Stewards/elections 2009/votes

The 2009 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

←2009 elections

Stewards (2009 elections > statements only)

Index: See Stewards/elections 2009 (Clear the cache of this page?)

Al Lemos

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Yes

1. Support Jagwar 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Computer wh 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Luan 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Lyon88 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) uneligible voter. Account created yesterday. es:Drini 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Support Udufruduhu 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support --Ginosal 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Raafael ^D 02:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Mwaldeck ^msg 04:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Will he break the wiki? Most likely not. ErikTheBikeMan 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Definitely yes. I'd go with a staatement of values and intent anyday, over statements of experience. Apologies if I've got anything wrong on following this voting process though ~ I'm new, with one of the two articles I've submitted so far already under review for deletion~:o)Skankarbaba Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima ^Msg 11:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Support --Sir James 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   --Sh1019 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima ^Msg 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   --Caspiax --Caspiax 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Fruggo 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support--Konsnos 10:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support EUDOXIO 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support NoychoH 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Pro — Albert Krantz^¿? 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. SupportGlobalphilosophy 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Yes. Definitely. CJS102793 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support --Nrainer 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support --Jouris2009.2.2 (UTC) Uneligible voter. This account isn't registered on Meta. --Lucas Nunes 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

18. Support ----Zeljko 09:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Wouterhagens 16:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support--Psiblastaeban 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    --201.9.61.98 18:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC) uneligible voter. It's just an IP.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

20. Support pro carioca! -- Linksfuss 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support --Arcudaki 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support --Lighterside 16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support --Alex Esp 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Ozymandias 09:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Booksworm 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support yes -- A2 supersonique 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter --Nice poa 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

27. Support Multilingual. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support --Snake311 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support I voted for you. Now, where's that bribe you promised me? PM me and I'll give you the account number. Heh, these suckers are gonna be taken for a spin. --85.164.165.51 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter, it's just an IP. --Nice poa 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

28. Support Muro de Aguas 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support Matema 09:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter --Nice poa 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

29. Support Albmont 11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Kabri 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support --Lohen11 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support --4wajzkd02 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support --Alborz Fallah 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Has all the right language and other skills Carsrac 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Christian Hartmann 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1.  Oppose — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2.  Oppose --Thogo (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4.  Oppose No. Razorflame 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   No. Horacewai2 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima ^Msg 11:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

5.  Oppose No. Puntori 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6.  Oppose No. Micha L. Rieser 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7.  Oppose No.--Seha 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8.  Oppose --Kanonkas 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9.  Oppose No. Not enough experience for stewardship, what you describe is totally different from what stewardship is. Romaine 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10.  Oppose Az1568 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11.  Oppose No/いいえ. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12.  Oppose per Romaine Herr Kriss 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13.  Oppose sorry, but No per Romaine Marcus Cyron 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14.  Oppose Seems not to understand what being a steward is, or what would make one qualified to do the job.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15.  Oppose No. Seems to not understand what stewardship is. — neuro^(talk) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16.  Oppose --FollowTheMedia 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    --Yym1997 02:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible: This user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his homewiki —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

17.  Oppose I like the attitude, and the thoughtful question answers, but I think you need more experience with adminship and general wiki operations across multiple wikis. Perhaps next year? ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18.  Oppose --Tomatejc 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19.  Oppose Not at the level I expect of stewards. Prodego ^talk 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose Avjoska 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21.  Oppose Achates 07:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22.  Oppose No --Shipmaster 07:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23.  Oppose No --Producer 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24.  Oppose Merdis 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not anymore. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
25.  Oppose No --Dr. Gert Blazejewski 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26.  Oppose Adrian 1111 09:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27.  Oppose No, involved recently in too many unnecessary conflicts in Portuguese Wikipedia. RafaAzevedo 09:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28.  Oppose Whilst it'd be good to have non-en stewards, this chap lacks experience. Computerjoe 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29.  Oppose --Brownout^(msg) 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30.  Oppose No --Church of emacs 10:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31.  Oppose Béria Lima ^Msg 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I agree whit Romaine. "Not enough experience for stewardship"
32.  Oppose Per Romaine. Jon Harald Søby 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33.  Oppose --AFBorchert 10:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) per birdy and Lar
34.  Oppose Njaelkies Lea 11:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35.  Oppose Vyk 11:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36.  Oppose I'm sorry. I believe in your good purpose, but not enough experience for stewardship. Smihael 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37.  Oppose Calandrella 13:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I agree with Smihael.
38.  Oppose —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39.  Oppose Stewards should have the experience and trust that comes with being an admin on their home project. John Vandenberg 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40.  Oppose --MF-W 14:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41.  Oppose Not this year. -- Nahum 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
42.  Oppose Stewards should be able to describe what stewardship is and should be an admin on their home wiki. Per Romaine and per Jauvdb. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43.  Oppose Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not now.
44.  OpposeObelix 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    --91.43.224.39 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Please login to vote. Bence My Talk 14:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

45.  Oppose No. Jdrewitt 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46.  Oppose Not really. --Ciphers 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47.  Oppose À cause du manque d'expérience avec les outils d'admin. / Lack of experience with admins' tools. --Edhral 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48.  Oppose Lack of experience and bad understanding of the steward duties — NickK 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49.  Oppose ack NickK --RoswithaC 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50.  Oppose No. Alefbe 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51.  Oppose –Ejs-80 20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52.  Oppose NonvocalScream 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53.  Oppose No. Wants to remove "absentee" admins for no good reason. Rspeer 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
54.  Oppose --Ilyaroz 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
55.  Oppose --PietJay 07:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
56.  Oppose ~ putnik 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
57.  Oppose Stewardship is not only checkuser. Leujohn 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
58.  Oppose --Uwe Gille 09:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
59.  Oppose no experience--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
60.  Oppose Too few user rights => not much experience. --FiliP × 12:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
61.  Oppose GlassCobra 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
62.  Oppose Contra. QuartierLatin1968 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
63.  Oppose I don't see expierence. Should be an admin.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
64.  Oppose --Stepri2003 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
65.  Oppose--Davecrosby uk 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
66.  Oppose Mailer Diablo 03:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
67.  Oppose Tcrow777 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
68.  Oppose Stef48 08:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
69.  Oppose --Tarantelle 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
70.  Oppose no experience to this. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
71.  Oppose Not enough experience or understanding of the role. Maedin\^talk 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
72.  Oppose I am not sure you fully understand the role of stewards. Anonymous101 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
73.  Oppose Fred Xavier 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
74.  Oppose Tiptoety ^talk 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
75.  Oppose --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
76.  Oppose Apparently doesn't know what the position is about.--Cerejota 04:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
77.  Oppose Doesn't seem like enough experience. ...Aurora... 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
78.  Oppose Don't have experience. --Lucas Nunes 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
79.  Oppose Nones. --Tesi1700 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
80.  Oppose Not enough experience. --Tchoř 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
81.  Oppose sorry but need more experience --Gdgourou 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
82.  Oppose No Modernist 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
83.  Oppose GoEThe 10:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Tends to resolve disputes by attacking the opponent rather than the question and when proposing policy shoves opposition under the carpet by pushing for a vote instead of trying to build consensus.
84.  Oppose Urielpunk 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)?

    Meekohi 22:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

85.  Oppose No. TFBCT1 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
86.  Oppose Nadzieja 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) The user had a discussion with me in pt.wikipedia (initialized by he), and was agressive and impertinent with me and another user that was in his right: making comments in the discussion page of the pt.wiki article "Sockpuppet". The user don't have enough maturity to be a Steward. I agree with the user GoEThe: The user resolve disputes by attacking the opponent. 'Cause this my vote is no!
87.  Oppose IMatthew 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
88.  Oppose --Nice poa 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but he 'argues' too much with everybody for everything and uses to offend and to mock his opponents!
89.  Oppose No -- per unaddressed concerns from other editors. Message From Xenu 10:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
90.  Oppose at first you'll need to be experienced as sysop anywhere - IMHO - sorry --Rax 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
91.  Oppose not even a sysop on any project, and does not seem to understand well the stewards' role. O. Morand 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
92.  Oppose Not enough exp. --Sampi 02:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
93.  Oppose Lack of admin experience, misunderstanding of steward role. Nbarth 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
94.  Oppose Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
95.  Oppose--Drboisclair 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
96.  Oppose--Thesupermat 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
97.  Oppose-- Harrywad 23:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
98.  Oppose Nearby, but needs still experience --Höyhens 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
99.  Oppose Tosão 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No,no,no!
100.  Oppose If you resign from proposed adminship why should we trust you stewardship? Masti 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
101.  Oppose --Techman224^Talk 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
102.  Oppose -- it's not necessary for him to add footnotes to opposing comments, and his doing so clearly demonstrates that he should not be a steward. KrakatoaKatie 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Efbé 10:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   I know nothing about the experience of candidate. Unfortunately, I can not understand Portuguese, and I'm out of estimation.LexArt 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   I am ambivalent. Rangond 06:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Kushal one 11:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral Bence My Talk 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral Punx 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   WITSPUTZ 17:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral DanielRute 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Nothing against the user. He's indeed a great editor on Wiki-pt. But he's a bit nervous and he does not like being questioned and contradicted. He must change that. But in general, he doesn't like canvassing and elitism, and that's great! Especially in Wiki-pt where our adminship is focused in elitism and friendship. Being an administrator there is nothing, really.
7. --Mayer Bruno 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Info

Meet some people from Lusophone Wikipedia that are not only voting against me (what is perfectly democratical), but blaming me... - Al Lemos 14:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

View vote page

Alexanderps

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Yes

1. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Computer wh 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

   Support Yes. Razorflame 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Changed to neutral.

3. Support André Teixeira Lima 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support NuclearWarfare 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Horacewai2 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima ^Msg 11:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Support I'm happy here. Majorly ^talk 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Puntori 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Luan 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Mr.Z-man 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support — vvv 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Epinheiro 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC), of course!
12. Support --Seha 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Udufruduhu 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)not eligible to vote--Pediboi 14:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

13. Support Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Az1568 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Chick Bowen 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Yes/Sí/はい. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Vini 175 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support — neuro^(talk) 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support --FollowTheMedia 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support --Ivan Štambuk 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support --Shizhao 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Yamaka122 ...:) 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)not eligible to vote.--Pediboi 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

22. Support bibliomaniac15 03:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support --Luisfege 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support--1j1z2 03:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support More workers are needed. --Millosh 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, of course. Mwaldeck ^msg 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support GlassCobra 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support --Sir James 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Avjoska 06:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Rubin16 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Sebleouf 08:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Octahedron80 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Otourly 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    --Item 09:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) not eligible to vote--Pediboi 13:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

34. Support RafaAzevedo 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa --.snoopy. ✉ 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support --StSasha 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ДА.
37. Support --Wing 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support sounds fine --Church of emacs 10:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Efbé 10:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Samyn97 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter. Confirmed by AccountEligibility Béria Lima ^Msg 11:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

40. Support Béria Lima ^Msg 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Complete support.
41. Support →Na·gy 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Nikolia 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: Innexistent account —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Please sign in to vote. →Na·gy 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

42. Support Vyk 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Support The Helpful One 11:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Stealth500
45. Support EUDOXIO 11:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support axp_de^Hello! 12:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Support --Ahonc 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Support -- Nahum 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Stifle 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Obelix 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Support --Garfieldairlines 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support --Furado 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support iAlex 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Good luck! That Thing There 17:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, it appears you're ineligible to vote.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

54. Support SOAD KoRn 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Saloca 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Takkyuu 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) not elligible to vote--Pediboi 12:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

56. Support --buecherwuermlein 06:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Good. Rangond 07:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

57. Support No objection.--_Wikipedian ^(Activist) 08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Oui --P@d@w@ne 08:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Looks about right. --FiliP × 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Complete support. Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Rui kuhnert 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. The Helpful One 14:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

61. Support --Jón 17:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Leefeni,de Karik 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    - Support, Bjoertvedt need to be logged in to vote.--Pediboi 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

63. Support-- Bjoertvedt 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Pro. QuartierLatin1968 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support --Zeljko 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support ~ Seb35 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Guille.17 Sí not enough contributions--Pediboi 12:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

68. Support everything looks good HBR 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support --Davecrosby uk 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support --Thogo (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    --无杨 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC) not enough contributions--Pediboi 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

