Stewards/Elections 2020/Votes/Bencemac


The 2020 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Bencemac edit

  • Languages: hu-N, en-2
  • Personal info: (English)
    Hi everyone, I'm Bencemac! I'm bureaucrat of the Hungarian Wikipedia since 2017 and administrator of Wikidata since 2018. I am also OTRS agent since 2016 and global renamer since 2018. I'm from Hungary and if I'm correct, I'm the first candidate from there.

    I'm applying for stewardship to accomplish the following few goals. First of all, I'd like to add Hungarian to the language list. I'd like to help those who can reach stewards only in my native language. Secondly, I would like to help in (I think) less popular sides. For example, as far as I know, the backlog of steward OTRS queue is sometimes big. As a steward, I'd like to help answering these mails in order to reduce the work. Since I'm an OTRS agent, I have dealt with thousand tickets and I think I'm experienced in many aspects of OTRS; general questions, permissions, legal complaints and sensitive information too.

    My focus would be also SRGP because I feel confident enough and experienced because of my years as a bureaucrat. My help would be expected with SRUC requests as well. Currently, I deal with local rename requests only from huwiki, because originally, I applied for GR to help my single huwiki colleague, but I'm willing to help there too. I deal (mainly from Wikidata's RfD process) with cross-wiki spam and pages created by LTA accounts. As a steward, it'd be much easier, and I also would be a useful hand cleaning after globally (b)locked accounts. I use IRC when I'm online and I am willing to do help there as well.

    Thanks for reading my statement! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them, I'll do my best to answer them.
  • Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2020/Questions#Bencemac

  Yes edit

Rschen7754 (Verification pending)  Support. Administrator on two wikis, has some global experience, highly active. I think they could pick up the rest pretty quickly. Rschen7754 14:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. -revi (Eligible, checked by NahidSultan)2020   User:-revi/SEV — regards, Revi 14:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Richardkiwi (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Richardkiwi (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ankry (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Ankry (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Eggishorn (Eligible, checked by NahidSultan)2020   Eggishorn (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Krzysiek 123456789 (Eligible, checked by NahidSultan)2020   Krzysiek 123456789 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nate 2169 (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   Nate 2169 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sg7438 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Sg7438 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Syahramadan (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Syahramadan (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel J Zhao (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Daniel J Zhao (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Miniapolis (Eligible, checked by Ahmad Kanik)2020   Miniapolis 14:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. MZaplotnik (Eligible, checked by Ahmad Kanik)2020   MZaplotnik(talk) 15:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Gereon K. (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Gereon K. (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Dostojewskij (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Dostojewskij (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Kostas20142 (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   While the Wikidata incident concerns me as well as some other arguments, I find Bencemac net positive and I think he would deserve a shot. Kostas20142 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       荣智浩 (Not eligible, checked by Hiàn)   荣智浩 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dimas Laksani (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   Dimas Laksani (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Šedrvan (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Šedrvan (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pe-Jo (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2020   Pe-Jo (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Malatrad (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Malatrad (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. MonkeyStolen234 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Perrak (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Perrak (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Tymon.r (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Tymon.r (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       荣智浩 (Not eligible, checked by Hiàn)   荣智浩 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 隼鷹 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   隼鷹 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. SHISHIR DUA (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   SHISHIR DUA (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ejnal (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Ejnal (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Dmehus (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   Why not? Meets my simple requirements of smart + clue + polite and cordial + proficient knowledge of and adherence to global Steward policy = renewed global mop. Equally crucially, while most of the editor's edits come from Hungarian Wikipedia, the editor does a lot of good work on the Commons and Wikidata—projects in need, badly, of mopping. Dmehus (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Lemure Saltante (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Lemure Saltante (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jfblanc (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Jfblanc (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Arraque (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Arraque (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Sleyece (Not eligible, checked by Ankry)   Sleyece (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Rooiratel (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Rooiratel (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Nahtrav (Not eligible, checked by CptViraj)   Nahtrav (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Onverwacht (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Onverwacht (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Chiartop (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Chiartop (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Rdelre (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Rdelre (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Fernando de Gorocica (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Fernando de Gorocica (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Arbnos (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Arbnos (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. CentralTime301 (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   CentralTime301 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Adithyak1997 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Adithyak1997 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Darkhan (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Darkhan 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Jusjih (Eligible, checked by Ahmad Kanik)2020   Jusjih (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Garam (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   We do not know about this user, but we can give to them a chance this year. Garam talk 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Chipermc (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Chipermc (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Cryberghost (Not eligible, checked by DannyS712)   Good! Cryberghost (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. AtlanteanAstorian (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   AtlanteanAstorian (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Chris76de (Not eligible, checked by Ankry)   Chris76de (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Stephan Tournay (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   Stephan Tournay (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Dany Crash (Not eligible, checked by xaosflux)   Dany Crash (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Icem4k (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Isaac Kanguya✌ (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Mahveotm (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2020   Mahveotm (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Novak Watchmen (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   Novak Watchmen (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Gaurav Dhwaj Khadka (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Gaurav Dhwaj Khadka (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No edit

