Jump to content

Stewards/elections 2004

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Please note that these "developer access" people will have this power Wikimedia wide, and not only on the English Wikipedia

See also: Stewards, Steward policies.

I've suggested on wikipedia-l to give a small number of non-developers developer-like powers, and that real developers should not use their powers for editorial or administrative purposes. The full text of the post is copied below. The idea was fairly well received on the list, so I've decided to do some promotion and a bit of discussion and pre-polling. The original post and replies can be found here. Tim Starling

Mailing list post - Developers should mind their own business

[edit]

There is no sense in giving developers administrative power. Developers

are good at programming, not management of a community. By wrapping up their ability to contribute with their ability to rule, they are made effectively unaccountable. Nobody wants to remove someone's developer access if it means they can't do much needed programming work. Administration of the encyclopedia also distracts them from programming, a task which they have a rare skill and motivation for.

Wikipedia should not be a technocracy, ruled by those with knowledge of computer systems. Wikipedia should be a democracy. Those in power should be accountable to the community at large, and ideally selected from and by the community at large.

I have written a feature giving people with the "developer" flag set in their wiki user accounts a level of administrative ability similar to what developers with shell access are capable of. Specifically, such users are able to set arbitrary user rights for any user on any Wikimedia project. They may create sysops, desysop, create bureaucrats or other developers, or any other user-rights operation you care to mention. This feature is operational right now, and I've been using it for the last couple of weeks to make bureaucrats on various wikis.

The feature is easy to use and does not carry the security risks of write-access to the database. At the moment, it is not possible to rename user accounts or change the history of articles through the web interface, but such features are planned.

I suggest we use this feature to split the roles of developer and site administrator. Specifically, here is what I think should happen:

1. A policy should be instituted disallowing any developer from using their power for administrative purposes, except where there is no other way to perform the relevant operation. New developers applying for shell access should be made aware of this policy.

By "administrative purposes", I mean exercises of power for any other purpose than testing and implementing software.

2. A small number of users should be made "honorary developers" (perhaps a better title can be found). These users should be selected by putting forward nominations and then conducting a vote, similar to the vote now conducted at the English Wikipedia for sysop access.

3. These "honorary developers" can lose their developer access by a community vote giving a majority in favour, by an arbitration committee ruling, or by Jimbo's decree.

It should be possible for a developer to hold both shell access and community blessing. Such people would take the role of both programmer and administrator. However as I said above, we really have a lot of programming work to do.

Naming

[edit]

Please note that the term "developer access" WILL NOT BE USED to describe this. It has nothing to do with the software developers or development.

Says who? -- Tim Starling 01:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Says me. --Brion VIBBER 02:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh okay :-) Hi Brion! Note that I have allocated an entire section to naming below, feel free to add your suggestions. -- Tim Starling 06:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the actual priv named "developer"? I sense some confusion coming..  :) Pakaran 02:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Honorary developer" is a bit awkward, it would be nice if we had a better name for these people. Sheldon Rampton (?) used the name "wikicops" to describe a similar proposal of his, some months ago. I'm not particularly crash-hot on that idea since police don't promote people, and developers don't have any significant authority, and can't give orders. Does anyone else have an idea for a job title?

It's a shame sysop is already taken (sort of; I'd still rather see it deprecated myself), since it fits this role rather well. Somebody there has suggested janitor to replace admin/sysop, and bureaucrat isn't great, so maybe we need to rethink all these terms (and, indeed, roles). Feel free to edit, find a better home for, or just plain delete this list as you see fit: -IMSoP 02:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Possible naming schemes:

  1. Current admin/sysop - key extra powers are deletion, protection, easy roll-back)
    • Administrator/admin. (simply deprecate all use of sysop)
    • Housekeeper. (a bit twee, maybe, but emphasises the community aspect of the role, rather than the connotations of power)
    • WikiKeeper. (neologisms are great - once you know what they mean, of course. Also has amusing similarity to a cricketing term...)
  2. Current bureaucrat - only(?) additional power: creation of admins
    • Admin creator. [or "$1 creator", if $1!="admin"] (there is no real need to have a memorable name for this role, unless it entails more than one purpose, in which case we'll start needing a complete "levels of experience" system...)
  3. Proposed "honourary developer" - has similar access to the system as a developer, but for administrative rather than technical purposes.
    • Community developer (one who develops the community. But may not be a great idea to overload the existing term "developer")
    • WikiWarden (taken from the "wikicop" idea, but with the friendlier spin of the UK's new "community wardens")
    • Community warden (possibly a bit too watered down, given the power these users will have)