71. Support I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support -gildemax 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Support --Tarantelle 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support--Lighterside 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support --Reynaldo 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Fred Xavier 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Knows his way around the Wikimedia Projects. Experience and knowledge is key in a situation like this. Support. Marlith ^T/C 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Davidandrade 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Support EBY3221 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
80. Support --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
81. Support sure --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
82. Support --Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
83. Support--ZERBERUS 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
84. Support --Gdgourou 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Oui Adailton 13:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
86. Support Changed from Neutral to Support based on answers and a closer inspection of the ptwiki issues cited by opposers and questions. John Vandenberg 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Has some good cross-wiki experience and is trusted.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Thewiikione 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Tumnus 09:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Xenus 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
91. Support --Baiji --> (Opinión) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Burmeister 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

    I think that you will do good job. -- A2 supersonique 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Unegibile voter --Nice poa 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

93. Support Dobau 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Proofreader77 03:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    Snake311 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

95. Support --TNolte 02:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry for IP, my 'Unified Login' was wrong)
96. Support fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
97. Support --Daniel73480 11:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
98. Support [[User:Mateus RM|Mateus RM]] ^{[[User talk:Mateus RM|talk]]} 16:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
99. Support --Nice poa 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
100. Support IMatthew 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
101. Support Rizalninoynapoleon 12:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
102. Support Garavello 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
103. Support ok --Rax 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
104. Support No problem O. Morand 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
105. Support Kleiner 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

     yes. Gustavo Roriz 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Uneligible voter. Alex Pereira ^falaê 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

106. Support --João Carvalho 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
107. Support --Nevinho 00:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Nbarth 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
109. Support Storkk 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
110. Support MOOOOOPS 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
111. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
112. Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
113. Support --4wajzkd02 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
114. Support--Alborz Fallah 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
115. Support--Thesupermat 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
116. --Mayer Bruno 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
117. Support Raafael ^{D 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)}
118. Support Gonçalo Veiga 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Good luck!
119. Support Christian Hartmann 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC).
120. Support Talk2lurch 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Go on!
121. Support Some people say you are already busy with other tasks and conclude that you shouldn't become a Steward. I disagree with them: first, it is you who knows if you can work more or not; second, you are allowed to become a steward, and if it happens, to resign from some other tasks (and you are also allowed to postpone such resignation until you become a steward). Besides, it is great to have a steward from your time zone and with your language skills. Huji 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
122. Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 07:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
123. Support André Koehne 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
124. Support --Mardetanha ^talk 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
125. Support --Meno25 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1.  Oppose — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Pediboi 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Improper behavior as pt.wikipedia CheckUser as explained here

   Explained in answer to your question. Alex Pereira ^falaê 14:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Sorry but No. Jobcolector. How much more? SysOP, Crat, CU - 9 different jobs until here. This is enough. Marcus Cyron 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. ptwiki issues. Prodego ^talk 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   --Caspiax --Caspiax --Caspiax 10:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: This user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his homewiki —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

5.  Oppose I agree with Marcus Cyron. Jobcolector. - Al Lemos 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Me, too, NoychoH 13:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7.  Oppose --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8.  Oppose I agree with Marcus Cyron. Enbéká 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9.  Oppose No. --RoswithaC 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10.  Oppose NonvocalScream 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11.  Oppose Njaelkies Lea 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) The Portuguese issues worry me.
12.  Oppose No. --Nrainer 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13.  Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
14.  Oppose No. --Andrsvoss 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
15.  Oppose No. Agree with Marcus Cyron, too many titles to do. Vinhtantran 03:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
16.  Oppose Hargau 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
17.  Oppose Stef48 08:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
18.  Oppose Maedin\^talk 13:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Avi 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Moved to neutral upon receipt of satisfactory explanation -- Avi 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Avi, because the summary used by any verification, it's possible to compare user with IPs by logs. Many checkusers have a archive (I have, actual checkusers have, former have) of their verifications, because the tool have a limited time of verification. So, when we have a CU, if applicable, we compare with our archive (obvius, nobody discloses that). I hope have answered your question. Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    I will take this to e-mail to preserve the privacy of anyone who may be involved. -- Avi 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

19.  Oppose Evidence of canvassing, borderline misuse of checkuser tools per the questions above. AndrewRT 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
21.  Oppose I am concerned about the answer to Q6. Kingturtle 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
22.  Oppose Ozymandias 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    Meekohi 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible to vote. --Lucas Nunes 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

23.  Oppose DorisAntony 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose Too much access--132.205.110.197 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) IP don't vote. --Lucas Nunes 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

24.  OpposeMizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) - Too much "jobs". Take it easy!
25.  Oppose--Drboisclair 22:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
26.  Oppose per Marcus Cyron --Wikikids 02:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose per --User: Valid 02:19, 12 February 2009 sorry, you must to be logged to vote. --Nice poa 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

27.  Oppose per Marcus Cyron. I think it's almost impossible to hold all of these positions! --OrsolyaVirág 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
28.  Oppose per Marcus Cyron. Khoikhoi 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral perhaps all OK, but someone mentioned ptwiki issues and I think you have enough roles ... --Smihael 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Waiting on answers to questions related to ptwiki. John Vandenberg 14:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - What happneed in pt.wiki? In end of 2008 one of the CheckUsers resign, and only Alex and other user done the CheckUsers, in the same time, pt.wiki have a lot of sock puppets and dispurtives accounts in this time (PédiBoi is one of them), and we have a time whit 5, 6 CheckUsers at the same time. It's complete normal that Alex, whit so lot of work, have put in analissis the wrong CheckUser (He apologise after that). Béria Lima ^Msg 12:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Waiting for answers on questions 4-8, will vote opposed if questions are not answered by the last day. Leujohn 09:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral Punx 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral I am satisfied with the explanation. Thank you, Alex, and good luck. -- Avi 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral ...Aurora... 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral Not sure how to vote on this one. Both sides have good arguments. Razorflame 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral --Sampi 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral Too pt centric Carsrac 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Apteva

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. Support because otherwise it's impossible to indent the line below properly, and that makes my vote-checking bots not work. ST47 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   --Caspiax--Caspiax 10:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible for voting: the user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his homewiki. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Support --Zeljko 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1.  Oppose No. You have not mentioned anything relevant to stewardship in your summary. Gak 08:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2.  Oppose No, If you are not willing to sign what you write. Fenrisulfir 01:05, 3. February 2009 (UTC)
3.  Oppose — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Abdullah Harun Jewel 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Sorry, I don't believe you have enough experience. Have you thought about en:Administratorship though? With a little work, that might be better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuclearWarfare (talk) diff, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   You just voted two lines up... ST47 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs) diff, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC). ;) --Thogo (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

6.  Oppose Puntori 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7.  Oppose Mr.Z-man 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8.  Oppose --Thogo (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9.  Oppose no. Micha L. Rieser 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10.  Oppose I think you should be familiar with your home project first before running for Steward. miranda 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11.  Oppose No Udufruduhu 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12.  Oppose Inexperience, haven't really explained what you'd do with the Steward bit and you were blocked back in October on en-wiki, can't support sorry. Matt (Talk) 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13.  Oppose Az1568 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14.  Oppose No. Not a word about the stewardship. This user seems to think it is all about en-Wikipedia what we are talking about, but stewards shouldn't do anything (or ver very little) on en-Wikipedia. We are talking here not about the Wikipedia-project, but about the Wikimedia-project, a small difference in words, a very big difference in practice. Romaine 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15.  Oppose No/いいえ. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16.  Oppose Sorry, but No - what do you want? Marcus Cyron 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17.  Oppose --Kanonkas 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18.  Oppose Not enough experience.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19.  Oppose per some of the issues mentioned above. _macy 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose, inexperienced. — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21.  Oppose --FollowTheMedia 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22.  Oppose --Ivan Štambuk 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23.  Oppose --Tomatejc 02:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24.  Oppose bibliomaniac15 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25.  Oppose--1j1z2 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26.  Oppose --Revolus Echo der Stille 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27.  Oppose No. Prodego ^talk 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28.  Oppose—『Skjackey tse』 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29.  Oppose --Sir James 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30.  Oppose Avjoska 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31.  Oppose Achates 07:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32.  Oppose --Shipmaster 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33.  Oppose Matema 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34.  Oppose Sorry. Sebleouf 08:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35.  Oppose --Vd437 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36.  Oppose --Brownout^(msg) 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37.  Oppose Against monolingual stewardship. Man77"..."(de) 10:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38.  Oppose --Church of emacs 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39.  Oppose Efbé 10:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40.  Oppose Doesn't show understanding of what stewardship is. Jon Harald Søby 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41.  Oppose --AFBorchert 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) apparently no experience and no knowledge of foreign languages
42.  Oppose Vyk 11:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43.  Oppose --KRLS 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44.  Oppose are you joking? --Smihael 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
45.  Oppose only using a username when necessary - stewards use a username more than when necessary'. The Helpful One 11:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46.  Oppose Against monolingual stewardship (especially english speaker). VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47.  Oppose Béria Lima ^Msg 11:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48.  Oppose In my view, stewards on EN Wikipedia should speak English as their first language. Also this user cannot be praised (if that if the right word) for the edits he has made via an IP account as we cannot tell for sure whether this user made those edits. Also user has not had enough experience. Manadude2 12:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49.  Oppose --Florian Adler 12:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50.  Oppose sorry axp_de^Hello! 12:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51.  Oppose —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52.  Oppose --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53.  Oppose Stewardship has little or nothing to do with enwiki. Stifle 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
54.  Oppose John Vandenberg 14:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
55.  Oppose Obelix 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
56.  Oppose Obelix 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
57.  Oppose Enbéká 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
58.  Oppose Jdrewitt 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
59.  Oppose Japiot 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
60.  Oppose À cause du manque d'expérience avec les outils d'admin. / Lack of experience with admins' tools. --Edhral 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
61.  Oppose Seems to be very little active (less than 50 edits in 3 monts) even in his home wiki — NickK 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
62.  Oppose Obviously not nearly enough experience. Majorly ^talk 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
63.  Oppose Saloca 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
64.  Oppose –Ejs-80 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
65.  Oppose NonvocalScream 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
66.  Oppose No. Razorflame 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
67.  Oppose Njaelkies Lea 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
68.  Oppose No, a strong one. --Nrainer 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
69.  Oppose Needs language skills. --Shizhao 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry.You aren't expert enough.Try next years.Good luck. --Rangond 06:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

70.  Oppose ~ putnik 08:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
71.  Oppose --Uwe Gille 09:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
72.  Oppose This is obvious. User doesn't even remotely have the prerequisites to become a steward. --FiliP × 12:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
73.  Oppose Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 12:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
74.  Oppose GlassCobra 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
75.  Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
76.  Oppose Contra. QuartierLatin1968 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Mmmmm.... WT...? I don't think so.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Against monolingual stewardship (especially english speaker) Enst38 23:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
79.  Oppose Against monolingual stewardship (especially english speaker), too HBR 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
80.  Oppose --Davecrosby uk 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
81.  Oppose Mailer Diablo 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
82.  Oppose Stef48 08:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
83.  Oppose Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
84.  Oppose Don't think he has enough experience.--Lighterside 16:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
85.  Oppose Tiptoety ^talk 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
86.  Oppose Sorry, but IPs cannot become stewards. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
87.  Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
88.  Oppose Not very active, and monolingual Gonzolito 11:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
89.  Oppose Experience? ...Aurora... 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
90.  Oppose Very Strong Oppose Only using account when nessaccary? I'm doubt if this user even knows what accounts are for, let alone stewardship. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    The candidate later made a statement on my talk page:

    "When I wrote the statement "only using a username when necessary, or to participate in discussions", I was referring to the past, and it is written in the past tense. For what it is worth, the only reason I segment my contributions is because I am only willing to contribute to WP under the condition of anonymity, something that would be extremely unlikely if I did not segment them. Fortunately Wikipedia has a very good privacy policy, but that is only half of the equation. And yes I know that IP editing is far less anonymous than using a registered username. However, most of my 5 to 10 thousand edits are as an IP user, so I see no reason to change now. You know, I make so many edits, that when I put in a website, and have to solve the captcha, not only is the first word often something that my browser recognizes, I have seen both words before sometimes (in that same order). Apteva (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)"

