Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Stewards/elections 2007/statements/Dmcdevit

< Stewards | elections 2007
The following Election below has ended so please do not vote here since all votes made after the conclusion of the elections will be discounted or removed.

Dmcdevit

edit

íedit multilingual text
Identity has been previously confirmed by Cary Bass.
English:
  • Languages: en, es-2/3
  • Personal information: I have been a Wikimedia contributor for several years. I am an administrator, oversight, CheckUser and former member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia; an administrator and CheckUser on the English Wiktionary; and also an administrator here on Meta. I also have OTRS access, and have been active on info-en and wikt-info-en in the past. I think that I am reasonably well-known and trusted enough for this position, and feel I have a good awareness of Foundation-level issues. I also have more experience at CheckUser than any other current steward or candidate, which is an area I will help out with. I have also done quite a bit of translation work, on Wikipedia, Meta, and especially Wiktionary—where the majority of my content edits are probably Spanish edits. I try to be approachable and responsive to criticism. Thanks for your time. (Also, I should already be identified to the Foundation as an oversight/CheckUser.) Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
العربية:
  • اللغات: en, es-2/3
  • المعلومات الشخصية: أنا مساهم في ويكيميديا منذ عدة سنوات. أنا إداري, إداري, مدقق مستخدم وعضو سابق في لجنة التحكيم في ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية; إداري ومدقق مستخدم في ويكاموس الإنجليزي؛ وإداري أيضا هنا في الميتا. أمتلك أيضا حساب أو تي آر إس، وكنت نشطا على info-en و wikt-info-en في الماضي. أعتقد أنني معروف بشكل معقول وموثوق في بشكل كاف لهذا المنصب, وأشعر أنني أمتلك معرفة جيدة بالقضايا على مستوى المؤسسة. أمتلك أيضا خبرة بتدقيق المستخدم أكثر من أي مضيف أو مرشح آخر، وهي منطقة سأساعد فيها. لقد قمت أيضا بالقليل من عمل الترجمة، في ويكيبيديا، ميتا، وخصوصا ويكاموس—حيث أغلبية تعديلاتي في نطاق المحتوى على الأغلب تعديلات أسبانية. أحاول أن أرد بشكل إيجابي على الانتقاد . شكرا لوقتكم. (أيضا، ينبغي أن أكون معروفا للمؤسسة كأوفرسايت/مدقق مستخدم.) Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Español :
  • Idiomas: en, es-2/3
  • Información personal: He sido un contribuyente de Wikimedia durante varios años. Soy un bibliotecario, oversight, CheckUser, y antiguo miembro del Comité de Arbitraje de la Wikipedia inglesa; un bibliotecario y CheckUser del Wikcionario inglés; y también un bibliotecario aquí en Meta. Tengo acceso a OTRS y ayudo con info-en y wikt-info-en. Creo que estoy bien conocido y tengo suficiente confianza para esta posición, y creo que tengo buen conocimiento de los temas al nivel de la Fundación. También, tengo más experiencia con CheckUser que cualquier otro steward o candidato, y eso es una área donde quiero contribuir. Además, hago algunos traducciones: en Meta, Wikipedia, y Wikcionario—donde la mayoría de mis ediciones son concerniente a artículos españoles. Trato de ser accesible y receptivo a la crítica. Gracias por tu tiempo. Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsch:
  • Sprachen: en, es2/3
  • Informationen zur Person: Seit einigen Jahren bin ich Wikimedia-Mitarbeiter. Ich bin Administrator, Oversight, und ein ehemaliges Mitglied des Arbitration-Komitees der englischen Wikipedia; ein Administrator und CheckUser des englischen Wiktionarys; und ebenfalls ein Administrator hier auf Meta. Ich habe außerdem OTRS-Zugang und war auf info-en und wikt-info-en in der Vergangenheit aktiv. Ich denke ich bin ziemlich bekannt und vertrauenswürdig genug für diese Position und ich denke ich habe ein gutes Bewusstsein für Foundation-Level-Anliegen. Ich habe auch mehr Erfahrung als CheckUser als jeder andere derzeitige Steward oder Kandidat, was ein Bereich ist, in welchen ich aushelfen möchte. Ich habe auch ein bisschen Übersetzungsarbeit auf Wikipedia, Meta und besonders auf Wiktionary geleistet— wo der Großteil meiner inhaltlichen Bearbeitungen vermutlich Spanisch betreffen. Ich versuche zugänglich und ansprechbar für Kritik zu sein. Danke für deine Zeit. (Gleichfalls sollte ich bereits der Foundation als Oversight/CheckUser bekannt sein) Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Français :
  • Langues : en, es-2/3
  • Renseignements personnels : Je contribue aux projets Wikimedia depuis plusieurs années. Je suis administrateur, oversight, checkuser et ex-arbitre sur la Wikipédia anglophone, administrateur et checkuser au Wiktionnaire anglophone, et administrateur sur meta. Je suis volontaire OTRS, actif autrefois sur info-en et wikt-info-en. Je crois que je suis assez connu et qu'on me fait assez confiance pour avoir ce statut, et que je connais bien tout ce qui concerne la Foundation. J'ai également plus d'expérience en tant que checkuser que toute autre steward ou candidat à steward ; c'est un domaine dans lequel j'aiderai. J'ai aussi fait pas mal de traductions sur Wikipédia, meta, et particulièrement le Wiktionnaire, où la majorité de mes contributions concernent probablement l'espagnol. J'essaie d'être d'accès facile et ouvert aux critiques. Merci de votre attention. (En plus, je dois déjà être identifié auprès de la Foundation en tant qu'oversight/checkuser.)
Bahasa Indonesia:
  • Bahasa yang dikuasai: en, es-2/3