How about "coordinator"? It's used in all sorts of generalised wishy-washy ways in real life, such that it has little meaning of its own. It emphasises the interwiki role -- rather than being a part of the decision-making structure of a particular wiki, the coordinator liaises with the diverse power structures across the multilingual and multi-project effort. -- Tim Starling 06:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about steward? --mav

has the right undertones. Sj 16:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about Wikimedia Servant? Since these are supposed to be across all projects and to be only acting in accord with consensus policy this appears to encapsulate the key concepts, as well as not sounding desirable.:) Jamesday 01:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Secretariat or secretary? Tomos 05:11, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think developer is misleading, I don't like warden and secretariat doesn't sound applicable. Coordinator or steward are good. Angela 00:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Name suggestion; super-bureaucrat. This function is like a bureaucrat only it wikimedia-wide and they can also remove access. Walter 20:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lets not forget coordinator...


Is steward a name that fit both genders ? Anthere

Rules

[edit]

Anthere gave the following very reasonable suggestions in [1]:

I would like to suggest that at least two rules are necessary
rule 1 : no decision alone : depending on the urgency, Jimbo decision, arbitration committee decision, full vote (like for sysoping someone), poll (like urgent desysoping)
I think this rule is very important. No decision taken by an honorary developper alone
rule 2 : report mandatory. Depending on the action taken, on the mailing list, on the wikipedia sysop vote page, on the poll page
Breaking of any of these two rules (without a damn good reason) means suspension of "honorary developer" position.
No power should be entirely in a couple of people hands without rules. And the more power, the more the rules need to be enforced.
Last : when there are questions about the actions of an "honorary developer", the one questioning should be granted free speech and public place to talk.

Discussion

[edit]

Hmmm, i am not sure I understand completely the difference between a bureaucrat (I'll shorten it to bu) and the new honorary developer (I'll call them hondev for simpicities sake, no, wait, I prefer stewart more, just read it). Well, sure, a bu is only allowed to turn persons to sysops on her wp, and a stewart may change this on all wps, but boths actions are logged, may be easily undone, and both must wait on community consensus to make their job.

Both positions don't have any power, only the technical ability to do something. So, their only reason for existence is to unload the developers from this burden (and that surely is a great reason). But why this double structure?

Well, maybe we have too many bus already, so the risk is to great to give them all stewarts power, but in this case, rather than introducing a new layer, I'd un-bu some (I'll rather give up my bu status than have more complexity than needed).

What risk is there? As far as I understood, stewarts can even de-stewart other stewarts, and block Jimbo and Brion and all the others, so, a well-organized stewart may even start a really damaging attack on the wp. Or will all her actions be reversible easily?

So, the rules will state, that they, in their role as stewarts (as are bus already), will be mindless slaves. They are not allowed to do anything that has no prior consensus. So why not merge these two roles? I mean, if we were able to install a bot who recognizes consensus and then performs the appropriate action, wouldn't we just do it? The only reason we (will) have humans in this position is the lack of such a bot. (Please, I don't want to lessen the persons who fulfill this role, neither their work and time, I appreciate both highly; I just state my perception of the role itself).

So, no extra layer seems necessary, I think.

--denny 01:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By the way, are bus or stewarts allowed to decline performing an action that received community consensus?

I suppose bureaucrats are language-specific, whereas this hondevs are not. That's why the selection is made here, at meta, as opposed to each language-wikipedias.
Regarding the decline, I suppose hon-developer is not supposed to, but if that happens, people can talk to the mailinglist, etc., and discuss/ review the performance of the hondev, and possibly demote him/her. Tomos 03:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I do not think so. If these people will have rights on international wikipedias, there is a *serious* problem to discuss. Do Wikipedias have a right to different power structures, or do we necessarily have to follow this one ? If so, why should english people have power over international wikipedias ? Anthere
As far as I understood, hondevs won't have rights on international wikipedias, but power. English people will (and do) have power (but no rights, except for Jimbo) over international wikipedias, and ever will. The question is, shall, by implementing international hondevs, also users from non-english speaking wikipedia have the power over the english wikipedia (but alas, still no right), or shall only users from the english wikipedia have power over the non-english speaking wikipedias. --denny 15:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Umm.. You are against this idea? There is already such a power held by developers. Tim's recent proposals and contributions, MediaWiki namespace, Bureaucrat, and this hon-dev are all in the direction of reducing the non-programming duties (and administrative privilages) of developers.