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leujohn"

    which proves that this candidate is stubborn and will not change whatsoever. I have completly lost faith to the candidate to even be an admin. I beg that you read carefully over this message before casting your vote. Leujohn ^(talk) 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    I really do not like to comment on votes, or answer questions asked here - there is a questions section for that, but I would suggest carefully reading especially the section above that is highlighted (not by me) - "I see no reason" - bear in mind that I make many changes, and follow the principle "change what needs to be changed, keep what needs to be kept, and have the wisdom to know the difference", which is a paraphrase of the en:Serenity Prayer. Tenacious would be a better word to use than stubborn, but clearly only when there is a good reason. Otherwise it is equally clearly better to just move on. Apteva 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

91.  Oppose Ozymandias 09:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
92.  Oppose -- (cypsy) 09:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
93.  Oppose a joke ? --Gdgourou 10:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
94.  Oppose Sorry, do not think you are qualified. --Captain-tucker 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
95.  Oppose Not qualified. -download | sign! 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose --Snake311 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

96.  Oppose speaks only english. Kafka1 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose Seems to be too inexperienced. --Tauwasser 02:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must be logged in, have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

97.  Oppose --Tom 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
98.  Oppose Strongest possible This user does not seem to understand what is required from a normal contributor let alone someone with extra responsibilites such as a steward. fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
99.  Oppose Juliancolton 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
100.  Oppose --Daniel73480 11:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
101.  Oppose IMatthew 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
102.  Oppose - Not nearly enough experience crosswiki PseudoOne 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
103.  Oppose --Liangent 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
104.  Oppose --DorisAntony 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
105.  Oppose ts --Rax 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC) btw
106.  Oppose Contributing mostly anonymously is not serious enough to become a steward. It is impossible for me to check what you have done or not on Wikipedia. O. Morand 00:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
107.  Oppose No way. I still oppose your use of 2 accounts and a dynamic IP range to contribute (on the same range of subjects). -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
108.  Oppose Inexperience, misunderstanding of steward role. Nbarth 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
109.  Oppose Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
110.  Oppose No experience, no relevant contributions, misunderstanding of steward role, unwilling to sign, etc. Mkruijff 15:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
111.  Oppose--Drboisclair 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
112.  Oppose --4wajzkd02 09:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
113.  Oppose--Thesupermat 09:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
114.  Oppose English only. Maedin\^talk 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
115. --Mayer Bruno 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
116.  Oppose-- Harrywad 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
117.  Oppose seems fair, but lack of language skills imminent --Höyhens 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
118.  Oppose he is definitely not stewardship material--Sampi 04:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
119.  Oppose [[User:Christian Hartmann|Christian]]^{[[User talk:Christian Hartmann|msg]]} 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
120.  Oppose You haven't said what you are going to do mainly with the steward tools. Techman224^Talk 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
121.  OpposeNatanaeel83 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
122.  Oppose Masti 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC) you don't want to edit under your nick you have a problem

Neutral

1. Neutral GOOD LUCK! Although it seems you have little chance this time NoychoH 13:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral Punx 09:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral I'm not sure that you are ok for become a steward this year. -- A2 supersonique 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

avjoska

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. OK, why not. Marcus Cyron 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. --FollowTheMedia 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --Gereon K. 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. --Sir James 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vd437 09:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support because of ru-2 — Iguacu • !? • ru 09:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. --StSasha 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Да
8. --Church of emacs 10:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. --AFBorchert 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) as he would become the first steward who speaks Estonian
10. --MannMaus 11:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. --Александр Сигачёв 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. --Ahonc 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support --tiuks 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support - ru-2 will be useful. LexArt 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

14. Pro, it looks okay. — Albert Krantz^¿? 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

    Good. Rangond 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

15. Support Andres 09:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support Dr Oldekop 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

16. Support Szalakóta 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Wouterhagens 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Roquai 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support --WikedKentaur 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - Punx 09:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support – Epp 00:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support – Szater 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support – Stellar Grifon 18:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support --Zeljko 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak Support -- Bence My Talk 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support --Dj Capricorn 12:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support -- Eug 11:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Multilingual. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support good cross-wiki activity. I don't think you'll succeed this time round however! fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support--Daniel73480 11:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support--Jusjih 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support -- Lelandrb 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
33. ok --Rax 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Respects the conditions and seems serious. O. Morand 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support: Is experienced in many languages. -- Maseltov 12:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support A steward who knows Russian and Estonian and who seems to be trustworthy must be a net benefit, even if they only do a little. As far as I know, Avjoska being elected wouldn't squeeze out a (perhaps) more worthy candidate. Maedin\^talk 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support --Höyhens 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Good and useful knowledge of languages. --Nurtsio 09:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1.  OpposeNo. Why apply to be steward if you are only planning to do the work when other stewards are off? Gak 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2. — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --Thogo (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Puntori 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. no. Micha L. Rieser 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. No Udufruduhu 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. No. We already have to much little active stewards. We want much active stewards. Romaine 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9.  Oppose, inexperienced. — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Inexperience + the statement about (in)activity concerns me. Matt (Talk) 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Prodego ^talk 05:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Achates 07:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Stewards need to be active, there no value to the community to support someone who has already express an intent of being inactive Gnangarra 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. --Brownout^(msg) 10:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Fruggo 10:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Efbé 10:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose, per statement. Jon Harald Søby 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Njaelkies Lea 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose Vyk 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21.  Oppose per I do not expect to be a very active steward - we need more active stewards. The Helpful One 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. only active stewards, please axp_de^Hello! 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. --Kanonkas 14:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose due to intent of inactivity. --Nahum 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC) "I do not expect to be a very active steward, I apply for this status because that might occasionally dilute the other stewards' workload somehow" sounds me like a "I want a term-buffer"
28. Obelix 15:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. --RoswithaC 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. NonvocalScream 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. --Jan eissfeldt 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. No/いいえ. --Taichi - (あ！) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Uwe Gille 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
34. we need active ones --FiliP × 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
35. GlassCobra 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
36.  Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Contra. QuartierLatin1968 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
38. --Davecrosby uk 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Mailer Diablo 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Stef48 08:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
41.  Oppose Hoping to assist by aiming to simply reduce other stewards' work load is not enough commitment.--Trevor Marron 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
43.  Oppose Not committed enough --Lighterside 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
44. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose Inactive steward ?? Gonzolito 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose due to not responding to queries about activity level for next year. John Vandenberg 17:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    Meekohi 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

48.  Oppose Don't need inactive steward Darkxsun 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose --Snake311 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose Only casual activity is not enough to be a steward imho. --Tauwasser 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must be logged in, have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

49. IMatthew 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
50.  Oppose - Sorry, if you want to be a steward you should be an 'active' steward. --Captain-tucker 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Intention of inactivity. Nbarth 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
52.  Oppose--Drboisclair 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
53.  Oppose --4wajzkd02 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
54.  Oppose--Thesupermat 09:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
55.  Oppose-- Harrywad 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
56.  Oppose -- Masti 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) sorry, we do not need inactive stewards
57.  Oppose --Techman224^Talk 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Intend to be inactive? ...Aurora... 11:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Intend to be inactive? I would say that there would be no reason to give you steward rights if you're not going to use it, but the rest sounds good, so I'll plop myself here. Leujohn ^(talk) 13:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
3. nothing against him but i don't understood his motivation --Gdgourou 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
4. --Mayer Bruno 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Avraham

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. Yes Alex F. 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Sceptre 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Yes. Razorflame 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Already ID'd to the foundation, so this is just a matter of expanding his workload. NuclearWarfare 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support --林勇智 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Udufruduhu 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Sure, second and final candidate that I will support. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Have known Avi for a long time and he is definitely fit for the job. -- Ynhockey 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Matt (Talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Az1568 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support don't see a cause against. Marcus Cyron 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support --Ivan Štambuk 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Nishkid64 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support — neuro^(talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support shirulashem 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support --Shizhao 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support --Revolus Echo der Stille 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support More workers are needed. --Millosh 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Based on support of several very active stewards, and a general trust of the user. Prodego ^talk 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Avjoska 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Hermann Luyken 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Gnangarra 07:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support "I am present on Meta, and although eligible, have never submitted an RfA on Meta out of respect for the understanding that the tools are meant to be used" I'm agree with that. Otourly 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support --DR 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Computerjoe 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support --Wing 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support --Church of emacs 10:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Efbé 10:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support --Hatukanezumi 10:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Seems to be trusted. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 10:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Yes. Alefbe 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support →Na·gy 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Njaelkies Lea 11:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Rudget (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Tinucherian 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support The Helpful One 11:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support sounds acceptable ;-) axp_de^Hello! 12:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Davemustaine 13:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support --Ahonc 14:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support --Steve94 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

45. Support Yes. Stifle 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Obelix 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Certainly trustworthy. Rje 15:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Support-- Bence My Talk 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Yes. bastique ^demandez! 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Trusted user. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Support NonvocalScream 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I trust Avi. Steve Crossin ^Talk 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support --Nemo 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support TheNeon 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Rspeer 21:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
57. Support after thorough review of his contributions. The Relativity of The Truth 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Philippe 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support FayssalF 02:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Definitely trustworthy. Orderinchaos 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Looks good. faithless (^speak) 05:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Jaranda | wat's sup 14:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Szalakóta 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support JoshuaZ 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Avruch 17:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Kushal one 18:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Pro. QuartierLatin1968 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Nave.notnilc 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Avi's a good guy (except for those darn smileys), and knows where his towel is. I've worked with him as an admin and CU on en:wp, and like his approach. He has two strikes against him if you read the opposes, experience on other wikis, and language. Language is hard to fix, but in general the other wiki experience can be fixed. My generic advice for it is: Come over to Commons, there's lots of work to do there, and you'll find people from all around the world, many who don't speak English as their first language... you'll demonstrate that you can (or can't) work in a multicultural environment, and that you can get the support of your colleagues. Now then... Avi HAS come over to Commons, he's got a lot of edits... and what's more, he's been a sysop for a year. Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Avraham_(2nd_attempt). I think he will have to work hard at the job to overcome the barriers of experience and language, but if he does (and I know he will) he'll be a fine steward. Avi, if you don't pass this year, help out more, help the small wiki team, get global rollback, get more active still at Commons, and try again. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Support --Davecrosby uk 00:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support --Egmontaz 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Per Lar.--chaser - t 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Stef48 08:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support - Punx 09:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Support --Lighterside 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Support after a private talk. Thanks, Avi. Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Support --.snoopy. ✉ 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Support good and reasonable Wikipedian. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
80. Support --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
81. Support You undersold your second language indeed! - Mailer Diablo 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
82. Support I recognize him from his excellent track record on en. A fine choice for steward -- Samir 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
83. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Telaviv1 15:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
85. Support OK. --Goodmorningworld 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
86. Support Kingturtle 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Language evidence has changed my vote. RyanGerbil10 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Jon513 22:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Avi is "solid as a rock" and absolutely trustworthy. -- (cypsy) 09:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Support ok for me --Gdgourou 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
91. Support Yes we need people to deal with cross-wiki vandalism. Leujohn ^(talk) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - good work on en, active on Commons. Warofdreams 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Yes ...Modernist 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
95. Support Xenus 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
96. Support I'm okay with the candidate. Iss246 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
97. Support Rosiestep 17:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
98. Support --Roberta F. 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
99. Support - Eug 11:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
100. Support Glad to bring up the century for Avi. I've said elsewhere why I trust Avraham. Lar's statement deals well with the main reasons for oppose, and confirms my judgement. NSH001 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
101. Support --Snake311 20:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
102. Support fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
103. Support -- --Zeljko 10:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
104. Support--Ziko 12:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
105. Support — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
106. Support --Hardenacke 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
107. Support IMatthew 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
108. Support--Jusjih 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
109. Support Malinaccier (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
110. Support as experienced sysop and cu on en:wp he'll get "experience to speak of in steward areas" (s.b.) quickly --Rax 22:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
111. Support no problem, serious motivations. O. Morand 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
112. Support --Martina Nolte 12:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
113. Support per Lar. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Nbarth 02:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
115. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
116. Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
117. Support -- Drboisclair 23:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
118. Support --4wajzkd02 09:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
119. Support rootology (T) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
120. Support--Thesupermat 09:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
121. --Mayer Bruno 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
122. Support --Elijah/אליהו (Eliyahu)/إلياس (Ilyas) (Me!) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

     Support Betacrucis 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

     As much as I truly appreciate your support, I believe you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections, so I am afraid I have to indent your vote. Trust me, I'm as sorry as you are, but rules are rules. -- Avi 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