  • Informasi pribadi: Saya telah menjadi kontributor Wikimedia selama beberapa tahun. Saya adalah opsis, oversight, CheckUser dan pernah menjadi anggota komite arbitrase di Wikipedia bahasa Inggris; saya juga opsis dan CheckUser di Wiktionary bahasa Inggris; dan dahulu di wikt-info-en. Saya kira agaknya saya cukup dikenal dan dapat dipercaya untuk posisi ini, dan merasa saya memiliki pengetahuan yang cukup isu-isu di tingkat Foundation. Saya juga memiliki pengalaman sebagai CheckUser lebih banyak ketimbang para Steward dan para calon Steward saat ini, dan akan menjadi area utama yang hendak saya kerjakan. Saya telah berkecimpung juga sedikit dalam pekerjaan penerjemahan, di Wikipedia, Meta, dan terutama Wiktionary—di mana mayoritas suntingan saya adalah dalam bahasa Spanyol. Saya mencoba untuk lebih mudah dan lebih responsif terhadap kritikan. Terima kasih untuk waktu Anda. (Juga, identitas saya sudah diberikan ke Foundation sebagai oversight/CheckUser.) Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Italiano:
  • Lingue: en, es-2/3
  • Informazioni personali: Contribuisco ai progetti Wikimedia da diversi anni. Sono un amministratore, oversight, CheckUser e sono stato in passato membro dell'Arbitration Committee sulla Wikipedia in lingua inglese; sono inoltre amministratore e CheckUser sul Wiktionary in lingua inglese e amministratore qui su Meta. Ho accesso a OTRS e sono stato attivo in passato su info-en e wikt-info-en. Penso di essere abbastanza conosciuto per questa posizione e credo di avere una discreta conoscenza dei meccanismi della Foundation. Ho inoltre un'esperienza più estesa come CheckUser rispetto a quella di ogni altro steward o candidato ed è questo un settore nel quale darò una mano. Ho cercato di svolgere alcuni lavori di traduzione, , su Wikipedia, Meta e in particolare sul Wiktionary—qui la maggior parte dei miei edit sono in lingua spagnola. Cerco di essere accessibile e di reagire positivamente alle critiche. Grazie per l'attenzione. Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
日本語：
  • 言語: en, es-2/3
  • 候補者についての情報: 私はウィキメディアに数年来投稿して来ました。英語版ウィキペディアでは管理者、オーバーサイト権限 (oversight)保持者, チェックユーザ、また以前は裁定委員会のメンバーでした。メタでも管理者をしています。私は OTRS のお手伝いもしており、 info-en および wikt-info-en で活動してきました。私が思いますに、私はスチュワード権限に十分相応するくらいには知られておりまた信頼を寄せられています。また財団レベルのこともよく知っていると思います。また私は Checkuser として現在のスチュワードや他のどの候補者よりも経験を積んでおり、この分野でお手伝いできると思います。また私はメタ・ウィキペディア・また特にウィクショナリでいくらか翻訳のお手伝いをしてきました。ウィクショナリでの私の投稿の大部分はスペイン語なのではないかと思います。私はご批判に対して耳を傾け、またお返事できるように努めたく思います。お時間を割いていただきありがとうございました。（身元確認については、オーバーサイト／チェックユーザ権限保持者として私の身元はすでに財団に確認されています）Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polski:
  • Języki: en, es-2/3
  • Informacje o mnie: Wnoszę swój wkład w projekty Wikimedia od kilku lat. Jestem administratorem, oversightem, Checkuserem i byłym członkiem Komitetu Arbitrażowego angielskiej Wikipedii; administratorem i Chekuserem angielskiego Wikisłownika; jak również administratorem tu na na Meta. Mam również dostęp do OTRS i byłem aktywny na info-en i wikt-info-en w przeszłości. Wydaje mi się, że jestem wystarczająco dobrze znany i zaufany by objąć tą pozycję, i wydaje mi się, że mam wystarczającą znajomość problemów Fundacji. Mam również większe doświadczenie jako Checkuser niż jakikolwiek obecny steward czy kandydat, co jest obszarem w którym chciałbym pomóc. Wykonałem, również sporo tłumaczeń na Wikipedii, Meta i, w szczególności, na Wikisłowniku, gdzie większość moich edycji dotyczy hiszpańskiego. Staram się być dostępny i reguję na krytykę. Dziękuje za poswięcony mi czas. (dodatkowo, powinienem być już zidentyfikowany przez Fundację jako Chekcuser/oversight).
Português :
  • Idiomas: en, es-2/3
  • Informação pessoal: Tenho sido um contribuinte da Wikimedia por vários anos. Sou um administrador, oversight, CheckUser, e antigo membro do Comitê de Arbitragem da Wikipédia em inglês; administrador e CheckUser do Wikicionário em inglês; e também administrador aqui no Meta. Tenho acesso a OTRS e ajudo com info-en e wikt-info-en. Creio que estou bem conhecido e tenho suficiente confiança para esta posição, e creio que tenho bom conhecimento dos temas a nível da Fundação. Também tenho mais experiência com CheckUser que qualquer outro Steward ou candidato, e essa é uma área onde quero contribuir. Além disso, faço algumas traduções: no Meta, Wikipédia, e Wikicionário—onde a maioria das minhas edições são referentes a artigos em espanhol. Trato de ser acessível e receptivo à críticas. Obrigado por seu tempo. Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
中文：
  • 語言： en, es-2/3
  • 個人資訊：我在維基媒體作了好幾年的貢獻。我是英語維基百科的管理員，Arbitration Committee|仲裁委員會前委員，且擁有oversight和CheckUser的權限；在元維基上我也是管理員。我有OTRS的權限，並且曾在info-en和wikt-info-en上活躍。我認為自己有一定的名氣和能夠讓大家信任我擔此職位，另外我覺得自己對基金會層面的事情有一定的認識。比起其他候選人，我在CheckUser的崗位有較多的經驗，可以提供更多的幫助。我也做了不少翻譯的工作，在維基百科和元維基，特別是在維基辭典上，可能主要的貢獻在西班牙語方面。我嘗試對批評意見持開放態度和善意回應。感謝大家付出時間(來投票)！ (另外，我已在申請oversight/CheckUser權限時向基金會表明身分。) Dmcdevit 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


粵語:
  • 話：
  • 個人資料：

Questions / Frage / Domande / Pertanyaan / Kysymykset / Perguntas/ أسئلة

edit