No, *I* agree with Tim idea very much. But most french wikipedians seem to not agree with this idea *at all*. So, that is embarassing; I proposed myself, but the reaction was "not again an additional layer, no way". We discussed this the whole week, with admin candidacy at the same time. And most do not like the idea of another level. So, I do not know very much what to do. I would like us to use this very much, but if people there do not want, what do we do if non-french come to do the job nonetheless ? Anthere

Replacing developers for those duties are sometimes language-specific appointees (like admins and bureaucrats who can now change wordings in the interface, make someone admin). But not all the duties can be performed locally - some small wikipedias need someone like Brion who creates the first admin. Hondev is for that purpose, and therefore an interlingual position. It is like Brion's ToDoList will be taken care of by these people, and we do not have to feel very sorry to burden Brion everytime we need to report some problem or request to him. (Though I would certainly miss Brion and Tim, since they both understand Japanese and that helped Japanese Wikipedia many times).

As I mentioned earlier, it is also better if certain functions can be turned on/off by these people, as opposed to developer, I think. Bureaucrat functions, direct display of external images (when URL is written), blocking of registered users, and many other functions are now turned on/off by developers. Some functions, such as search and page counter, should be controlled that way, but others could be better handled by hondevs. (Well, if that is technically feasible).

And certainly, people active at non-English wikipedia can apply for the position and seek for support. You have my support if you accept the nomination. :-) Tomos 05:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

thanks. Well, I put myself back, with the point that I will not do it on fr, as long as people do not want anyone there but a developer to do it. I will also copy your comment on the fr pump. It is perhaps better that what I explained. It seems clearer that what I told them. Thanks Anthere
I'm glad to hear that! :) Tomos

I think we don't need super-administrator. A☮ineko 02:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Target number of developers

[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the number of people we should aim for to have developer powers? I would have thought three or four would be enough. We might set up a quick opinion poll later on, if necessary.

Nominations and votes

[edit]

For further discussion, please see Stewards and Talk:Developer_access#Need_to_finish_voting

By the power vested in me by Brion Vibber, I hereby declare this poll closed. -- Tim Starling 15:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This poll is now closed

Angela (38/3)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: Tim Starling: Angela has been extremely active in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces over the last 6 months, organising the formation of many policies. In her enthusiasm for weeding and quality control, she has edited almost every functioning Wikimedia wiki. She also lives in a different time zone to Mav, so she'll be able to deal with situations arising when Mav is unavailable.

# Seconded: Perl see below

  1. Seconded: James F.
  2. Support without qualification. Pakaran 02:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Pfortuny 17:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support, of course. While there is of course no onus on Wik to explain his opposition, I am nevertheless curious as to what s/he has against Angela specifically, except that Angela--that notorious vandal (or was it troll?)--protected some articles to The Wrong Version. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 00:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. I would be hard-put to think of a better candidate than Angela. The only crime I could accuse her of is Wikiholism, but that hardly constitutes grounds for impeachment. I've seen the way she follows us all around, cleaning up after us ... Angela, where would be ever be without you?Davidcannon 02:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Anthere 02:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. BCorr ? Брайен 13:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support: Looxix 00:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. RickK 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Very strongly support. Cprompt 05:19, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Has Angela accepted the nomination? Noldoaran 07:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support.
    SimonMayer 20:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Ugen64 22:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Arwel 23:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. The Anome 00:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Support. Fuzheado 04:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. mav 20:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. -- Infrogmation 22:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. 12.46.6.70 23:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) unidentified user
  5. Support. Fennec 23:53, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. A natural. Sj 10:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Stewartadcock 21:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Wolfram 23:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Gentgeen
  11. Support. Andre Engels 01:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Danny
  13. Support Shaihulud
  14. Dysprosia
  15. Support Kwekubo 22:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support Dori | Talk 06:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support Elian
  18. Support Fire
  19. Support for steward. Ed Poor 20:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. --Wik 23:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - just so you don't get a big head ;) -SV
  3. Oppose - she is too cliquey and epitomises the cabal and IRC groupthink - sorry. Secretlondon 22:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Although I was the one to second the nomination, she recently violated the deletion policy. In addition, Secretlondon is right in saying that she does epitomise the cabal and IRC groupthink. Yesterday she threatened legal action if I did not remove IRC logs from my website (she threatened action (which she said would be executed by JamesF) against me and my ISP even though she is a big supporter of "no legal threats") If she denies this I will supply the private message logs. Also, she is in her twenties, doesn't she have a life outside of wikipedia? Perl 20:44, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    1. It was an exact copy of a page from the English Wikipedia. Exact copies of other pages are clearly candidates for speedy deletion. I have no idea what epitomising the cabal is supposed to mean, not how I am meant to deal with such a thing. I have never threatened legal action; I merely told you that Jamesday (not JamesF) was saying he would do this in #wikipedia, not that I would, nor anyone else. Where do you get the idea that I am "a big supporter of no legal threats". I believe I was the first person to oppose that policy on the English Wikipedia. Finally, what I do in my life outside Wikipedia is none of your business. I see that as an unprovoked personal attack. Angela 23:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perl's late opposition. Legal threats were in no way made in the channel itself; the veracity of any private-message IRC logs is unverifiable. This poll, furthermore, is closed. - Fennec 22:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anthere (40/7)