123. Support As long as stewards has full access to enwiki it's good to have stewards knowing this area well and can follow up in case of misuses. Plus for he language skills. nsaa 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
124. Support. Good experience, good attitude. Jayjg 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
125. Support Nothing but positive experiences and observations of this user. IronDuke 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
126. Support --Sampi 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
127. Support. Does a great job in all his admin, CU, and Oversight positions. Have full confidence that he'll make a fantastic Steward.--Brewcrewer 05:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
128. Support Inspires confidence. -- Tundrabuggy 05:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
129. Support --Cerejota 12:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
130. Support Great checkuser on en.wiki, I'm confident they'd make a great steward on meta. This flag once was red 15:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
131. Support—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christian Hartmann (talk • contribs) 11:37, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
132. Support -- Scrupulous, fair, nice to vote for him while signing off from the project. If not in much else, at least in voting for Avi, one can be useful to wiki. Nishidani 20:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
133. Support --Jpgordon 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
134. Support DVD R W 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
135. Support ~Franchement, il n'y en a pas beaucoup des comme lui... Ceedjee 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
136. Support Yossiea 15:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
137. Support Die4Dixie 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
138. Support Marlith ^T/C 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
139. Support . He is an exceptional and caring admin on Wiki! IZAK 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
140. Support For sure! Tiptoety ^talk 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
141. Support. Helpful user, and I trust him. He helped me once. W Tanoto 07:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
142. Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 07:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
143. Support Fritzpoll 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
144. Support without hesitation. Jakew 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
145. Support --MPerel 10:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
146. Support Good luck! Dorgan 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
147. Support Speaking as someone who is heavily involved in cross-wiki work, I still don't think there is a problem per se with an excellent contributor who concentrates on en.wikipedia. Dovi 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
148. Support I know Avi as a very able and responsible contributor to en.wiki Any Wikimedia project will gain by his contributions! Gidonb 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
149. Support --Yoavd 16:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
150. Support --Mardetanha ^talk 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1.  Oppose No experience to speak of in steward areas - seems primarily based on English Wikipedia. Majorly ^talk 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Puntori 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3.  Oppose --FollowTheMedia 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Majorly. An excellent en:wiki sysop, but stewards need broader experience. Durova 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Andre (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6.  OpposeAgree with Majorly. Giggy 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7.  Oppose --Sir James 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8.  Oppose --Latitude 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9.  Oppose Limited language skills. feydey 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10.  Oppose No per FeydeyCarn 12:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose candidate is spamming by mail.Carn 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

11.  Oppose Per Majorly, Durova et Feydey. -- Nahum 14:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12.  Oppose --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13.  Oppose Sorry, but 16 useful edits to non-English projects does not show an aptitude for steward work, nor exposure to the dynamics of small wiki projects. John Vandenberg 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14.  Oppose Definitely a trusted user (on the English Wikipedia) but as pointed out above, no cross-wiki work. - Rjd0060 15:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15.  Contra — Albert Krantz^¿? 15:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16.  Oppose Per Rjd0060 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17.  Oppose Don't seem to be interwiki active --Nux (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18.  OpposeInsufficient interwiki activity. Jehochman 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19.  Oppose I'm sorry, you simply don't have any cross-wiki experience.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose Tim Q. Wells 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21.  Oppose--RoswithaC 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22.  Oppose --Jan eissfeldt 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23.  Oppose Uwe Gille 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
24.  Oppose No cross-wiki experience. Tombomp 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
25.  Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
26.  Oppose - Agree, Bjoertvedt

    Looking for proficiency in two languages or more. - Mailer Diablo 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

27.  Oppose Hargau 05:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    as Mike says. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC) change my vote. Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose While excellent in EnWiki, more experience in international areas and other languages is necessary for the job. Marlith ^T/C 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Upon further inspection, I take back my opposition. Marlith ^T/C 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

28.  Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
29.  Oppose Per Majorly. ...Aurora... 11:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    No. 148.225.101.3 18:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    Please log in to vote, thanks. Majorly ^talk 02:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

30.  Oppose Tesi1700 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
31.  Oppose After 6 days of thinking, I've decided that I have to oppose this. Experience is just an issue for me. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

    Meekohi 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)(|1000 4 20 24 46 106 119 121 1000)

32.  Oppose --Anthony Ivanoff 17:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
33.  Oppose A meta-steward should have more crosswiki experience and language skills. EdBever 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
34.  Oppose No, per Majorly and John Vandenberg. His meta involvement seems to be limited into voting concerning about English Wikipedia rather than steward-related cross-wiki issues. --Aphaia 18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
35.  Oppose per Majorly Bogorm 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Note User is indefinitely blocked in project where user has the edits for sufferage, for what it is worth. -- Avi 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

36.  Oppose Experience only in English projects. Sp5uhe 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
37.  Oppose. Not a lot of cross-wiki experience. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose. More cross-wiki experience is required--132.205.110.197 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) IP don't vote. --Lucas Nunes 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry but I think there are other candidates that are more focused on multiple wikis and languages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)switching vote per my misunderstanding of the election process. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

38.  Oppose per Majorly--Wikikids 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
39.  Oppose-- Harrywad 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
40.  Oppose because candidate is using edit summaries for campaigning. /Pieter Kuiper 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

    comment but only on his own user page, nothing much wrong with that (except maybe a bit OTT) NSH001 08:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

41.  Oppose en:wiki only expierence :( Masti 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Vyk 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Smihael 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral Don't know him Patio 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral I trust Avi but I don't think this is the role for him. WJBscribe (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral If it's only going to be CU requests, then no. Otherwise, not a bad candidate. --FiliP × 12:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   I trust this user greatly, but Stewards need to be multilingual. RyanGerbil10 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Changing vote per new evidence. RyanGerbil10 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral - Agree with WJBscribe. Juliancolton 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
7. NeutralNatanaeel83 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Dorgan

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. Support --Thogo (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support --Pataki Márta 00:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Yes. Marcus Cyron 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support --Ivan Štambuk 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support bibliomaniac15 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support --KeFe 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support We need more brave persons in stewards team. --Millosh 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support -- Peti610 05:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Sir James 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Avjoska 06:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Achates 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Misibacsi 07:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support --Sóhivatal 08:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support --Marci1994 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Sebleouf 08:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Hunyadym 09:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support --Zimmy 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Pilgab 10:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support --Wing 10:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Efbé 10:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Support --Istvánka 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support →Na·gy 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Support --RedMosQ 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Support --Xxxx00 11:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Support --MannMaus 11:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Bennó 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support --Beroesz 11:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support --VC-s 12:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support --Teemeah 12:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support ----Korovioff 13:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support --Hkoala 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Por supuesto! Ya necesitábamos alguien de Hungría. ;) --El Mexicano 14:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Support --Ahonc 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Stifle 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support -- Nahum 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support We need a Hungarian speaker steward: to investigate a case, it is essential to do it in the original language. I trust him to do a good a job. Karmela 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support --Burumbátor 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Obelix 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Cassandro 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support --Enbéká 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support --Csanády 15:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Rje 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Dani ^(vita) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Alensha 16:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support iAlex 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Support  – Glanthor ※ 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Support --Nemo 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support TheNeon 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support --Jan eissfeldt 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Sí/Yes/はい. --Taichi - (あ！) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support faithless (^speak) 05:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support --Saltinbas 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support --P@d@w@ne 08:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support — Winston 09:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
56. 찬성 문제없음--Kwj2772 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
57. Support --Uwe Gille 09:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
58. SupportSeems suitable. --FiliP × 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Data Destroyer 12:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support --Lily15 13:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support -- Mami 14:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Szalakóta 14:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support GlassCobra 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Wouterhagens 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. LaraLove (User:Jennavecia on my home wiki.) 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - Support, Bjoertvedt
68. Support Al Lemos 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Pro. QuartierLatin1968 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support ~ Seb35 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Support --Davecrosby uk 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Stef48 08:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Pro--Alexander Leischner 09:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support --Susulyka 09:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Support - Punx 09:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Tuohirulla 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Support I like his answers to the questions, too. Maedin\^talk 13:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Support --Lighterside 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
80. Support--Szilas 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
81. Support --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
82. Support He is determined, diligent and experienced enough to become a great steward! 200% YES!!! --OrsolyaVirág 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
83. Support --Opa 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
84. Support --Pakos 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Kingturtle 17:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
86. Support Daderth 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
87. Support --Mdavid89 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
88. Support ~ Boro 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
89. Support --Kriszta67--Kriszta67 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Caiaffa 03:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
91. Support --Ben1979 09:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
92. Support ok for me --Gdgourou 10:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
93. Support OsvátA 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 13:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
95. Support Funatic 14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
96. Support Buda 14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
97. Support Diaby 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
98. Support --Church of emacs 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
99. Support John Vandenberg 17:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
100. Support – Szalax 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
101. Support — told Stewe 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
102. Support Attis 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
103. Support --Eintragung ins Nichts 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
104. Support Rosiestep 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
105. Support --Roberta F. 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
106. Support --Mdönci 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Code page problem, his eligible. See his contributions on HuWiki. Dorgan 15:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
107. Support --Kralizec! 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Hunadam 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
109. Support -- --Zeljko 10:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
110. Support --Daniel73480 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
111. Support IMatthew 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
112. Support --Jusjih 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
113. Support --CsGábor 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
114. Support --Cinik 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
115. Support --DorisAntony 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
116. Support ok --Rax 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
117. Support OK Somebody working for Ferenc Liszt Music Academy cannot be a bad guy. Seems to have the required qualities to apply. O. Morand 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Ok Support - User:Kossuthzs. 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
119. Support --Antissimo 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
120. Support --Orange.man 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
121. Support OK - Rendben van;) Hajrá! --Madura Máté ^talkstreet 19:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
122. Support--Bapti 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
123. Support Nbarth 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
124. Support Storkk 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
125. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
126. Support: Why not. -- Maseltov 12:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
127. Support --Diligent 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
128. Support --Drboisclair 23:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
129. Support --4wajzkd02 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
130. Support--Thesupermat 09:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
131. Support----Texaner 12:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
132. Support --Einstein2 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
133. --Mayer Bruno 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC
134. Support -- Harrywad 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
135. Support - Burrows 09:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
136. Support Andrzej19 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Let him try.
137. Support Christian ^talk 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
138. Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 07:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
139. Support -- Hidaspal 22:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
140. Support --Mardetanha ^talk 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
141. Support -- Avi 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Sorry, doesn't seem experienced enough. Majorly ^talk 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Puntori 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. No. I miss the words about you being present on Wikimedia/the projects and what you are intented to do. You are based on some projects, which is very nice, but that isn't so much what stewards do. Romaine 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5.  Oppose — neuro^(talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. --FollowTheMedia 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Mr.Z-man 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. --Revolus Echo der Stille 03:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Prodego ^talk 04:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Not enough experience. - Lolsimon 10:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11.  Oppose Vyk 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. --MF-W 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. 100% No.--Gothika 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. I'm sorry, I don't think you have enough experience.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. NonvocalScream 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. per Majorly, lack of experience--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Hargau 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
18. per Majorly. Sorry. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
19. per Majorly. Definitely does not have the experience necessary to be a steward at this time. Maybe try again in the future? Cheers, Razorflame 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose No. Tesi1700 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
22.  Oppose. Sorry but I think you lack experience in the field. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
23.  Oppose per Majorly. --Wikikids 02:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
24. what about cross-wiki?JALK 10:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
25.  Oppose Lack of concern about canvassing. --Apteva 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    He did answer to you prior your vote. - Xbspiro 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    For what it is worth, his answer to both of our questions did not meet with my satisfaction. Just answering a question with a question is not ever likely to be satisfactory, and calling canvassing flattering was not what I was expecting. Apteva 13:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

26.  Oppose per experience concerns. Khoikhoi 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral No information on what user intends to do as steward. Gak 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Udufruduhu 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. ...Aurora... 11:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral --Tauwasser 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Leujohn ^(talk)
6. Neutral I have trust in this user and someone who speaks fluent Hungarian would erase the language barrier between HuWiki and stewards. However I don't see why he needs to be a steward to encourage other users (see his answer at q2). Also, I have concerns about the propaganda on HuWiki which goes in favour of him. If my questions remain unanswered, then this neutral vote will turn into opposal. - Xbspiro 11:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   Hahó, Xbspiro. I can't speak on behalf of anyone else but as I see the candidate is well-known and respected in the wiki segments which I frequent. Is that an answer? I don't see a point in the main argument on this page against Dorgan, and I hope that you will not oppose him either. --Korovioff 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   It is barely an argument with only one side speaking, however Dorgan promised me via e-mail that he will answer soon. So, I am waiting. I do not want to affect his answer with further comments. However I have to make it clear that all I wanted was to point out the weak points in his statements and comment on the banner of Huwiki of steward elections. I have offered him a chance to correct them, so I assume that a fast response from the candidate of the highest eligible rank would be gentle. Such a delay (one week in the case of my original questions) is not what I expect. - Xbspiro 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   I have had a talk with the candidate via MSN recently: my vote will remain neutral. He will soon post his answers here. - Xbspiro 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masti (talk) - Xbspiro 11:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Erwin