  1. Beyond stewardness, are they other things you would like to be more involved at the Foundation level ? Anthere 10:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know I was interested in trying to get the recent Ombudsman reform through, and I hope the new blood will help. :-) Involvement in more Foundation-level activities is something I would consider, though I don't have specific plans at the moment. I've always been hesitant to commit myself to something that would have myself spending too much time away from the actual community, but I would be happy to serve on a committee that deals with something I'm passionate about. Dmcdevit 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a fair amount of discussion/confusion/controversy about what actually happened in the recent Carolyn Doran/Zscout370 matter and I see you are getting a fair number of new opposes. Do you consider this (w:User:Luna_Santin/Dmcdevit_20071215) detailed explanation of the sequence of events as an accurate and complete recounting of your actions in the matter? If you had it to do all over again is there anything you would do differently? Anything you wish others had done differently in handling the matter? ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes / Sí / Oui / Ya / Ja / Za / Evet / За /支持 / مع الترقية / Kyllä / Sim

edit
  1. support —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Of course Jaranda | wat's sup 00:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes —Animum (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes. FloNight 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sim. Alex Pereira falaê 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes--Doc glasgow 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Nick1915 - all you want 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. en:User:Mercury Navou 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. ElinorD 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes, he's a good and trusted fellow. --M/ 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Hoch auf einem Baum 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. James F. (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mr.Z-man 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Slade ♠ 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yup..--Cometstyles 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. FunPika 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. what I know from some of his CU statements in the past, he's trying to act with the needed caution, and he also seems to be unagitated enough to handle more difficult issues --:Bdk: 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes. Philippe 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Picaroon (t) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Captain panda 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Cbrown1023 talk 02:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Trusted and capable. Will do the job well. Redux 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Thoughtful, well-balanced and hard working Wikimedian. --Aphaia 03:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oh yes. drini [es:] [commons:] 03:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Shizhao 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Extremely qualified user, excellent asset to en-wikipedia. Mbisanz 03:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Danny 03:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kurykh 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. John Reaves (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Indeed. Kwsn 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SQLQuery me! 06:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Bien sûr Icestorm815 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The CU experience is influential, an aspect of stewarding not always handled well in my view --Herby talk thyme 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Maybe not --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Gianfranco 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Sure! Snowolf 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. + --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --Actarux 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. oscar 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. bonne chance ! Ofol 12:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. .anaconda 12:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Kronin▄¦▀ 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Already has a position of trust on many projects and does a fine job. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Ral315 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --cj | talk 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Enough people known to me voted for :) --Millosh 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Jon Harald Søby 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Jacoplane 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. --Nanae 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Sí, un buen candidato, SqueakBox 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. --filip ⁂ 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Ja. Heimstern 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Gaillimh 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --WiganRunnerEu 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. UninvitedCompany 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Trustworthy. Acalamari 20:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. PDD 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Freegiampi 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. No brainer -- Tawker 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --Marbot 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Anthere 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. -- MaxEnt 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Waldir 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. -- MaxEnt 02:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Titoxd(?!?) 06:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - one of the good guys! - Alison ❤ 07:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. guillom 09:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. --Fabexplosive The archive man 11:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Semolo75 12:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Nick 14:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. --Thogo (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Yup. --Dweller 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Yes.Danntm 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. JayHenry 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Yes. Rudget 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yes, trusted user --BigDT 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - reaffirming my previous vote - people overreacting to this incident need to get a grip. --BigDT 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --GDonato (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Efbé   20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --Maxim(talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. --Alastor Moody (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. --Jusjih 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Giggy\Talk 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. --Gdgourou 09:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. -- lucasbfr talk 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Anthøny 19:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. --Coredesat (en.wp) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. The traditional "Sup" here. Prodego talk 03:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. xaosflux Talk 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Ecemaml 09:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. -Royalguard11(Talk·@en) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. WjBscribe 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. --Celestianpower (wp, wikt, books) 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Zginder 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. I trust this user not to misbehave with the steward rights. James086Talk | Email 09:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - Candidate has proven himself trustworthy as both an en.wp arbitrator and an admin on more than one project --Versageek 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oh yes, please! Миша13 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - great admin and arbitrator --Cmelbye 20:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. R. Baley 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Thinking things over. R. Baley 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. --chaser - t 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106.   Support KTC 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Absolutely. Wizardman 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Yes. Spartaz 18:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Lots of experience with checkuser, dealing with difficult users, trustworthy.--Shanel 20:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. More than qualified. Wikiacc | (talk) (en.w | en.w.t) 20:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. William M. Connolley 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Samsara 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. honoured to   Support--clamengh 13:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. It's an honour. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115.   Support -- Avi 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Zscout370 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. OK. Utkarshraj Atmaram 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Very strong support. Excellent candidate for the job. AmiDaniel 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Easy choice. --Deskana 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if Dmcdevit will have the time to steward with all of his other great work, but I know from experience that Dmcdevit is easy to get ahold of, and his previous positions show that he must be responsible. Miltopia 14:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. --MONGO 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong support Orderinchaos 11:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Spebi 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Crockspot 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Quiddity 07:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Have had overwhelmingly positive interactions with this user even before I ever registered an account. Strong support. --Neskaya 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. John Vandenberg 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. the wub "?!" 12:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. --A. B. (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Obviously. --Srikeit 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. --Connel MacKenzie 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 66.65.188.89 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) -please login to vote, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. My vote is yours. Mikael Häggström 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. support Tvoz 04:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Kusma 06:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Absolutely. Stifle 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Andre (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support -- Of course Nichalp 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. -Sirex98 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. مع، مستخدم أثق به.--Alnokta 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. ugen64 07:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. JoeSmack 14:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Computerjoe 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. --Warofdreams 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong support - Aksi great 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. -- Schnee 09:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Kalan ? 11:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. BanyanTree 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Very much so. IanManka 05:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Robert Ullmann 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Daniel 01:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. DVD R W 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Sí' Jehochman 02:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. -- Az1568 10:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Opposition based on ZScout affair is unjustified. --Jpgordon 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. --Berlin-Jurist 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. An excellent candidate. I'm also glad that the affair surrounding Zscout370 has now been well-clarified. Sciurinæ 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. The Zscout370 affair to my way of thinking, and per the chatlog I referenced in my question, is more about miscommunication (and not enough stewards on IRC so that one was in the channel at the right time as it turns out) than it is about malfeasance. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Thatcher131 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. kmccoy 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Yes. DS 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support. Athaenara ✉ 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. – Steel en:Steel 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No / Non / Nein / Tidak / Przeciw / Hayır / Против /反对/ ضد الترقية / Ei / Não

edit
  1. Oppose, not a lot of contributions to Meta, and on a personal note, I wasn't his biggest fan while he was on the enwp ArbCom. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mike R 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. - Mailer Diablo 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No. Majorly (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No. --Mcginnly 16:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Poupou l'quourouce 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC) don't like accumulation of posts[reply]
  8. Angusmclellan 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Candidate has proven himself untrustworthy as both a sysop and an Arbitrator--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wish you the best, but don't feel I can support you at this time. Davilla 03:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No. Patstuart 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No. Lahiru k 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. My one interaction with this user was surprisingly frustrating. Terrible communications skills. Firsfron 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Same with my one interaction. Húsönd 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I don't think I have to explain. — CharlotteWebb 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --MF-Warburg(de) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seen problems.--Piotrus 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No thanks. Miranda 11:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Tim Q. Wells 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Maybe, but not now. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (GMT)
  21. Effeietsanders 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC) -- Too much doubt for now. Not sure if Dmcdevit really understands what stewardship is all about. I am sorry that this is all in a rush right now, would have liked to dig in some deeper first, but for now the disadvantage of the doubt.[reply]