[edit]

As already stated, I will only help on wikipedias which explicitly agree with the use of this status Anthere

  1. I am a sysop and bureaucrat for the Maori Wikipedia. I would like to nominate anthere for developer access. Anthere is a sysop for the english wikipedia and the French wikipedia. She never abuses her powers and she would be a good developer. Perl 01:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. From numerous email postings of her that I have read on various lists, I believe that she is interested in listening to and serving people, as opposed to teaching and leading them. I would like someone like her to serve us. Tomos 06:19, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. I've seen Anthere out and about in a few places. I personally like the work she's been doing, and I have no reservations about supporting her for developer access. I think we need a few people like her around. Davidcannon 11:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Angela
  5. Support. BCorr ? Брайен 13:11, 20 Mar 2004
  6. Support Tim Starling 16:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support James F. (talk) 21:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. OK: Looxix 00:32, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Ugen64 22:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Arwel 23:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support Walter 07:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. GerardM 09:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. A dash of gracious impulsiveness in one steward would be a good thing. Sj
  15. Support Erik Zachte 11:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support Jeroenvrp 12:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support, I trust her to not misuse those powers Ryo 12:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support --mav 20:37, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  19. Support Bemoeial 23:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support DanKeshet 23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support Jeffdelonge 14:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  22. Support Med 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support. Danny
  24. Support Andre Engels
  25. Support Shaihulud
  26. Silsor 06:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  27. Dysprosia
  28. Support. Wilinckx 17:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support. I rather see someone who acts to often than someone who does not act enough. TeunSpaans 18:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  30. Support Dori | Talk 06:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  31. Support Elian
  32. Support Fantasy 10:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  33. Support Fire
  34. Support Patrick0Moran 17:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  35. Support Treanna 18:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  36. Support for steward. 208.246.35.240 13:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ed Poor)
  37. Support Aurevilly 07:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) Even though not perfect, who is ? - Anthere is totally committed to the project, sprightly more than hasty ; besides, more responsabilities make people like her more cautious since she's got an actually balanced temper.
  38. Support Yggdras 19:20, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) Anthere tries to have consensus between people before making an opinion, especially in the case of Stuart Little.
  39. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  40. Support Phe 13:42, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. RickK 01:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I trust her, and support her, but she does misuse the powers she has, and on that basis, she need not be given more. We don't need all trusted users to have developer access, but only the ones who have not even stretched the trust previously. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 03:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    1. Comment : I asked privately to Cimon why he said I had abused sysop power. He answered I had not. I asked him to clarify his position on the matter here, which he somehow did here. ant
      1. Okay. Let me be explicit. I think Anthere exceded the authority given to mediators in the case between 168 and mav. I think she did it in the best of motivations, and no fault should befall her for it, but nevertheless, the readiness to unilaterally expand the role of mediator was, and is troubling. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 10:00, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        1. I understand this. I think this would not be a problem if arbitration committee had been doing what it was initially set for. I embraced the MC committee with the belief there would be an arbitration committee behind. I also embraced that specific mediation in telling 168 there would be possibility of arbitration behind. I was wrong. There is no arbitration behind. I just tried to settle the case the best I could, to the best of my ability and the best of my energy and beliefs. Anthere
  3. Oppose. Nice person but dubious judgements at times Philip Marlowe 05:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Gentgeen
  6. Oppose. —Eloquence 06:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Harsh and hasty behaviour at times. She also sometimes mistakeenly considers her opinions as consensus thinking Shaihulud vs Stuart Little. --R 13:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    1. I started a poll here to try to define whether the issue with Stuart was 1)a full collection of user conflict between SL and long-trusted users or 2)a community conflict. You are most welcome to add the opinion of a newcomer. Depending on the result of the poll, either we will have to fix conflicts between SL and a dozen of contributors, or to define a community answer to a bad user attack. The current only answer of SL to that poll was to move it to another page with a detrimental title. I hope you participate to the discussion. Anthere 11:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stuart Little' answer

It is not a poll but a call for lynch due to biaised questions and false informations. Here are listed her lacking of netiquette [fr]. The long-trusted users are users who agree with Anthere and Aioneko. The problematic user is the user who don't agree their behaviour. F.i. Aioneko intiated 3 calls for Lynch based on the mere fact he didn't understand frequent used words in social science. Aioneko acts often as he thought his own opinion must be be consensus opinion. By the mean of the long duration of their sysop mandate, Aioneko and Anthere are followed by a lot of people whithout any check of the origine of the conflict.