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

ja WOBE3333 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Lolsimon 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Experienced global rollbackers should be fine in this role. Majorly ^talk 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. NuclearWarfare 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. --Kanonkas 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Az1568 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Udufruduhu 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Herr Kriss 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Sí/Yes/はい. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Yes. Knows where he should use the stewardship for. Romaine 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Kalan ? 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Yes. Marcus Cyron 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. --Ivan Štambuk 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Erwin does excellent work with spam and vandalism, is consistently level-headed, and takes a collaborative approach, which I particularly like.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support — neuro^(talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. --FollowTheMedia 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. --Shizhao 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. bibliomaniac15 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. --Revolus Echo der Stille 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. More workers are needed. --Millosh 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Wutsje 04:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. --Sir James 05:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Avjoska 06:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Eddylandzaat 07:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

28. Support Gnangarra 08:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Redlinux 08:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Sebleouf 08:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Vd437 08:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. --Euku 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Kameraad Pjotr 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Dr. Gert Blazejewski 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. ken123 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ;-)
36. --StSasha 10:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37. yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa --.snoopy. ✉ 10:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38. --Wing 10:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Willemo 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Efbé 10:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Ja. Jon Harald Søby 10:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Fruggo 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43. Béria Lima ^Msg 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support--Konsnos 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
45. --Lockal 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Njaelkies Lea 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Vyk 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48. MannMaus 11:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Plenty of experience. feydey 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Good candidate. Jóna Þórunn 12:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Adnergje 12:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52. oscar 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53. --Florian Adler 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Forrestjunky 12:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
55. EUDOXIO 12:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
56. support axp_de^Hello! 12:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
57. MoiraMoira 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Durdane 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

58. Cenarium (Talk) 13:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Multichill 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Annabel 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
61. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
62. --Lucien leGrey ( m | es ) 14:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
63. --MF-W 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support --Ahonc 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support --Patio 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - Chrism 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Support - Alter Fritz 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Obelix 15:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - Ulflarsen 15:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support --Garfieldairlines 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
71. --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Erwin is a very experienced candidate and has shown that he is capable of carrying out the duties of the role. Rje 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Very competent cross wiki worker, should be fine. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Basvb 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support iAlex 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Does fine things We El 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible voter: The user don't have an account on Meta with userpage linked to his/her homewiki. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

76. Jehochman 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Japiot 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Tim Q. Wells 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
79. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
80. --Jan Luca 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
81. Dolledre 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
82. Xenus 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
83. Support — NickK 19:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
84. Mwpnl 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
85. –Ejs-80 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
86. Support - .Koen 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
87. TheNeon 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Chris 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
89. --Jan eissfeldt 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Support --Kjetil_r 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
91. Support --Nrainer 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Meursault2004 23:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
93. John Vandenberg 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
94. --Thogo (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
95. Support, yepyep. IJzeren Jan 00:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
96. Support Sunray 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
97. Support Alefbe 07:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
98. ~ putnik 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
99. --P@d@w@ne 09:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
100. --Uwe Gille 09:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
101. Seems sane-> Support.--Alnokta 10:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
102. Sure --FiliP × 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
103. Support Brinkie 12:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC) see userpage for link to other usernames/projects
104. Jaranda | wat's sup 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
105. Szalakóta 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
106. Support --OosWesThoesBes 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
107. GlassCobra 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
108. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 15:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
109. Support Migdejong 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
110. Support -- Lychee 16:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
111. Larzzz 16:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
112. ZX81 ^talk 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
113. --S.Didam 19:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
114. Support. LaraLove (User:Jennavecia on my home wiki.) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
115. Pro. QuartierLatin1968 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
116. Support --Marvin 101 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
117. ~ Seb35 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
119. --Davecrosby uk 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

     Support Timmyishappy 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

120. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
121. Stef48 08:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
122. Support - Punx 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
123. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
124. Support Kingturtle 13:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
125. Support Lutz Terheyden 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
126. Support --High Contrast 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
127. Support James F. (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
128. Tiptoety ^talk 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
129. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
130. Support Stewards should be like this.--Cerejota 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
131. Support Of course ! Gonzolito 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
132. ...Aurora... 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
133. Support - RobSchop 18:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

     Support - --Ulanwp 09:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote. Please see Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters. --Meno25 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

134. Support perfect profile :) --Gdgourou 10:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
135. Pjetter 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
136. Support, good admin. _~Innv^s: 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
137. Support --Jorunn 12:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
138. Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
139. Oui Adailton 13:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
140. --Church of emacs 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
141. Support Absolutely!Prashanthns 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
142. Strong Support based on direct experience of his good work on Meta. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
143. Support - seems fine to me. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

     Support seems good. --Odesub 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote. Please see Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters. --Meno25 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

144. Toby001 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
145. Support Rosiestep 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
146. Art Unbound 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
147. Proofreader77 02:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
148. SupportYou are the right candidate for Steward,Best wishes!! --Jigesh 09:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
149. Support Eug 12:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
150. Support EdBever 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
151. --Aphaia 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

     Support --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

152. Support --Daniel73480 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
153. Support Poco a poco 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
154. Support --Ziko 12:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
155. Support. Yes! Looks like you have sufficient experience needed for stewardship. —Jamie^☆S93 14:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
156. Support Yes, of course!! Davin 15:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
157. IMatthew 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
158. Malinaccier (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
159. Support --Liangent 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
160. Andrzej19 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
161. ok --Rax 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
162. According to his contributions and purposes, I consider I can be confident in him. O. Morand 00:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
163. Support Sp5uhe 10:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
164. Support aleichem 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
165. Support Enormekever 13:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
166. Support Looks Good! --Captain-tucker 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
167. --alexscho 15:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
168. Support Good luck!--Larno Man 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
169. Support Pevernagie 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
170. Nbarth 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
171. Storkk 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
172. Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

     Support -- SvonHalenbach 14:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote. Please see Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters. --Meno25 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

     Thats true. I am sorry, should have read the guidelines before. --SvonHalenbach 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

173. Support --Diligent 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
174. Support - Kaare 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
175. Support - Drboisclair 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
176. Support --4wajzkd02 09:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
177. Support --MarkusZi 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
178. Support--Thesupermat 09:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
179. Support Maedin\^talk 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
180. --Mayer Bruno 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC
181. Support --ysangkok 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
182. Support -- Harrywad 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
183. Support --Höyhens 03:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
184. Support Tjako 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
185. Support Yes, sounds perfect for the job.--Sampi 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
186. Support Techman224^Talk 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
187. Support [[User:Christian Hartmann|Christian]]^{[[User talk:Christian Hartmann|msg]]} 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Good candidate.
188. Support --Paul B 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
189. Support Great background! --OrsolyaVirág 17:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
190. Support -- suits the job. Huji 20:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
191. Kwj2772 (論) 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
192. Support --Mardetanha ^talk 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1. No. Razorflame 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Puntori 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. I have no idea who you are, and I feel like I should. Prodego ^talk 05:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. neen. — Albert Krantz^¿? 15:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
   
5.  Oppose Guido den Broeder 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   Excuse me? Since when is a SUL account obligatory? I have made thousands of edits, and am not blocked here. Guido den Broeder 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Restoring my vote in view of [1]. Guido den Broeder 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

6. NonvocalScream 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. No. Tesi1700 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose I think you don't have sufficient experiences to be a steward.--Kwj2772 (論) 12:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

   Switched--Kwj2772 (論) 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral --Tauwasser 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

EVula

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. Support Well written statement. Gak 12:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
2. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Captain panda 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. --Meno25 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Lvova 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Cenarium (Talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Definitely has my vote. Cheers, Razorflame 00:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support IMatthew 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Definitely. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I hope you win! --Aguilac 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support trustworthy. competent. fair. Kingturtle 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support — vvv 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Aleksandrit 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. BJ^Talk 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support ShapiroS¹⁰ 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Willking1979 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. I consider you to be a good candidate and I don’t know why are all these people don’t like you that much. — Kalan ? 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. American Eagle (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support nsaa 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    --Shizhao 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

21. I don't agree with everything that he says, but he is dedicated and knows the job. Ottava Rima 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. I trust him and have seen his actions and that all that matters for me. Prashanthns 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. --Sir James 05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. I trust EVula, very much so. also, I have to point out that, contrary to your English nom, you are a b'crat on en.wikipedia. Foxy Loxy ^en: 08:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Daniel (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. of course --.snoopy. ✉ 09:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support — Numerous positive interactions with EVula. — RyanCross (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Support --W_I^KImaniac 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Cirt (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Great track as a crat and admin.Trust the user fully. Pharaoh of the Wizards 16:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Yes.Perfect Proposal 19:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Support 100% Yes. HereFord 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. NonvocalScream 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Evula has my trust. Steve Crossin ^Talk 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. Trustworthy. Philippe 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong support - lots of experience on smaller wikis, especially in languages other than English. John Vandenberg 00:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Like where? Majorly ^talk 00:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    My largest non-English projects are the Portuguese, Polish, and Italian Wikipedias, where I've done a lot of work lately in linking up to new articles that roll out of the Simple English Wikipedia. I've also done significant work (and is likely what John is referring to) on the Korean Wikisource (of which I'm very proud), mapping out their author pages and author categories and linking them up with the rest of the projects (something that the bots don't do, since there's not much for them to "hook" into). Also on Wikisource, I did a massive update to s:en:Template:InterLanguage-AuthorsByLetter,[2] which is a sizable template used to automatically manage the author sorting categories on more than a dozen editions of Wikisource (and also meant that I had to create the template on other language editions [3][4][5]; again, also something the bots can't handle).
    It's edits like these that prompt my boasting of being able to operate in numerous foreign languages, despite the fact that I can't speak these languages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    I understand what you're saying, EVula, but it'd be my conjection that the tasks that stewardship presents often require more than just being able to operate on multilingual projects and that interlingual communication is essential to the role. Stewards are meant to, after all, fill the wishes of the local community precisely and effectively and an ability to accurately comprehend requests is what allows stewards to do this. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, I get that; trust me, I don't fault anyone that cites my lack of foreign language comprehension as a reason for opposing my stewardship. However, in my opening statement, I highlighted the places that I intend to focus on as a steward; all of them involve being able to operate on multilingual projects, which I can do and is why I think I'd be a particularly efficient steward. One of the stewards I most respect in the role, Lar, manages to do quite well, despite being "only de-1". EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    The Wikisource projects have historically been spawned from Old Wikisource and go on their own way. Sadly Multilingual Wikisource has not had standards like the Incubator does, so these projects started with only a few pages and no structure, and there has not been any where near enough coordination between the diverging projects. Many of the smaller wikisource projects have not developed infrastructure like the bigger projects, such as "Author" pages and templates, or copyright and deletion tags. What is worse is many of these projects dont have an active community. This is a significant problem that affects the entire Wikisource project, as the English project relies on the other sub-domains to host the works that were originally written in other languages. If the Estonian Wikisource sub-domain is not sufficiently developed and documented, it becomes impractical for the original Estonian works to be added to the appropriate Wikisource sub-domain, often resulting in the English Wikisource being a dumping ground for text of all languages. As a result, English Wikisource admins are often confronted with pages that need to be moved to another project, and often the language isnt known, so we need to identify which language the text is written in. A few of the Wikisource team has been slowly bringing the sub-domains together by documenting their infrastructure at oldwikisource:WS:COORD, developing the missing infrastructure and interlinking the sub-domains (especially the project pages). EVula has joined in this meta project. I have also done a lot of this work, so I know that it takes a good appreciation of languages. It often involves working with people with English as a second language. It is not merely "operating" on a different language project -- it is understanding and building the infrastructure in another language, and working closely with people whose primary language is not English. This can not be done with merely automated translation tools - it requires a love of languages and small projects, as a single edit could require hours of research, or many days of networking to find someone competent in another language who is happy to assist with translating and an ability to engage the translator when they have no concept of the context (Wikisource) - this will be especially useful for steward matters when the message to be translated may be sensitive, and so only parts of the message can be given to the translator. For me, there are three main skills required for stewards: experience with small projects, the ability to communicate with people of many cultures and languages without resulting in unnecessary confusion, and experience with the tools. EVula has all three. It is a shame that people competent in two common languages (e.g. en and fr) are considered better suited to the role than a person with one native language who demonstrated a passion and understanding of a very wide array of languages. John Vandenberg 08:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