  1. Pallerti (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   I strongly   Oppose. I am Pallerti, I have been an editor on Wikipedia for more than ten years, I am a sysop and CU on huwiki, in addition I am an OTRS-volunteer. I’ve been following Bencemac’s activity since the beginning, as an OTRS member I work with him on the OTRS-team. My opinion about him that he is obsinate, stubborn, he is not suitable for any kind of teamwork. His communications skills are not correct, one directional, he neglects most of the addressed problems without answer, disregards most critical warning regarding his activity. As a novice editor, he provided problem templates for image uploads, but he did not notify the article editors about the issues, who did not have a chance to resolve them. These I have regularly spoken of but he left almost always unanswered and continued with this activity. As a result, the Wikitanács (huwiki Arbitration Committee) (has warned him to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines). The situation hasn't changed much since, for example, a few weeks ago he made a speedy delete template article of an old practiced editor (VargaA, who is an appreciated, important member of huwiki since 2006) without notifying the author (VargaA). Another example of one directional communication is that Grin (founder of huwiki) five years after the problem was first raised object for not informing editors about templating - this suggestion by Grin was left unanswered. However, in my experience, a complete lack of loyalty also makes him unsuitable for a steward. As an OTRS-volunteer, he has repeatedly reported his partners to OTRS-sysop without all prior notice and discussion. Hungarian OTRS-volunteers have all the technical tools and interfaces available (huwiki OTRS-noticeboard, OTRS-mailing list) to discuss problems, and this method has been working well for years – I mean it is unfair to bypass these communication channels. Another example of the lack of his loyalty is, that he continued for many years his activity as a huwiki bureaucrat by withdrawing his sysop colleagues' sysopbit immediately after the minimum activity period had expired. As we can see that he is permanently monitoring this, it is extremely disgusting that he does not notify the sysop in question before the expiry date. This has been repeatedly brought out him (one example), there has been so much improvement since than that he does not automatically takes away the bit, but a few days ago he only informed the OrsolyaVirág four days after deadline expired. I think OrsolyaVirág as an sysop for more than ten years does not deserve this procedure. Bencemac is not only uncapable to keep this position, but it would be extremely dangerous for the project to give him the right as steward. As a WD-sysop, waged an editorial war on me, and after all a sysop protected the page he asked his sysop partners to restore the page, as justification "Wikipedias' local 'problem' cannot overwrite that how Wikidata works" but he did not start a discussion of the local problem on huwiki. Later, an another WD-sysop Csigabi did it instead of him, and it became clear during the discussion that Bencemac wasn't right. Bencemac did not make any relavant comment in the discussion, although he could have the possibility to present his arguments there. I consider this behavior is seriously unethical by a WD sysop. There are numerous examples that he made changes without any community support which later led to frustration and indignation to editors, and I do not want him to get rights that might affect the operation and integrity of the Wikipedia community. - Pallertitalk 14:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pagony (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   I am an admin on huwiki and can attest all that Pallerti has said above. Strongly   Oppose. --Pagony (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TonyBallioni (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CptViraj (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   CptViraj (📧) 14:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Csigabi (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   I strongly   Oppose for the following reasons:
    • I cannot trust someone abusing their sysop privilege. Though Bencemac had been well aware that it was unethical to use his administrator contacts in a dispute (see above) he apparently did not learn. As an administrator on Wikidata he clearly abused his administrator privilege in a dispute. Even after being warned by another administrator on WD he tried to divert the discussion to a different tack.
    • Bencemac is definitely not a team worker. In numerous occasions he has had his own way without having previously discussed or gotten approval for his actions. Such behaviour has given rise a lot of disputes on his actions on huwiki. Some - including me - consider his actions to those of a loose cannon. If one looks at his talk page on WD they can see that in many cases he acts first then would discuss afterwards. I don't think Wikipedia needs a steward whose actions will be challenged afterwards.
    • Apart from the issues mentioned above he has not got much cross wiki experience. He is mainly active on huwiki and Wikidata which does not suffice for being a steward on the whole Wikipedia. Csigabi (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 (Eligible, checked by NahidSultan)2020   I don't agree with everything said above and I think there are personal grudges thrown in there, but I now remember the Wikidata INVOLVED incident and thought that was unimpressive. --Rschen7754 14:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Turkmen (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020  --Turkmen talk 14:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steinsplitter (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Steinsplitter (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Érico (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Insufficient cross-wiki experience. Érico (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Burumbátor (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   I never heard of his intention before to become a steward, although I am one of the older and very active admins in huwiki. This definitely shows the incompetence of the cadidate for team work and intention to reaching consensus, even in his "home" wiki. I doubt that his contribution to stewardship would be fruitful. --Burumbátor (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Stwalkerster (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   stwalkerster (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. WikiBayer (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Don't convince me --𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 16:16, 8
  14. Hungarikusz Firkász (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   I oppose. I agree with the arguments of Pallerti. In addition I want to add the following arguments why I do not consider him suitable for this important position.
    As an OTRS handler he has taken steps that prove he has no empathy, loyalty and community spirit. An excellent example is the letter to OTRS by (now late) Adam Makkai, distinguished poet, linguist, translator, retired professor of University of Illinois, in which he asked our help. Bencemac’s answer was a standardized letter of dismossal without any empathy. I think the minimum he could have done was asking other OTRS handlers whether anyone else was willing to take care of the case.
    An excellent example for his lack of loyalty and community spirit is when he has an issue with someone, he does not even try to discuss it with them, he tries to prove his right with turning to to office-holders/priviledged editors in WP. In at least two cases he reported his fellow OTRS editors.
    His behaviour as a bureaucrat is also not likable. In this case he behaved haughty and arrogant:
    According to my undesrtanding such a position needs correct attitude which he very often is not. As an example I acquired the permission for a photo, which he uploaded as though he had acquired the permission: When the photo was placed in the article he had the option to indicate this, nevertheless he did not.
    This photo has been uploaded by him with intentionally omitting the information on the original uploader In theory he is supposed to know Commons and its technical possibilities, nevertheless he did not upload the photo with CommosHelper or any other tool, but he did it manually without reference to the original upload.
    All in all he is not suitable for this position. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mirer (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   --Mirer (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Trijnstel (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   I wanted to support him, but I sadly cannot do so anymore after reading the comments of members of his homewiki. Trijnsteltalk 17:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Stïnger (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   Per Rschen7754. --Stïnger (会話) 18:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. RhinosF1 (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Based on above comments from other wikis RhinosF1 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Texaner (Eligible, checked by Pallerti)2020   I strongly   Oppose. Texaner (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) He is practically one troublemaker in various Wikipedias. Unfortunately this is hardly verifiable, since he used to delete all disputable comments from his talk pages.[reply]