Another exemple : in the supposed poll, the whole set of defence item's were moved anywhere in order the people attending the votation cannot read them. Anthere acknowledged the questions were biaised but deny people should be under influence by the one-sided presentation.

She initiated her own destitution case in order to influence the french wikipedia users. See R's opinion.

Stuart Little 12:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(to move somewhere)
It's a fallacious interpretation. When I give argument against Stuart Little pov, I'm accused to want to impose mine, and when I ask wikipedians opinion in French's Village-pump, I'm accused to make a calls for Lynch. This user is problematic not because of his contributions (even if I sometime don't agree his pov), but because he makes nothing to try to pacify the multiple conflicts in which it is implied. A☮ineko 02:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stuart opinion : Opposition by User:Stuart Little. Comments move to User talk:Stuart Little. Oppose for abuses. All documentation on my user page, unfortunately in French, peculiarly on the way to build a troll. I'm going to give more documentation on such abuses and I will try to give it in English. So, it will take some time Stuart Little

    1. I consider this person a troll Anthere 17:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      1. I also think Stuart act frequently as a troll (at least on w:fr). A☮ineko 03:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        1. opinion poll about Stuart started by Anthere here.

Since Stuart insisted on this accusation of sysop abuse, a vote was hold ([Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Desysopage Anthere]). The results are

  • there is sysop abuse : 1
  • there is no sysop abuse : 26
  • absention to stay neutral in the Stuart conflict : 1
  • refuse to vote because the vote is said ridiculous : 2
  • refuse to vote by fear of resulting insults (by Stuart) : 1

Maveric149 (27/3)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: Tim Starling: Wikipedia's most active contributor, Maveric149 has done a tremendous amount of work for Wikipedia over the last two years. Mav is always cool and rational when dealing with a dispute, and works hard to find a compromise amenable to all parties. Respect for him in the community is universal. [note: Mav points out that I may be exaggerating slightly]
  2. Seconded: James F.
  3. Support given. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 00:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Angela
  5. Support. Anthere 02:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. BCorr ? Брайен 13:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support: Looxix 00:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. RickK 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Ugen64 22:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Arwel 23:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. The Anome 00:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. -- Infrogmation 22:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Sj
  15. Support. Davidcannon 13:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. Stewartadcock 21:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support -- Decumanus 08:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support, LouI 15:18, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  19. Support. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. Danny
  21. Dysprosia
  22. Support Kwekubo 22:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support Dori | Talk 06:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support Fantasy
  25. Support Patrick0Moran 17:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  26. Support. 12.46.6.70 23:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) unidentified user
  27. Support for steward. I trust mav's judgment MORE THAN my own. I trust him not to confuse "power" with "judgment". 208.246.35.240 13:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ed Poor)
  28. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, solely because Daniel is already an arbitrator. I do not think that judges should be also policemen.—Eloquence 04:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    So then current developers should not be arbitrators? And since when have developers been cops? Admins are cops too... Not that I want this position anyway (too many hats already). --mav
    I'm not an arbitrator, and developers are "cops" because the system which is in place here is not implemented yet, so only developers have the ability to enforce certain rules.—Eloquence 16:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    The AC only pertains to the English Wikipedia. I've already said that I will not do any steward actions on the English Wikipedia except in cases of emergency. --mav
    Under these conditions I withdraw my opposition.--Eloquence 21:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Maybe, per Erik's comment. Maybe a promise to step down, should this be an issue - affected candidates should state their agreement on talk Talk:Developer access#Arbitration conflict. -SV
  2. Oppose. Gentgeen 07:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Elian