37. FayssalF 02:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    SupportI trust what he says--Darkeagle7x 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Uneligible to vote --Lucas Nunes 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

38. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support --OosWesThoesBes 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
40. --Wmrwiki 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Juliancolton 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Has some serious clue, and my respect. Hiberniantears 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
43. The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy. - Finnegans Wake by James Joyce Synergy 02:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
44. I think EVula is caught between a rock and a hard place. There are some folk, like me, who will not support a candidate unless they have some significant experience on more than one wiki, and at least one role that requires trust beyond that which we grant to admins. And there are some other folk who will not support a candidate who has "too many hats", fearful that the candidate is out merely to get the bits for show. So they oppose. If EVula had one less permission, would they support him? How about 2 less? 3 less? Then would he lose the support of those like me? It's a quandary. I think instead the question to ask is... is this candidate a good one? Have his roles so far demonstrated he has a deft touch, and lots of clue? If we grant him stewardship will we regret it later? EVula is not the most humble of fellows. He's good at what he does, and perhaps a bit cocky about it too. But who among us doesn't take pride in their work? I know I do. Should EVula know more languages than he does? Yes, it would be good if he did. And so should I! But you can't teach old dogs new tricks. Learning languages late in life is hard. I try my best. I think he will try his best too. Some people will oppose any candidate, no matter how good, if they know only english. Others will oppose candidates who don't speak english well enough to work with other stewards in a common environment (remember, stewardship is a very consultative role) Do we want to cost ourselves someone with enthusiasm and skill over the language issue? Over the permission issue? I don't know. The opposes think so. Are they wrong? There are some people I respect very highly among the opposes... no they are not wrong to feel strongly as they do. Me, I'm supporting EVula because I think all in all, he'd be a good steward. And if not this year, maybe next. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Well, as to your point about badge-collecting, I know that I'm not opposing because I think he's showing off, but because I simply haven't seen much usage of the tools he has got, and that makes me question why things would be different in his stewardship. I won't go any further into my views in that regard, but, while I respect his views immensely and he's one of the few left on the projects who has clue, I think the fact that, for example, EVula has made more edits to his Wikisource "admin" page than he has made actual administrative actions on that wiki speaks volumes. Or, at least, it does for me. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    I'm more than willing to admit that my Wikisource participation hasn't turned out anything like I expected it to. This is chiefly because shortly after that I got the sysop flag on Wikiquote, and while I didn't initially expect to do much there (I only ran an RfA because I'd dealt with a ton of disgusting vandalism which had to sit around for a while until an admin came thru), I found there was ample work to be done; in short, I felt more "needed" there. I have, however, tried to do some gadget work on Wikisource (which requires sysop but isn't in a log), but have run into very strange errors with them not working the way they should.
    However, for the record, I've only made two edits to my /admin page since getting the sysop flag. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

45. I trust EVula, and he's got ideas for the steward toolkit that don't require significant language skills.--chaser - t 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - All my experiences in dealing with him have been overall positive. Kennedy 10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
47. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Tiptoety ^talk 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
49. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support—I trust EVula. Nihiltres^(t.u) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
51. OK. It's too bad he doesn't speak any language but English. However, it just so happens to be the lingua franca of our age. Unfair advantage? You betcha. --Goodmorningworld 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - El tiu Cancho 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support --Zeljko 07:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Support -- (cypsy) 10:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support -- The relevant question when voting, IMHO, should be, "Do I trust this person with the tools?" Based on my interactions with him, I am confident that EVula will not abuse the tools. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - active on a number of projects, even if they are all English language. Good work on en.wp, and I'm not concerned by the "too many hats" argument - if this is what EVula feels is the logical next step, then that's good enough for me. Warofdreams 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
57. --Church of emacs 16:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Support It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - jni 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support --Roberta F. 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Support --Kralizec! 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support He is active and trusted. --Wayiran 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support --§ Snake311 Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

64. Support Active and trust-worthy, would make a wonderful steward, and would not abuse tools TrevorLSciAct 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support en.wiki's The ed17 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support Seems like enough experience to be a steward and serve the community well. --Tauwasser 02:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must be logged in, have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

66. Support--Jusjih 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
67. ok --Rax 23:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Because of the experience. Sp5uhe 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - Drboisclair 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support rootology (T) 04:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Support--Thesupermat 09:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - I think EVula can be trusted with the steward bit. --Cspurrier 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - LaraLove 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support --‍‍Komeil 4life 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support --Apteva 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Support - Punx 07:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Support — Aitias // discussion 11:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1. --Thogo (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. This might be long, and I apologize for the lengthy statement in advance. First, I think EVula should not be a steward because he has too many roles throughout the Wikimedia Foundation already, such as bureaucrat in en-wikiquote, en-wikipedia, etc. administrator in en-wikipedia, en-commons, etc. This would make him be seen as a "hat collector," in my personal opinion. This could lead to many conflicts of interest. Second, he has no knowledge of other languages. Since the Wikimedia Foundation is a multi-lingual organization, stewards are seen to have some multilingual knowledge. As a steward, you cannot depend on Google and Yahoo Translations to investigate a case or checkuser someone. Third, EVula can be seen as sometimes uncivil to people (i.e. "Hi, I am EVula, and you are not"). This can confuse and frustrate some people who are trying to plead their case. To the general public, Wikimedia/Wikipedia already has a seemingly negative viewpoint as being unreliable and people who are rude. Sorry. miranda 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   I was going to say exactly the same thing, even though I'm not allowed to vote (despite my over 1,000 article edits on en.wiki) Xasodfuih 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Are you sure? Check your eligibility here. NuclearWarfare 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Sadly, all my edits are after November 1. Xasodfuih 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Just wanted to clarify: the "I'm EVula and you're not" line is a Chevy Chase reference. No offense meant, I just found it amusing (and true). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   I can understand why one might consider EVula to be lacking in tact at times. However I am certain it is not out of indifference towards civility and general politeness, so much as it is of his general (for lack of a better word) witty nature; which understandably is misinterpreted at times. Perhaps this might not make him a perfect stewart candidate, but EVula does carry himself with a level of diplomacy when dealing with more official matters (eg. bureaucrat statements on en.wikipedia). Additionally, I don't personally see his candidacy for stewartship as the next logical step up, as he does have significant experience on other Wiki's and I see his adminship/cratship on Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc. as a sign that he can be trusted. I am not eligible to vote in this election, but I feel EVula is worthy of the trust of the <strike?WikiaWikimedia community. That, of course, is my opinion and open to disagreement. Master&Expert 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   I am sure that you meant Wikimedia community, because we aren't Wikia. :) miranda 23:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Crap... thanks for pointing that out. :D Master&Expert 01:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Reluctant oppose - Per Miranda's first point, and the lack of SWMT or checkuser work. NuclearWarfare 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Sorry, EVula, but this time, I cannot support. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   I'm in perfect agreement with User:Miranda. In my interactions with EVula I have found him to be impolite. Also, I have seen him making polemic comments. Thus, I have to oppose regretfully. — Aitias // discussion 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

5. I am uncomfortable with EVula's position on desysopping. Even though EVula, to his credit, makes clear that he is more interested in other activities, since there is considerable push on some wikis to involve stewards more in the desysopping process, I must exercise caution and oppose. Chick Bowen 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Miranda´s second point. --Seha 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. GlassCobra 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. No. Being a steward doesn't mean you get promoted. Not much about what you are going to do with the stewardship. Romaine 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Miranda --Ivan Štambuk 01:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Sorry, but no. I don't like these Job-collecting. Marcus Cyron 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11.  Oppose per Miranda. — neuro^(talk) 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. --FollowTheMedia 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Puntori 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. oppose "as the next logical step" --Revolus Echo der Stille 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. This isn't a popularity contest. Giggy 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. EVula's general personality isn't real suited to the work a steward does. Prodego ^talk 04:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17.  반대 언어상의 문제.--Kwj2772 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (en: "Because of the language problems".)
18. Achates 07:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. relucantly too many hats Gnangarra 08:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Against monolingual stewardship. Man77"..."(de) 10:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Stewards should speak more than one language (although English is quite helpful of course) and I echo concerns of job-collecting and minor rudeness. Somehow, as much as I appreciate EVula's work, I somehow cannot picture him as a stewart... SoWhy 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Miranda makes good points, would have supported otherwise. Rudget (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Per Miranda. feydey 11:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Зачем переводы убрал? --Ahonc 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. --MF-W 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Too many roles, sorry. Stifle 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. -- Nahum 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. Simply because I expect stewards to speak more than one language. EVula is a fine candidate and has done a lot of good work. Rje 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Only one language+too many rights. Bence My Talk 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Monolingual, already has too many duties in English projects — NickK 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Too many hats already and concur with miranda's stance. --Caspian blue 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose: (re issues involving an RfB on Simple English Wikiquote); sorry, EVula.
    Misconstruing/misquoting: EVula said "[Coppertwig]...has already stated that they will not close the RfB at all (much less actually perform the promotion)", but I replied "Correction: I did not state that I would not perform the promotion." What I had actually said was here and here. Since the other administrators on the project don't have bureaucrat buttons, I find it hard to see how that can reasonably be interpreted as a refusal to perform the promotion (e.g. after a non-bureaucrat closure). Regardless of what the procedure ought to be, a steward would need to be able to understand communication about this distinction. If it wasn't clear, EVula could have asked me for clarification or quoted me word-for-word.
    Information that didn't pan out (maybe because of the above). EVula said, "the stewards can perform the promotion", but when the request was made a few days later it was turned down by a steward.
    Contradicting themself: EVula said "local non-bureaucrats should never be the ones to close an RfX", but earlier in the same discussion about the same RfB EVula had said "I'm a bureaucrat on several projects and would be happy to close it (despite not being a bureaucrat here)". and [6] "If I hadn't already participated in it, I'd be more than happy to close it". ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    For the first, that's a breakdown in communication; to me, closing and promoting are the same thing. Your stalwart refusal in the face of the community asking you to fulfill your duties as a bureaucrat is what led to my apparent about-face; when criticized, you remained quiet, and that demeanor came across as contempt for the community (in my eyes). As for the second item, I have to object on the grounds that I cannot be held accountable for there being more than one steward; the folk I asked are not the same ones that promptly said that we had to sort it out on our own (especially since the closing steward pointed out that the SE Wikiquote community had apparently had issues with you being unable to perform your duties in a similar situation in the past, and that it was the community's fault for not resolving the situation then and thereby causing the situation now). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, it was a breakdown in communication: if that's what happens when you try to communicate about a serious matter in Simple English, I worry about your attempting to communicate with users in other languages. A steward definitely needs to understand that a distinction can be made between closing and promoting (even if only in order to be able to refuse to do so).
    For the second item, I feel that you can be held accountable for giving the impression that a steward would close the discussion; although you did use the word "can" rather than "will". You could perhaps have approached the same steward again rather than posting a general request; or, if you were aware of how stewards usually respond to such requests (as one would hope a steward candidate would be; and which matched how I had expected they would respond) you could have used more words to give a stronger impression of the uncertainty involved. You could perhaps have quoted the steward. What you said, with the word "can", was not necessarily actually false, but was unhelpful to the community.
    If you wish to criticize me, and especially if you would like me to reply to your criticisms, please use my talk page on that project, as I've already suggested, not this page nor any other page devoted to discussions on other topics, where I feel it wouldn't be a good idea for me to take up space with my replies. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Although, except for this one incident, everything I remember seeing you do has been exemplary. I particularly liked some things you said at WT:RfA on en wp. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    Withdrawing my vote. I apologize for taking up too much space on this page and for blowing things out of proportion. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