  20. Sintakso (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   The Wikidata incident and some of the comments above are concerning Sintakso (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Klaas van Buiten (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   per Pallerti et al Klaas `Z4␟` V21:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ToBeFree (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hiàn (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   The comments by Benemac's colleagues seem pretty clear-cut. Hiàn (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Vermont (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   I would initially have been in support, though from the other comments it has become evident that this candidate is not suitable for stewardship. Vermont (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Liuxinyu970226 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Armbrust (Eligible, checked by Minorax)2020   Armbrust (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 1989 (Eligible, checked by Minorax)2020   1989 (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Pppery (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   * Pppery * it has begun 04:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 1ForTheMoney (Eligible, checked by Pallerti)2020   1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. ST47 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Does not appear to have the trust of their own community. ST47 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Linedwell (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   doesn't seem to be trusted enough Linedwell [talk] 19:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Streetdeck (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   --Wright Streetdeck 04:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Daniuu (Eligible, checked by Ahmad Kanik)2020   After reading the comments from editors of the hu-wiki. Kind regards, Daniuu (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Cyfraw (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   cyrfaw (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Veracious (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Veracious (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Vmavanti (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Vmavanti (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Fenikals (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Fenikals (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. La coince (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Not convinced La coince (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Cybularny (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   ~Cybularny Speak? 22:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Meiræ (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   User appears to be involved in too much controversy. Sorry, I can not support under such circumstances. Meiræ 22:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Malatinszky (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   While my opinion of Bencemac is less negative than those of some of my fellow huwiki editors, I feel that stewardship requires more trust than I have in him. There have been too many instances when Bencemac has shown disregard for community consensus or written and unwritten rules of cooperation. I hate to pile on, but my vote is a no. Malatinszky (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Lepricavark (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Lepricavark (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Der-Wir-Ing (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 20:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Rots61 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Rots61 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Nicolas Ramirez (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   Nicolas Ramirez (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Atcovi (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Absolutely not. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  47. CactusWriter (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   CactusWriter (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Frettie (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   Frettie (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  49. John M Wolfson (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   I found him slightly too open to intervene in large wikis by his answer to Q2, and the opposes seem more convincing than the supports given a so-called "Wikidata incident" and apparent other business. John M Wolfson (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Davey2010 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   As per Pallerti and Rschen7754 - There seems to be major trust issues (amongst other issues) with this user and as such cannot support them at this time. –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  51. DannyS712 (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   DannyS712 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  52. OrsolyaVirág (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   As per Pallerti. Lack of respect, communication, loyalty. It is sad that we have a burocrat who thinks that his role is to play police on his colleagues. Stronly   Oppose. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  53. OSeveno (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   --oSeveno (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  54. DeltaQuad (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Kurtis (Eligible, checked by Streetdeck)2020   Too many concerns raised by hu-wiki volunteers. Kurtis (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Zabia (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Zabia (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Mardus (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Per very valid arguments by User:Pallerti. Mardus (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And per arguments by User:Csigabi, and by User: Hungarikusz Firkász. -Mardus (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 廣九直通車 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   The candidate's Hungarian ability is valuable, but the personal issues raised by others is a prominent concern. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Nightenbelle (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Nightenbelle (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Hyperdieter (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Hyperdieter (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Cabeza2000 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Cabeza2000 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Artregor (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Artregor (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Alpha 4615 (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Alpha 4615 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Uğurkent (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   User doesn't have enough cross-wiki experience. --Uğurkenttalk 18:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  65. WikiAviator (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   I oppose since after I looked at his portfolio, his experience may not be sufficient. WikiAviator (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Chrism (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Trust issues based on wikidate "incident" and others Chrism (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  67. OhKayeSierra (Eligible, checked by Ahmad Kanik)2020   OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ScholastikosSVK (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Absence of necessary character traits and skills. ScholastikosSVK (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Tazkeung (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   --Tazkeung (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Xaosflux (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   — xaosflux Talk 14:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Coronium (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Coronium (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Pawnkingthree (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Centaur271188 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Centaur271188 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Ferran Mir (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   --Ferran Mir (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Tomec (Eligible, checked by OhKayeSierra)2020   Tomec (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Cabayi (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  77. CLCStudent (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   CLCStudent (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Hannes 24 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   --Hannes 24 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Ameisenigel (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Ameisenigel (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  80. TJH2018 (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   TJH2018talk 22:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  81. EVinente (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   EVinente (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  82. HMSLavender (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 07:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Bucksburg (Not eligible, checked by Ankry)   A Steward must be above reproach. Bucksburg (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Eihel (Eligible, checked by Hasley)2020   lack of experience xwiki Eihel (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  84. NickK (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   If all users from your home wiki are voting against and there is no (or negligible) support from your home wiki, that's a good sign that this is not a good candidate for stewardship — NickK (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral edit