Martin (21/7)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: UninvitedCompany
  2. Support, and echo the quizzicality expressed above regarding Wiks opposition to the Angela nomination. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 00:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Angela
  4. Support. Anthere 02:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Tomos 02:55, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. BCorr ? Брайен 13:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support -- Tim Starling 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support James F. (talk) 21:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. Ugen64 22:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Arwel 23:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. -- Infrogmation 22:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. DanKeshet 23:52, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Davidcannon 13:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support, able to avoid conflict of interest if anyone can, I trust his judgement implicitly Philip Marlowe 05:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support, LouI 15:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. Gentgeen
  18. Support. Danny
  19. Support. Elian
  20. Support for steward. 208.246.35.240 13:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ed Poor)
  21. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. --Wik 23:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. RickK 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, solely because Martin is already an arbitrator. I do not think that judges should be also policemen.—Eloquence 04:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support if Martin steps down from arbitration. -SV
  5. Oppose. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Martin is already a bit Ann-Robinsonish Muriel Gottrop 23:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, as he's busy being an arbitrator. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anome (2/6)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: UninvitedCompany
  2. Support. Danny
  1. Oppose -- Imran 00:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- Tim Starling 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Gentgeen
I believe that The Anome is worthy of more support than this, or failing that, the courtesy of some sort of rationale for the opposition votes. The consistently high quality and accuracy of his edits makes him an enormous asset to the project. True, he has not been involved much in Wikipolitics, but I see that as a strength rather than a weakness, in that it provides an element of balance.
For fair voting process, I don't think it is right to vote against people because of a belief that the "developer access" should be capped at three (or any other number). That should be decided as a separate matter, since if we are indeed limiting ourselves to a certain number, we should each choose to support no more than that many individuals. UninvitedCompany 21:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't believe there should be a specific limit to the number of developers.Davidcannon 13:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos (9/11)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: UninvitedCompany
  2. Support. Angela
  3. Support. BCorr ? Брайен 13:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Arwel 23:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. The Anome 00:05, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Davidcannon 13:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Stewartadcock 21:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Danny
  9. Support for steward. 208.246.35.240 13:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ed Poor)


  1. Oppose. --Wik 23:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not because of the conduct of Hephaestos but because there seems to be broad agreement about three and that seems initially to be sufficient to replace the single Tim who has been doing it, until, with some experience doing it, those three express a desire for more help. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I hardly love Hephaestos less than Anthere, but he too relies on that love, not too much, but enough to not invest more powers on him. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 04:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose -- Tim Starling 00:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - SV
  6. Oppose. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Don't like his unilateral banning tendencies. Secretlondon 22:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, see above. Philip Marlowe 05:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Alex S
  10. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Gentgeen

Fred Bauder (1/10)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: UninvitedCompany
  1. Oppose. --Wik 23:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- Tim Starling 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- Imran 00:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, solely because Fred is already an arbitrator. I do not think that judges should be also policemen.—Eloquence 04:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - sorry. Secretlondon 22:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, busy as an arbitrator. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Danny
  9. Oppose. Elian
  10. Oppose. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JohnOwens (3/6)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: UninvitedCompany
  2. Support. Anthere 21:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Davidcannon 13:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose -- Tim Starling 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- Imran 00:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Secretlondon 23:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Elian

Tarquin (11/4)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: UninvitedCompany
  2. Support. Anthere 02:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. BCorr ? Брайен 13:11, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Ugen64 22:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Davidcannon 13:43, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support - bilingual. Is he also an admin on fr? Secretlondon 23:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support Med 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Danny
  9. Support. Elian
  10. Support for steward. 208.246.35.240 13:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ed Poor)
  11. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose -- Tim Starling 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia (2/5)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by: BCorr ? Брайен
  2. Support Patrick0Moran 17:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose -- Imran 00:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- Tim Starling 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Jamesday 01:03, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sewing (1/4)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by Davidcannon. He has done more than anybody to make the articles about Korea a valuable internet resource. Davidcannon 13:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose -SV
  2. Oppose -- Tim Starling 01:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. I guess sewing is an admin on korean wiki? I am concerned that this will be "won" by english editors, as this is an english language forum. Secretlondon 23:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Morwen (8/4)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by Davidcannon. Morwen does more work on Wikipedia than just about anybody (unless you count the bots). I would like to nominate her for this position. As a professional computer programmer, Morwen would bring valuable skills to this position.
  2. Support. Ugen64 22:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support. Arwel 23:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. Alex S
  5. Support. 12.46.6.70 23:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) unidentified user
  6. Support. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Danny
  8. Support. Roozbeh 21:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Tim Starling 00:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -SV
  3. Oppose. Maximus Rex 11:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Gentgeen