32. --Jan eissfeldt 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Needs language skills. --Shizhao 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
34. --Uwe Gille 09:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
35. No. EVula provides a valuable service on en.wikipedia. Other users are in a better position to provide the time required for Stewardship. Also, this statement seems rather disingenuous: "I am extremely comfortable editing in numerous languages", especially when EVula doesn't explicitly state his lack of language skills. Axl 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)(Axl @ Wikipedia)
36. Listed only English, but is "comfortable" with many foreign languages? Sorry, but no. --FiliP × 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
37.  Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Awersowy 19:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Contra. QuartierLatin1968 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
40.  Oppose Try to get an XX-2 in any languge, then try again! HBR 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Looking for proficiency in two languages or more. - Mailer Diablo 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Stewards should speak more than one language. --Pjacobi 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
43.  Oppose--Lighterside 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
44.  Oppose needs language skills, and from activities on en.wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Er, what activities on the English Wikipedia? I've never gotten any negative feedback from there; if there's a problem I'm unaware of, I can't fix it without knowing about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Without making more about it than my concerns: your defense of the template {{w:User:Wwagner/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi}} and your negative comments about those who opposed the admin candidacy of a user whose user page was emblazoned with a swastika make me uncomfortable that you understand the depth of hurt such things cause. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't defend the template itself, and I never made negative comments about the people who opposed the admin candidate. I did comment that people were objecting to the userbox's existence and then objecting when he removed the box; it was an unfair situation for the candidate. I myself had the userbox for a while, as I'd never received any complaints about it; the moment I got a complaint, I took it down, true to my word. It should also be noted that that all went down more than a year ago; I'd totally forgotten about it until now...
    It's a moot point; the chances of me becoming a steward this year are pretty slim, but I just wanted to clarify that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't want to make a big deal out of it, or cause drama. I only answered your question. Suffice to say, that your use of the userbox is fairly interpretable to defending it, and while you had forgotten the episode, I had not. You're free to respond, but I shall no longer spend time discussing the incident: you wanted clarification and I gave it to you. Pour moi, la question est fermé. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

45.  Oppose Vodello 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
46.  Oppose-- Steward with only one spoken language? No, please. JAn Dudík 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
47.  Oppose Only one language. Gonzolito 11:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
48.  Oppose Lack of language skills and some civility concerns. Epbr123 12:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
49. --Chenzw 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Insufficient cross wiki experience & a few of the other concerns raised above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
52. I'm sorry, it seems you have plenty to do on your home wikis and little cross-wiki experience of the sort I want to see in candidates for steward.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
53.  Oppose Poco a poco 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
54.  Oppose per Ahonc. Speaks only one language and erases links to translations in other. Bogorm 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    I reverted myself at Pathoschild's request; the whole reason they were removed from the template[7] was to get the main page (which had all the statement pages transcluded) down to a decent size, so that users weren't loading a very large page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

55. I don't think you have enough experience to become a steward. You're a great guy, but I'm not sure that being a Steward is right for you. Malinaccier (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
56.  Oppose - Reluctant Oppose - one language --Captain-tucker 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
57. One language, and skills better in multiple existing roles. & Nbarth 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
58.  Oppose --4wajzkd02 09:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Too many hats and not enough languages. Angus McLellan (enwiki talk) 12:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
60. English only, unfortunately. Maedin\^talk 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
61.  Oppose --ysangkok 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
62.  Oppose Otherwise seems ok, but lack of language skills imminent --Höyhens 02:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
63.  Oppose Just became a bureaucrat. Dusti 06:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
64.  Oppose User hasn't done enough cross-wiki work. Techman224^Talk 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. bibliomaniac15 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. For now. Tough choice. flaminglawyer^c 05:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Avjoska 06:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Efbé 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Vyk 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Tinucherian 11:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Obelix 15:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral --Taichi - (あ！) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
9. I respect this user greatly, but Stewards need to be multilingual. RyanGerbil10 18:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
10. --Davecrosby uk 00:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Seems to be suited for the job, but is unfortunately monolingual. At least 2 languages (even if they are only -1) would be good. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Has to learn more languages, comfort not really enough - However, I'll leave it to others the decision, because this is clearly a committed wikipedian who otherwise fits the bill.--Cerejota 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Language. ...Aurora... 11:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral PDD 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) BTW some of the opposing votes from German users could be explained by the fact that the next logical step in my cross-wiki contributions is translated as der nächstlogische Schritt in meiner Wikipediakarriere and that this supposed obsession with a wikipedia career sounds rather strange (not just) to German ears.
15. Ozymandias 09:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Neutral some other languages could be great --Gdgourou 10:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Neutral No real objection, but there is little proof of "comfort with foreign languages" O. Morand 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
18. --Mayer Bruno 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTCView vote page

Fabexplosive

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Nemo 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --M/ 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Experienced global vandal fighter, no issues here. Majorly ^talk 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. No problems here. Razorflame 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. miranda 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Though global sysop would be nicer (I'm surprised that wasn't implemented) NuclearWarfare 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support The Helpful One 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. --Seha 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Az1568 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Herr Kriss 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Yes/Sí/はい. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Change my vote... --Taichi - (あ！) 03:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

15. Kalan ? 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Yes. Seems to know what stewardship is for. Romaine 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. --Ivan Štambuk 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Support --Skyluke ★ 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. OK. Marcus Cyron 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Experienced cross-wiki vandal fighter - I see no issues whatsoever.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. --Kanonkas 01:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. Support — neuro^(talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. --FollowTheMedia 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. He has been fighting vandalism since before I joined Meta. hHe is very experienced and has my trust ..--Cometstyles 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Of course. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. --Sir James 05:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Yes bastique ^demandez! 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Avjoska 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. --Triquetra 08:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Sebleouf 08:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34. I'm starting thinking that if we won't support him this time, he will continue to come back every year :P :) --Filnik 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. --Lucien leGrey ( m | es ) 10:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36. --Wing 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Sì. Jon Harald Søby 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Efbé 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39. -- RaminusFalcon «…» («it.wikipedia») 10:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Rastrojo _(D•ES) 10:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41. →Na·gy 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Njaelkies Lea 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43. --Senpai 12:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Support --Broc 12:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support --EH101 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46. --Yuma 13:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47. --Ivocamp96 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48. --MF-W 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49. --Ahonc 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Obelix 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51. trusted fellow, useful in cross vandalism fighting. DarkoNeko 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52. --Cotton 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Pro — Albert Krantz^¿? 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
54. --Oxymoron⁸³ 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
55. --Freed73 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
56. --ripe ^tolc 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
57. --Pigr8 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
58. TheNeon 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
59. --Aushulz 03:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
60. --P@d@w@ne 09:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
61. − Elfix × talk (fr) 10:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Support--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Like last year. --FiliP × 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
64. --Stef Mec 13:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
65. vvv 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
66. Support — MrDolomite • Talk 15:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
67. --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Yes :D.- 天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
70. --Torsolo 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
71. --Amarvudol 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
72. --Guidomac 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
73. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
74. I don't like his involvement in Italian languages issues, but: he is a good candidate, he could pass and we need more active stewards. If elected, I expect from him not to interfere in Italian languages issues. --Millosh 12:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Kingturtle 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Andcen 23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
77. Kronos 08:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
78. Ozymandias 09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Support ok for me --Gdgourou 10:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
80. Bence My Talk 15:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
81. John Vandenberg 17:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
82. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es.) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
83. Sirabder87 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
84. Support --Wayiran 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

    Support --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

85. yes. notafish }<';> 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
86. ~ SupportGustavocarra 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Si è mostrato degno per il suo bel lavoro.
87. --Turgon ^{the dark side of a normal user} 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
88. ok --Rax 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
89. Seems convenient, no problem O. Morand 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Nbarth 03:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
91. --Gusme 16:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
92. Support --Zeljko 08:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
93. Support Andcen 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
94. Support--Thesupermat 09:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
95. Support Alexander VIII 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
96. --Mayer Bruno 23:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
97. Support --Elijah/אליהו (Eliyahu)/إلياس (Ilyas) (Me!) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
98. --.snoopy. ✉ 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
99. ~ putnik 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
100. Yerul ^(comlink) 18:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
101. Mike Halterman 09:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
102. Роман Беккер 11:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
103. --Rave 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
104. Support --‍‍Komeil 4life 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
105. Support --Màrço 27 (msg) _{on it.wiki: user page — talk page} 13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
106. Aleksandrit 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
107. SupportNatanaeel83 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
108. Support - Punx 07:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
109. Support --Grebenkov 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
110. Support Good luck! - Dorgan 12:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
111. Support --دانقولا 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
112. Support--Mstislavl 09:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
113. Support --Сдобников Андрей 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
114. Support -- Avi 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Puntori 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. I didn't yet understand Mori's affair (a diffamating campaign against another sysop, Valepert, made up by email in order to obtain Valepert's deflag which he seems to be involved in). I also have doubts about his CU-related knowledge--Vituzzu 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Isn't true, only supposition without positive response or evidence of this act. --Fabexplosive The archive man 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Can you give us some links which confirm this fact, please? --Pietrodn · talk with me 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Please Pietrodn don't pretend to ignore what I'm referring to--Vituzzu 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Please Vito don't pretend that everyone here is an it.wiki's community expert or can just take your word for these allegations. --Nemo 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   Please Nemo don't pretend to be a fireman: Pietro knows what I'm referring to since we said so many times that Fab is involved into diffamating campaign against Valepert, an email was sent to an user who disclosed the fact, maybe it's better to take a look at deflag's page and to see if an user posted there: maybe you wouldn't say to be a community expert but simply to be coherent, and please stop this flame I'm not intrested in--Vituzzu 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   If "an user" "disclosed the fact", why don't you link to it? So everyone can see and evaluate the situation. Please provide links, precise information, and diffs. --Pietrodn · talk with me 13:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

   Oh it's lovable: to ask for a diff knowing that the requested diff won't mean anything to people who doesn't know the situation o who is not from it.wiki, really lovable--Vituzzu 14:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps because it doesn't actually mean anything, even to people who know the situation and are from it.wiki. This is only a house of cards. --Nemo 18:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Questions are unanswered. They should be answered by now. Prodego ^talk 05:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. I don't trust him enough to have access to checkuser and oversight tools; besides that, he has an history of executing tasks without a clear comprehension of the reasons behind them. --Brownout^(msg) 10:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. --Aqwis 11:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7.  Oppose Vyk 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. I agree with Brownout. --LaPizia 14:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Not ready Helios 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. very dangerous user. --valepert 14:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps it's a language barrier, but dangerous is a pretty harsh word in the English language. Could you clarify how Fabexplosive is "dangerous"? Thanks. Majorly ^talk 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    probably because he has an explosive user name :) :P --.snoopy. ✉ 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    I think that's not a joke--Vituzzu 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

11. Better be safe than sorry. Stweradship is one of the most sensitive jobs and should only be given with absolute trustworthiness. --Nahum 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Jehochman 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13.  Oppose Guido den Broeder 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    Excuse me? Since when is a SUL account obligatory? Guido den Broeder 15:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    He said either SUL or link to the account which is eligible on the userpage, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    In that, case, I want my vote restored. Guido den Broeder 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Restored per [8], --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks Spacebirdy. Great tool, btw. Guido den Broeder 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

14. No. Alefbe 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. NonvocalScream 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16.  Oppose --Nrainer 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Uwe Gille 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
18.  Strong oppose See The meatpuppeting attack on LMO wikipedia Szwedzki 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Béria Lima ^Msg 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Per Vituzzu and Brownout.
20. Quoting Brownout. --KS 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Hargau 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose. --Checco 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
23.  Oppose Agree with Szwedzki Gonzolito 11:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
24.  Oppose Quoting Vituzzu. --Rael 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
25.  Oppose - Funatic 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
26.  Strongest oppose possible per meatpuppetery incident on LMO Wikipedia. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
27.  Oppose. Per The meatpuppeting attack on lmowikipedia. --Lucas Nunes 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
28.  Oppose, seems not trustful enough. --Wikikids 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
29.  Oppose Something doesn't seem right. Maedin\^talk 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
30.  Oppose. If he was involved in the meatpuppetery incident behind his back then he didn't act circumspectly. The other possibility is worse. - Xbspiro 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
31.  Oppose - I can't make sense of the lmo.wikipedia case. --Jorunn 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
32.  Oppose - Lombard Wikipedia, a lot of problem with Fabexplosive. For example: http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Grott/Archivi/6#Analisi_del_comportamento_dell.27amministratore_Fabexplosive. --Dragonòt 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