  1. 5LZ (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   5LZ 14:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Minorax (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Minorax (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Camouflaged Mirage (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Just a slight more experience will be ok. Local issues are hard to judge as note here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 1997kB (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Although my interactions with them had been net positive but that Wikidata issue is not very good. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ইফতেখার নাইম (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2020   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ইফতেখার নাইম (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   My interactions with the candidate have been positive, but the issues brought up made me hesitate a little. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Esteban16 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   The issue on Wikidata was a serious one, and is quite recent. As sysops, stewards are expected to avoid COI. Esteban16 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Patriccck (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Patriccck (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. *Youngjin (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   *Youngjin (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rachmat04 (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2020   ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mahir256 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   per 1997kB. Mahir256 (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jules78120 (Eligible, checked by Stryn)2020   Not convinced (regarding testimonies from Hu sysops and Wikidata abuse of sysop rights, even if he said he was sorry about it). — Jules Talk 10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 人人生來平等 (Eligible, checked by Pallerti)2020   人人生來平等 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mardetanha (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Mardetanha talk 17:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ruthven (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   The above accusations are worrisome. Ruthven (msg) 17:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SickManWP (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   I no know he--SickManWP (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Borschts (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Borschts (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Waddie96 (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Based on comments by hu-wiki, no personal experience however Waddie96 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. MJL (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   I'm going to stay out of this... –MJLTalk 23:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Rzuwig (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Rzuwig 11:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Kenshinflyer (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Kenshinflyer (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Stephan1000000 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Stephan1000000 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Juanmachavez7 (Eligible, checked by Ahmad Kanik)2020   Juanmachavez7 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Wagino 20100516 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Timmyboger (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Originally I had good impressions based on the questions responded by the candidate, but several examples presented by local(hu) users made me need to reconsider the ability of Bencemac. Timmyboger (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. NGC 54 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   --FonAfon (talk | contribs) 13:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. JogiAsad (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   JogiAsad (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jefferestiw (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Jefferestiw (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Geonuch (Eligible, checked by DeltaQuad)2020   Geonuch (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Patsagorn Y. (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Patsagorn Y. (Talk) 09:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Predatorix (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Predatorix (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. AGK (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   AGK ■ 07:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Poti Berik (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2020   Poti Berik (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. WikiLester (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   WikiLester (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Mitzi.humphrey (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2020   Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. HuJou (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   HuJou (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Sonic Speedy (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Untuk saat ini, netral dulu. Sonic Speedy (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Zppix (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   Zppix (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Epicgenius (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2020   epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Brown Chocolate (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2020   Brown Chocolate (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]