Looxix (23/0)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by User:Anthere. Looxix is a french editor. He has been extremely active for some time now, and a very highly trusted admin. He has a very stable mood. Last fall, I suggested that he be given developer status, partly in the intent that he takes care of the kind of thing that this status will make possible. Looxix left wikipedia for about 3 months but is now back with us. He expressed this week that he was not willing yet to involve him as much as until last fall. If he does feel like it again, and if french wikipedia is ok with using this status, I would like that Shaihulud (developer) and Looxix share this responsability on fr. Anthere 15:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Tim Starling 00:02, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support -SV
  4. Support -- Beatnick 11:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support Davidcannon 13:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support -- Decumanus 08:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support – Angela
  8. Support. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support regardind Looxix whose job volume as bot is tremendous Stuart Little 15:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support -- Vincent Ramos 10:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support Jeffdelonge 14:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support Rob Hooft 21:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support Med 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Andre Engels 01:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. Danny
  16. Support Shaihulud
  17. Support Ryo
  18. Support Treanna
  19. Support Elian
  20. Support A☮ineko
  21. Support for Steward. Ed Poor 20:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  22. Support Aurevilly 07:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support Phe 13:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Shaihulud (8/5)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by User:Anthere. Shaihulud is a french editor. He currently has the status of a developer. I do not think he is actually doing any development. Anthere 15:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support.Davidcannon 13:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support Med 23:58, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support Looxix 19:11, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support. Ryo
  6. Support Treanna
  7. Support Elian
  8. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Stuart Little 15:34, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    1. Please, do not pay attention to Stuart Little comment Anthere 06:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      Please, do not pay attention to Anthere's preceding comment.R 13:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) ;-)
  2. Oppose, nothing personal, I supported Looxix that seems sufficient. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Gentgeen
  4. Oppose. I had nothing against him, but his handling of SL's accusations displays (in my opinion) a worrying unability to bear criticisms. R 13:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, but only because I think developer access needs to be kept separate from steward access. Angela 23:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikibooks:User:Karl Wick (12/1)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by Gentgeen. Karl is the glue that holds wikibooks together, and while the 'pedias are the largest part of the wikimedia world, the sister projects deserve some level of representation on the highest levels of the administration. Karl has been fair and polite while acting as an admin at wikibooks.
  2. Full support. --mav 08:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support – Angela
  4. Support (are non-admins allowed to vote?) - R3m0t 11:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support wholeheartedly. Davidcannon 11:37, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support without hesitation. LouI 15:16, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. Fruggo
  8. Support. Danny
  9. Strong support Theresa knott 12:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Dysprosia
  11. Support. Sister projects are among those that need steward support, and w'books is a sterling example. Sj 21:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor (4/7)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by mav. Ed is a highly-motivated and well-respected, if a bit controversial, user who always means well. He already has these powers since he is a developer, but he has not have had much time to contribute to server and software work. I can't recall any situation where Ed used his developer status in a way that was later overturned or even highly controversial. I therefore fully support Ed for Steward.
Thanks, mav, but if we have to choose between you and me -- well, you are unquestionably the better choice! --Ed Poor 12:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Support. Danny
  2. Support. Anthere 10:03, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support Looxix 19:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. I understand Ed isn't actually a developer - I'm also concerned that he is using his beaurocrat position as a status thing - including it in sigs etc. Secretlondon 22:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, good natured generally, but hotheaded and prone to dubious, off the cuff decisions. Philip Marlowe 05:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, too rash. Fabiform 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Same reasons as Eloquence, Anthere and Hephaestos. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 09:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Nothing personal, but I question his NPOV credentials. Now, I'm not saying that anybody fits the bill perfectly (that's probably impossible), but I do think somebody with the powers under discussion needs to be exceptionally objective and fair-minded.Davidcannon 13:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd say that Ed, for someone with his POV, is very good about keeping it somewhat under control (especially given the kind of "jokes" he gets on the mailing list and such, and the moral issues he must have with many things that many of us discuss pretty casually). Pakaran 15:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. (Ed has a good heart but reacts too fast sometimes)Elian
  2. Oppose (same reason as Elian). Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

