefit the community otherwise, I know Rschen would give said rights up if they lost community trust. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. People get too focused on how many "hats" someone has, rather they should worry about how said user is using said hat. Sportsguy17 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Someone not using his real name (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I have an uneasy feeling he may import enwiki issues where they don't belong (per previous comments in this section). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...when he wrote an essay advocating against exactly that (see my vote above)...--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cedalyon (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Cedalyon (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    May you please state why you oppose Rschen? John F. Lewis (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving a reason is optional FWIW. This is a vote. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obelix (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Obelix (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Fram (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  My interactions on MediaWiki don't give me the confidence that he would make a good Steward. This was his "Welcome" for me here, starting with a nice "Dear Fram", and going on with "It's clear that your edits are trolling" for edits that clearly weren't trolling but went against his opinion. Nothing in the ensuing conversation there and at enwiki convinced me that he is the correct person to hold any position of responsability on any Wikimedia site. Fram (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that wasn't trolling I don't know what it was then, maybe some pointing. You were also blocked there because of these edits. --Stryn (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and most editors who discussed the block on my talk page, even if they could see tge logic of the block, agreed that it wasn't trolling. It was bluntly stating the truth after I had pointed out these problems on the talk page, and on the talk page of the responsible editors, without any reply. Rschen is the typical editor who will only react to the tone of a post, and to defend his colleague sand higher-ups, instead of looking at the circumstances and at the behaviour of both sides. I recently encountered him again at Mediawiki, with the same one-sided approach, albeit it at least more gently this time. Asmins who aren't ready to llok at the behaviour, the problems, the issues from both sides are not people I trust to be stewards. Fram (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I did tell Jasper that I thought your (third) block that he made was inappropriate, and asked him to reconsider. [2] The reason I generally do not critique admin actions at MediaWiki.org is because I am not very active there, and feel that it would be inappropriate to do so, not being either a MediaWiki developer or an active participant there. --Rschen7754 07:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. One of the things I don't like about MediaWiki and the admin culture there is the fact that it is blatantly obvious that admin actions are discussed and decided in the dark of IRC, not out in the open. While this probably happens at all wikis, it is much more obvious there, for no good reason though. If you then have editors who feel it would be inappropriate to critique admins on Mediawiki, but have no qualms doing the same with regular editors, the problem only gets worse. One of the results, as in this case, is that the more well-connected editors (WMF employees, MediaWiki admins and the like) can keep a clean image outwardly (no blocks, no reprimands, no dissent in general) while the editors that discuss things on-wiki (as should be the norm) get silenced and ostracized. I don't think you are in any way the main culprit of this, and if I had to chose between you and a lot of people with (WMF) after their names, I would prefer dealing with you, but I don't feel comfortable enough after our limited interactions to see you as a Steward. Fram (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Begoon (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Not trusted enough. Begoon (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ColonelHenry (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Not satisfied with his objectivity or trustworthiness, too imperious and heavy-handed, and his role at ArbCom makes me say no another 100 times. ColonelHenry (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Alberto568 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Alberto568 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       فلورانس (Not eligible, checked by Snowolf) •  Florence (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Dick Bos (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Dick Bos (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hubertl (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  --Hubertl (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. AFBorchert (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  AFBorchert (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Locke Cole (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ul1-82-2 (Eligible, checked by TeleComNasSprVen)2014 •  Too many jobs Ul1-82-2 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Steschke (Eligible, checked by Glaisher)2014 •  ST ○ 22:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Intothatdarkness (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ceoil (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. MZaplotnik (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  per above, especially Tony's and Bill william compton's comments. MZaplotnik (contribs) 10:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Bdell555 (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  I recall Rschen7754 once terminating a discussion by applying the hide template, despite clear instructions in the template that it "should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing." This was not just a lack of sensitivity to the objections, but in my view a high handed decision to dismiss those objections as illegitimate, Rschen ordering readers in the associated edit summary to "Back away". Brian Dell (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You insisted on discussing material where the suppression tool was used. --Rschen7754 16:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The material at issue here was already reported in a variety of media. The horse had already left the barn. So what was the point? I find this an example of your rigid world view.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rich Farmbrough (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  A reluctant no. While I am sure Rschen7754 has the interests of the project at heart, the maturity he claims to have accrued of recent years is simply not sufficiently in evidence - even his responses above strengthen my belief that this is so. I am also concerned that he would be over-extending himself, as the workload of his clerking role is less elastic than almost any volunteer community role. Rich Farmbrough 17:04 18 February 2014 (GMT).