  22. Oppose. Because of a misunderstanding leading to a desysop was handled, just today. AnonEMouse 23:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exceedingly poor handling of the Zscout370 situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just spent the whole day on the plane, and don't have much time right now. I will just note that Ryan Postlethwaite's statements there were patently false and I am quite disappointed by them. I am a former arbitrator on enwp and have access to both the arbitration mailing list and IRC channel where this was discussed. ArbCom has sid that arbitrators made the decision, insinuations on WP about my "making decisions on behalf of ArbCom" are ill-informed speculation. If that was my act of poor judgment, then I guess I am guilty. I would love to be the scapegoat if you really need one to get by, but I think the community's mob mentality is quite sad. Dmcdevit 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually popped back over here to strike out my vote before even seeing your statement. I'm willing to completely drop it, as this was such a horribly crappy situation all around, and I will agree that you don't need to be a scapegoat for something that might very well not have someone that can just be finger-pointed. Shit happens, as it were. Part of the whole problem is people jumping the gun, and my vote here may very well have suffered from that same affliction. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose due to the Zscout370 misjudgement. Videmus Omnia 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if it feels like I am being to combative with opposers. I've been quiet this whole time and mostly planned to stay so. The short version is this: 1) I saw an admin with a prior history of abuse and desysopping make a quite abusive use of his tools on something that could have had legal implications, and was against explicit policy. 2) I alerted the active arbitrators I could find and they all agreed to seek out a steward to do the job. 3) I found an active steward and relayed the message. 4) Drama ensues, people link to this candidacy with misleading statements about my actions. Now, I am open to suggestions, but I am curious which was my misjudgment that is unbecoming of stewardship? Or is it mostly just that the story gets juicier each time it is repeated, and it's hard to find the truth? Dmcdevit 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the "rush to judgment" aspect that bothers me. The overly negative characterization of Zscout370 above, and vast oversimplification of a complex issue to cast your actions in a favorable light, makes me even more concerned. Sysops are presumed to valued members of the community with a history of positive contribution to the project, should not be treated like simple vandals against whom action should be taken via back channels, without public discussion. Videmus Omnia 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with treating anyone like a vandal. I can see how it looks like a rush to judgment, but for one thing, it wasn't even my judgment at all. In any case, discussed the matter with several other arbitrators and former arbitrators. It was more thoughtful than you think, though I can't speak for the aftermath, since, as I say, when I got on a plane this morning, Zscout had been desysopped and I had left messages for arbitrators t let them know so they could make a public statement, but none were around. It may look like things were done via "back channels," but they were not done secretly, it's simply that those are the normal channels used for urgent requests. I think you are possibly also not aware that I and several others were in discussion with Zscout about this matter on the OTRS mailing list, though I can see now that it looks like no one was communicating their concerns to him before the desysopping. If his replies had been in any way encouraging, the situation might have ended there, but they weren't, and he went on to protect the article twice, as well. Note that I am not demonizing him, just trying to explain the situation fully. Dmcdevit 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "an admin with a prior history of abuse and desysopping" isn't demonizing? Is that really the fairest characterization you could come up with for Zscout who's one of en.wiki's most-prolific contributors? --JayHenry 00:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that those are valid things to consider (that it is is afact that he was desysopped and not that long ago). I know and value Zscout, and I think he knows that. We've talked about it. Dmcdevit 07:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that he'd previously been desysopped (though it was quite controversial, as you know), and I agree it's a valid thing to consider. But it's certainly not the complete picture of his Wikipedia tenure, nor a complete picture of the incident in question. I'm glad to see you recognize his value. Zscout has moved on, I'm happy to do so as well. --JayHenry 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per role in this debacle. Catchpole 08:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 12:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Spryde 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Two protections seems to justify a stern "knock it off" and not a summary desysopping. Given that this was far from an emergency -- his account was not compromised; he was not vandalizing at will; he was doing what he thought was best for the project -- this should have been carried out on RFP. At worst, it should have been explained there in detail after the fact, so as not to leave the community looking on in confusion. As it turned out, perplexed users had to ask those involved what was going on. This situation was thoroughly ill-managed, and carried out with a secrecy and lack of respect unbecoming of a steward. While I respect Dmcdevit's work as an arbitrator and checkuser, this incident suggests that he would make an erratic steward. Perhaps at a later date. — Dan | talk 18:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. His unchecked misuse of