André Engels(32/0)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by Rob Hooft. André is a Dutchman with sysop rights on the nl: and en: wikipedia's. He has been working on wikipedia since March 2001(!) at the time the English wikipedia had less than 1000 articles, and has since become one of the most international contributors to the project (check the top users in the statistics of the different languages to verify this), this fact in itself nominates him for this new task. André is emotionally very connected with the succes of the Wikipedia project. André can be found regularly (almost every day) on other communication media (mail, irc), and always helps out everyone that needs help. He is also an actively developing robot operator. In short: He has the "wiki spirit"!
  2. Support Walter
  3. Support GerardM
  4. Support. If I had 100 votes, I'd give them all to André Engels. As a user who takes a keen interest in the Esperanto Vikipedio, I can see that without André, it would be going nowhere. I think we need him at the hub. Davidcannon 10:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support Lennart
  6. Support Looxix 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. DarkHorse 08:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support Shaihulud
  9. Support Erik Zachte
  10. Support Ellywa 18:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Fabiform 12:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. Yekrats 14:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. Flyingbird 20:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support Deadstar 12:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support Anthere 14:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support Falcongj 16:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. Wilinckx 17:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. Fransvannes 08:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  19. Support. Andre is an experienced moderator on the dutch wiki who as far as I know has always acted politely, tactful and thoughtful. And he forgets to mention his passive knowledge of Afrikaans. TeunSpaans 18:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  20. Support. Fruggo
  21. Support. Amarant 22:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  22. Support. SanderSpek 13:10, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support. Bemoeial 20:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support. Jumping on the bandwagon. Just kidding! Andre Engels has the international nature of wikipedia on his heart, and in a good way. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 06:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support Dori | Talk 06:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  26. Support Elian
  27. Support. A☮ineko
  28. Support Unukorno
  29. Support. Angela 17:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  30. Support Roepers 13:33, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  31. Support. 212.238.218.165
  32. Support for steward. 208.246.35.240 13:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Ed Poor)
  33. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arno Lagrange (14/1)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by David Cannon. Arno is a French Wikipedian, who is also one of the pillars of the Esperanto Vikipedio. In addition to French and Esperanto, he is fluent in English, Spanish, Italian, German, and a number of other languages. His dedication to the Wikipedia project, together with his command of multiple languages, would make him an ideal person to put at the "hub" of the system, and I would like to nominate him for developer access. Davidcannon 23:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support Rob Hooft 05:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support Treanna
  4. Support Shaihulud
  5. Support Yekrats 14:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support Looxix 20:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support Unukorno 22:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support Kwekubo 22:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  9. Support Andre Engels 09:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support Med 18:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support Angela 23:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. A☮ineko
  13. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Marcos 02:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, nothing personal, I'm supporting five and opposing everyone else. Fabiform 12:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fantasy (13/0)

[edit]
  1. Nominated by Elian. Fantasy is active in the english, german and italian wikipedia and speaks at least these three languages fluent (about others I don't know). He cares a lot for contacts between the wikis, is a friendly and calm guy and good in resolving conflicts. I have full trust that he will not abuse developer power. --Elian 00:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Yes of course ! Anthere
  3. Support. The more multilingual developers who are as levelheaded and as committed to the Wikipedia project as Fantasy is, the better. Davidcannon 03:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support Fantasy. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 06:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support Dori | Talk 06:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Strongly Supported Sansculotte 23:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Definitely support. BCorr|Брайен 22:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. A☮ineko
  9. Support. Unukorno
  10. Support. Looxix 15:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support. Zenogantner
  12. Support. Tillwe 19:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support. Heizer 14:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just a short comment: Last year I started to develop Mediawiki a little bit to help Brion and his boys (and girls?) improving Wikipedias Backbone. But after some time I realised, that there was no time left for Wikipedias community. I love to help people, to find ways to solve conflicts, to organise real meetings of wikipedians, short: to help people whereever I can. Therefore i stopped my programming-efforts and put my full time now in the Wikipedia-community.
If you think I could help the community by being this new kind of developer/steward/... I will try to give my best :-) Fantasy 10:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perl

[edit]

Not a nomination, just a clarification: Perl told me he don't want to be nominated "developer access"; the entry formerly found here was an attempt by a troll, probably aiming at collecting negative votes on Perl. I write this here, because people often don't check the history (I often do not), and so this might prevent others to fall into a trap. -- Tillwe 21:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naturally. The nomination was added by Perl himself (See [2]). Now, if Perl is indeed a troll, perhaps we should block him :-)
So, read this discussion. -- Tillwe 17:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alex did nominate himself but later withdrew it. The most recent nomination of him on this page was by the troll. Angela 19:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't nominate myself for anything. I was told that this was the page to request stewardship which (in my impression) just meant that you can create admins on foreign language wikipedias that don't already have them. Perl 20:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
After I was told on IRC that stewardship was the same as developer access, I removed it because i didn't want that access, I only wanted the ability to create new admins on wikipedias without any. Perl 20:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

-> Talk:Developer access

Stewards created

[edit]

-> Stewards

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/elections_2004&oldid=5738501"