    (little precisation) I've blocked meatpuppets and trolls in lmo.wiki, some trolls attack me in this page (or "some users troll friendly attack me in this page")... --Fabexplosive The archive man 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Il ha multo votas contra Fabexplosive, ma io non comprehende pro que. Il poterea esser util que le opponentes explica lor position... QuartierLatin1968 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2. --Davecrosby uk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Mailer Diablo 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Quoting QuartierLatin1968. --Xinstalker 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
5. ...Aurora... 11:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I support this user generally, despite use of global rollback, but cannot support stewardship for that reason. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral Per the dispute in lmowiki. --Taichi - (あ！) 03:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Fadesga

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. Cárdenas 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Kriddl 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. --Sir James 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. --MannMaus 11:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. --Loudmilka 12:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Globalphilosophy 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Moral support - trustworthy and friendly. Orderinchaos 03:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
9. experiece can improve very fast and I also think that newer users deserve a chance JunoArtemis 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
10. --P@d@w@ne 09:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Szalakóta 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    --Pmontaldo 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 600 edits on any project by November 1, and either an SUL account or a link to that account on your userpage. You must also have 50 edits since August 1 and not be blocked here. ST47 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    I've just unified muy accounts to achive the requirements.--Pmontaldo 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

12. - Support, Bjoertvedt
13. --Stepri2003 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
14. --stoffel0976 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Moral support: would like to see this candidate try again at the next opportunity.--Goodmorningworld 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Support --Anthony Ivanoff 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
17. --Daniel73480 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Muro de Aguas 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
19. --91.38.252.69 21:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Support: Speaks many languages. -- Maseltov 12:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
21. --Mayer Bruno 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Imho the user has not enough experience, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Puntori 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Sorry, not enough experience. NuclearWarfare 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. No/いいえ. Usted no tiene una participación activa en la comunidad de la Wikipedia en Español, sólo posee 1 edición en el espacio de nombres Wikipedia. Sólo veo que es un editor de artículos, pero no alguien que demuestre conocimientos y preocupación del engranaje de Wikipedia. / You don't have an official participation in Spanish Wikipedia, only have 1 edition in Wikipedia namespace. I see that you are an article editor, but isn't an user that demonstrate knowledge and worry for the internal structure of Wikipedia system. --Taichi - (あ！) 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. No. Nothing about what stewardship really is. There is much more than Wikipedia!! You probably very good in doing the things you do, but those are totally different in what we need as steward. Romaine 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Sorry but no. I don't see why you want to becoma an Steward. Marcus Cyron 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. --Kanonkas 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Not enough experience at all.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10.  Oppose — neuro^(talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. --FollowTheMedia 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. no. _macy 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. I think you need more experience. Also, you did not answer the questions asked of you, except for 1, you need to be more responsive. Perhaps broaden your activity and try again next year? ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Prodego ^talk 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Sebleouf 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. --Brownout^(msg) 10:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 14:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. --MF-W 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Lack of Cross-wiki experience. Try getting locally involved in a few more wikis that may need you, then try again. With your multilinguality, you're gonna make an excellent steward IMHO if you gain more experience first. Maybe next year. -- Nahum 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Not enough experience. Enbéká 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. User has written only about his experience at ProZ.com, no experience here, so that's not enough to be a good steward — NickK 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. –Ejs-80 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. NonvocalScream 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. À cause du manque d'expérience avec les outils d'admin. / Lack of experience with admins' tools. --Edhral 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. ~ putnik 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Uwe Gille 09:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
27. No suitable rationale for becoming a steward. --FiliP × 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
28. GlassCobra 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
29.  Oppose — MrDolomite • Talk 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Contra. QuartierLatin1968 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
31. --Davecrosby uk 00:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
32. Mailer Diablo 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
33. per Lar. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
34. Tiptoety ^talk 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
35. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Experience? ...Aurora... 11:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
38.  Oppose Treinta y Tres. - Tesi1700 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
39.  Oppose need more experience --Gdgourou 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
40. John Vandenberg 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 20:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, follow all instructions at Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters please. --Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

41.  Oppose --Tom 02:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
42. at first you'll need to be experienced as sysop anywhere on a WP-project - IMHO - sorry --Rax 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
43.  Oppose Sorry, not enough experience. Sp5uhe 11:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Lack of Wikimedia admin experience. Nbarth 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
45.  Oppose--Thesupermat 09:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
46.  Oppose Doesn't seem to understand the role. Shame, too, I like the languages. Maedin\^talk 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
47.  Oppose Experience from 2007 only --Höyhens 03:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
48.  Oppose Sorry, but no experience of admiship is my reason to object. O. Morand 10:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
49.  Oppose Techman224^Talk 02:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Avjoska 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Efbé 10:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral Vyk 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Obelix 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral --Nrainer 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral Poco a poco 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral - Punx 07:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Jredmond (Jim Redmond)

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. SupportGak 12:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamiebijania 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Lvova 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Puntori 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Willking1979 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. --Seha 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. --Ivan Štambuk 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes for a longtime worker. Marcus Cyron 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support — neuro^(talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. --Shizhao 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Durova 02:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Luisfege 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Avjoska 06:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. --Vd437 08:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Daniel (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. --Lucien leGrey ( m | es ) 10:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. Efbé 10:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. Rudget (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. --Scott MacDonald 13:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
23. --Ahonc 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. Spartaz 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. bastique ^demandez! 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. I find it hard to expect 20+ essay answers from any candidate. Yes. NonvocalScream 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Support --Kjetil_r 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. John Reaves (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
29. FayssalF 03:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
30. Very trusted and capable person. --FiliP × 12:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    --Gdaly7 13:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, you don't meet the voting requirements. —Pathoschild 17:25:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

31. - Support, Bjoertvedt
32. -Davecrosby uk 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
33. --chaser - t 05:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
34. --Al Silonov 09:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
35. Pro QuartierLatin1968 09:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Kingturtle 13:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Support totally. —Sean Whitton / 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Support James F. (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
39. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Can be very good :) Gonzolito 11:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Telaviv1 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Caiaffa 03:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
43. yes. --Zeljko 07:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Ozymandias 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Yes. Alefbe 14:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - good work on en.wp, active in simple chores on other wikis. Warofdreams 15:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
47. --Church of emacs 16:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
48. SupportGoodone121 21:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Wildhartlivie 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Bence My Talk 13:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Support --Kralizec! 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Poco a poco 12:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. -- AKA MBG 12:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
54. --Hardenacke 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Badgernet 14:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Support--Bapti 19:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
57. Seems to have exactly the right experience. Nbarth 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Gosgood 14:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Support -- Alexf 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Long experience + involvment in OTRS. O. Morand 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
62. ~ putnik 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - Punx 07:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Dorgan 12:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Support --Mardetanha ^talk 21:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No

1. Close to no experience in steward areas. Already busy enough on OTRS as it is... Majorly ^talk 00:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   I like what I know of this user, but user did not respond to questions asked. Stewards need to be responsive. With regret. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (move to neutral, questions answered, and pretty well too, in my view.) ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   per Lar. Giggy 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

   Indented; neutral. Giggy 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

   You say you have a good level of spanish and you don't translate this in spanish, very bad... --Alexpaintartist 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

2. per Lar. Prodego ^talk 04:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --Sir James 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Sebleouf 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. No responses, only reverts in Spanish wikipedia, so no support now. feydey 12:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. --MF-W 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Lar/Majorly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm sorry, I don't see the cross-wiki experience I want to see in stewards.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Looks like the candidate did not appear even to answer the questions, so he seems to be not very active — NickK 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Jaranda | wat's sup 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Hargau 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Majorly and Mike.lifeguard. Alex Pereira ^falaê 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Not now. Tesi1700 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
15. --Anthony Ivanoff 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
16.  Oppose fr33kman ^{t - c} 18:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
17. in doubt --> no first edits (en:wp) in 2003 but less than 10000 contribs to all projects / sysop en:wp since 2005 but using sysop rights less than 500 times up to now / mh ...
18.  Oppose--Larno Man 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
19.  Oppose per Majorly --Wikikids 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
20.  Oppose Reluctantly. Light on languages and cross-wiki experience. Maedin\^talk 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
21.  Oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. --FollowTheMedia 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral Vyk 11:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Obelix 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Not enough reasons to oppose, but not enough to support either. -- Nahum 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. --Uwe Gille 09:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. Responde al questiones, si il vos place! QuartierLatin1968 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (Vota cambiate a ‘pro’.)

6. Candidate had a good reason for not answering before the start, and gave pretty good answers. I still stand by the rest... I like what I know of this user. However I have concerns about experience... perhaps continue doing the good work helping the small wiki team out and try again next year. (this was somewhat the advice I received on my first try in late 2006) ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
9. need just a few more experience (i hope next year) --Gdgourou 10:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
10. ...Aurora... 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)View vote page

Kylu

translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

Questions → Stewards/elections 2009/Questions

Yes

1. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
2. --Kanonkas 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Friendly, helpful, active in steward areas. Excellent candidate! Majorly ^talk 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Cenarium (Talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. PeterSymonds 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
6. --M/ 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support GlassCobra 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Yes! Razorflame 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
9. BJ^Talk 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
10. miranda 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Captain panda 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Support — vvv 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
13. NuclearWarfare 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
14. --Thogo (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Without a doubt. The Helpful One 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Cbrown1023 talk 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Willking1979 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Mr.Z-man 00:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Chick Bowen 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
20. yes. Micha L. Rieser 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
21. --Seha 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
22. Az1568 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

    --Chrihern 16px 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

23. Deskana 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
24. --Ivan Štambuk 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
25. Kalan ? 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
26. Sí/Yes/はい. --Taichi - (あ！) 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
27. Yes, Seens to know what stewardship means. Romaine 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
28. American Eagle (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
29. Yes. of course. Marcus Cyron 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
30. (+) Hillgentleman 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
31. Hell yeah! Nishkid64 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
32. On the condition that Kylu continues in her official role as Meta's archive bot. :D In all seriousness, Kylu knows exactly what it takes to be a steward, and will do an excellent job. Highly experienced in cross-wiki matters, excellent judgement and always helpful.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
33. Support — neuro^(talk) 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
34. --FollowTheMedia 01:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
35. --Shizhao 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
36. Durova 02:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
37. Fer sure, she is probably one of the few I would vote for :) ..--Cometstyles 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
38. Perhaps this year's best candidate. But only if I get a pony. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. Yes, a good contributor cross-wikis. -- Mentifisto 03:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
40. Support--Luisfege 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Support--1j1z2 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
42. --Revolus Echo der Stille 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
43. One of the most experienced candidates. --Millosh 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
44. Giggy 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Obviously. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
46. Cecil 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
47. With some reservation, but I assume that I will be impressed, as I usually am, with Kylu. Prodego ^talk 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
48. Yes. bastique ^demandez! 06:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
49. --Sir James 06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
50. Avjoska 06:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
51. Achates 07:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
52. --Shipmaster 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
53. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
54. Sebleouf 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
55. Kwsn 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
56. Daniel (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
57. yeaaaaaaaaa --.snoopy. ✉ 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
58. Merdis 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
59. --Brownout^(msg) 10:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
60. Microchip08 ^@simpleWB 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
61. --Wing 10:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
62. Yes. Alefbe 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
63. Da. Jon Harald Søby 10:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
64. friendly and helpful, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 10:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
65. Efbé 10:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
66. →Na·gy 11:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
67. Tak. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
68. Béria Lima ^Msg 11:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
69. Support--Konsnos 11:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Vyk 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
71. Garden 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
72. Rudget (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Tinucherian 11:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
74. Support, VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Yann 12:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
76. feydey 12:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
77. --Александр Сигачёв 12:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
78. --Scott MacDonald 13:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
79. Orderinchaos 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
80. —Dferg ^(meta-w:es:) 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
81. --MF-W 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
82. Obelix 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
83. -- Nahum 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
84. За --Ahonc 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
85. Very active in cross-wiki matters and familiar with the stewards "job". - Rjd0060 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
86. trusted fellow, useful in cross vandalism fighting. DarkoNeko 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
87. --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
88. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
89. A truly excellent candidate. She will make a very effective steward. Rje 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
90. Have my confidence Mirgolth 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
91. Support iAlex 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
92. Gurch 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
93. support. --Ciphers 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
94. First choice. Jehochman 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
95. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 18:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
96. Support — NickK 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
97. –Ejs-80 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
98. --Caspian blue 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
99. Yes. NonvocalScream 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
100. One of the best candidates in my opinion. Steve Crossin ^Talk 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)