checkuser tools in the CharlotteWebb fiasco - using a high-speed automated tool to hard-block every IP ever used by this user as an "open proxy" because some of her edits were done through Tor, even though many of the IPs were not open proxies or Tor at all - was troubling enough, and following his role in this Zscout370 desysopping, where it seems he instantly called for the emergency desysopping of an admin he was directly in conflict with, I don't trust him to use the steward tools in a calm and reasonable manner. --krimpet✽ 20:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose (ec). I generally agree with the above comments or summaries by Dan/Rdsmith4 and krimpet. Changed my 'support' to 'oppose', R. Baley 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. While he says it was not his decision to seek a desysop of Zscout, it seems that it was his idea that he brought to a certain number of unknown arbs, and they agreed. It was a bad idea and completely unwarranted, especially after time had passed. There may have been a bruised ego here, but there was no need for requesting an emergency desysop so long after the initial action. Unless there is further clarification I oppose. Daveh4h 21:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose because of poor decision making in "De-admin" incident. Perhaps Dmcdevit should request to be removed from the ArbCom mailing list to avoid the temptation of getting involved in matters that that editor shouldn't be involved with. Cla68 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Changed to oppose due to the lack of transparency and poor judgment described above. Specifically the most concerning thing is the fact that Dmcdevit did not predict his action would make the situation worse. Miltopia 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Seems to be part of the punitive, "rush to judgment", unrepentant group that is a problem on Wikipedia / Wikimedia these days. Dtobias 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose due to issues mentioned by krimpet, I also agree with effe's doubts. — Timichal 23:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose due to the Zscout affair. There is a chanse of misusing the steward tools Alex Bakharev 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No way Hbdragon88 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose There have been too many questionable decisions and actions over the past year, and communication skills are obviously lacking. Failing to at least talk to an admin before proposing an "emergency" desysop, particularly when there were hours between the proposal (and reported approval for the request) and the discussion with a steward, is inexcusable. Risker 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That claim is, at best, simply wrong. Dmcdevit 06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Iamunknown 03:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I too noticed the concerns raised by krimpet and think such judgment precludes stewardship, at least for the time being[reply]
  39. Oppose, alarming tendencies. Everyking 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tidak due to now revealed habit of biting oppose voters. Not the proper behavior of a steward. Kyaa the Catlord 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. I'd like to see more of a separation of powers on Wikimedia, so I wouldn't support anyone still on the ArbCom mailing list for stewardship. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No longer confident --Herby talk thyme 09:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per SlimVirgin.--Cato 11:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Hell, No - This user hasn't indicated the preparedness or neutrality required to be a steward. Not only have his edits - when they are made been spotty, but he has handled his ArbCom duties pathetically. He short-circuited an ArbCom enforcement complaint by stopping and archiving an RFCU after an SSP report clearly found that the subject did indeed violate the conditions of their ArbCom conditional presence. Subsequent, numerous requests for explanation went unanswered. After seeing this user perform his ArbCom functions poorly in not just this incident but at least two others, I think this user is simply not dextrous enough to handle the duties of stewardship. If he cannot perform his duties as part of ArbCom, how on earth can he perform both ArbCom member and stewardship? SlimVirgin has it right. This user is not even in the same postal code as a qualified user for stewardship. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Too many concerns raised. --Cactus.man 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Many incidents point towards questionable ethics, arrogant demeanor and lack of decorum. --Irpen 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Prolog 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral / Neutrale / Neutre / Netral / Wstrzymuję się / Tarafsız / Воздержались /中立 / Tyhjää / Neutro/ محايد

edit
  1. Refus de vote, à cause du système de confirmation des stewards. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation: "Refusal to vote, because of the stewards confirmation system." —translated by Pathoschild.
  2. --OosWesThoesBes 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bapti 11:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/elections_2007/statements/Dmcdevit&oldid=5738518"