  27. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Eligible, checked by Avraham)2014 •  While he has many good points (as shown by his performance after collecting many hats on English Wikipedia), he lacks the maturity, cross-Wiki experience, and perspicacity to function well in this role. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know this because ...? --MF-W 22:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Tonelada (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  Tonelada (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
       LessayCatus (Not eligible, checked by Alan) •  LessayCatus (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Reade (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  Reade (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mátyás (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  A poor knowledge of one additional language shouldn't be enough. Mátyás (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. JordiCuber (Eligible, checked by Barras)2014 •  I am de:Benutzer:Jordi (Diff). To check my eligibility see my user page, thx.--JordiCuber (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. FeralOink (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  FeralOink (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Pgallert (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Pgallert (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral

edit
  1. DanielTom (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  1) This candidacy is extremely improper: just a few months ago, Rschen's self-nomination for CU rights at Wikipedia was (rightly) rejected, but as he still wants to gain access to IPs, he plans on bypassing this obstacle by being elected a steward here. 2) Rschen believes that if you have a public rename, and accidentally make 1 edit with it, even if you immediately replace its signature with yours, and even if your public rename redirects to your account, it should still be tagged as a sock. Why anyone with a conscience would vote "Yes" for such a candidate (who as a steward would have to deal with actual socks) will forever be beyond my comprehension. 3) I predict Rschen's pattern of hat collecting will only end when he decides to run for ArbCom which, trust me, is coming. For this reason, it would perhaps be unwise of me to oppose him (even though I believe him to be a very abusive, unhelpful user), but I'm leaving this comment here as a warning anyway, so that people in the future looking back won't think that we were all fooled. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. At the moment, and having looked at Rschen's global contributions, I don't believe this user can communicate in Spanish nor that he has an "intermediate" understanding of Spanish, and so I think his self-classification as "es-2" was very deceiving. As far as I can see, this future steward can only communicate in English, and this is something people should know. I asked a question about his very limited language skills [3], but so far he has refused to answer it. [Edit: over 1 week has passed since I asked the question, still no reply. Rschen obviously knows that answering it would only hurt his chances, even though it's already crystal clear that he doesn't know Spanish—and it's now also clear that he will refuse to respond to vital, even if difficult, questions, which is exactly what we do not want in a steward.] ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC) last edit: 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rubin16 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  active and has nice support from global sysops and stewards but I didn't like answers to some questions at these elections rubin16 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gryllida (Eligible, checked by Snowolf)2014 •  Not very interactive personality, although I'm sure they'd doing counter vandalism just fine. I suspect stewards do a lot of communication though. Gryllida 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Chris troutman (Eligible, checked by Igna)2014 •  Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abd (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I want to see how criticism is handled before supporting or opposing. Abd (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Billinghurst (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  A tad too heavy-handed and I want to see more discretion displayed  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Quentinv57 (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  I have no real opinion about the candidate. I've read the pro and the cons but I remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, I hope that if elected you will avoid or make an effort on the areas needing communication, as suggested by the opposes. Quentinv57 (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Laurent Jerry (Eligible, checked by Alan)2014 •  Impressions mitigées. Bon contributeur, mais trop spécialisé. Laurent Jerry (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oursdesmontagnes (Eligible, checked by Southparkfan)2014 •  Oursdesmontagnes (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CT Cooper (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  Not convinced by opposition but not happy to support either. CT Cooper · talk 17:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. MichaelSchoenitzer (Eligible, checked by LlamaAl)2014 •  MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2014/Votes/Rschen7754&oldid=27477030"