Jump to content

Stewards/Elections 2021/Votes/AmandaNP

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards | Elections 2021
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) at 05:19, 25 February 2021 (Voted yes). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Warning

The 2021 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

AmandaNP

ContentsYes • No • Neutral
  • Languages: en-N, fr-4, es-1
  • Personal info: (English)
    I am AmandaNP (formerly DeltaQuad). I have been an Ombudsperson for the past 2 years - which I am stepping down from - and have been a CheckUser since 2012 and an oversighter since 2014 on the English Wikipedia. I became a bureaucrat in spring 2019. I also served on the Arbitration Committee for 4 years. I also develop for UTRS and w:WP:ACC which are becoming global projects. Most of my work over the past year has been related to blocking lock evading sockpuppets and then having to notify a steward to lock them. I also have engaged in crosswiki help for checkusers to help determine results. Beyond that, I have handled the English Wikipedia IPBE queue, which receives a lot of requests passed on by stewards. Lastly, I have been actively engaged in helping stewards form proxy blocks and remove the ones that are incorrectly blocked. So most of my work as a steward (if elected) would be CheckUser, Oversight, IP Block exemptions (and other permission requests), global locks and blocks. While I understand some may be concerned by my lack of crosswiki activity, I've been dealing with many smaller communities for the past 2 years on the Ombuds Commission. I hope that my work can help translate into the steward role. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2021/Questions#AmandaNP


Yes

  1. Rschen7754 (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Admittedly I have my reservations (as hinted at in the questions) but on balance I think they have enough experience (both collaborative and in different roles) to where I think they will be a positive for the steward team. Rschen7754 13:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaderboard (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Very capable steward candidate, and this is backed up with the answers to the questions, including the ones set for all candidates and the ones I set specifically for her. The relative lack of crosswiki experience can be easily made up in this case, and hence she gets my vote. Leaderboard (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tks4Fish (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Definitely yes. Amanda is going to be a great asset to the team. Even if she doesn't have that much crosswiki contributions, she is always helping us with crosswiki abusers and LTAs. She's a very experienced checkuser which is a great help for us, plus a great developer, having developed UTRS and being part of ACC. She has my full trust and support. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TonyBallioni (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blablubbs (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Blablubbs (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Miraclepine (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Long overdue, so sure, why not? And also, the IAR incident was more of a one-off thing. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -akko (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  (｀・ω・´) (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Zblace (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Zblace (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RadiX (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  Although I tend to agree with Herbythyme when it comes to cross-wiki experience, I think she will still be a net positive if we take in consideration her overall experience with LTA and mostly known abusers. She is also very useful is sensitive checkuser issues. RadiX∞ 14:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Martin Urbanec (Eligible, checked by Blablubbs)2021 •  I trust Amanda will be a net positive to the steward team, and I'll be happy for having her on the team. She's a functionary and requests steward attention regularly, and I don't see a reason to oppose. Good luck, Amanda. Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Savh (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  Seemingly competent, experienced with some steward-related duties. Savhñ 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Praxidicae (Eligible, checked by Blablubbs)2021 •  Absolutely no concerns, Amanda is highly experienced in the technical aspects of stewardry (holding CU, crat, arb, ombuds on their homewiki) and that is more than enough for me. Amanda is also a great communicator and I think we would be lucky to have her! Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ajraddatz (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  I would prefer to see more xwiki experience, but the candidate is a competent user who will be able to figure out the role and not mess anything up. Experience with the OC is a plus. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Stryn (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Stryn (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. LuchoCR (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  LuchoCR (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. CptViraj (Eligible, checked by Blablubbs)2021 •  CptViraj (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sotiale (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Sotiale (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Natuur12 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Candidate is competent and the answers to the questions are satisfying. Natuur12 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Dylsss (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Dylsss (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. User456541 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  –User456541 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. ElHef (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Barkeep49 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Trijnstel (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Competent and will probably be a fine steward. Trijnsteltalk 16:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Galahad (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Very capable. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 16:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Miniapolis (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Qualified candidate; no concerns. Miniapolis 16:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Giraffer (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Giraffer (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Vermont (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Low direct cross-wiki activity, but an immense amount of experience with global issues, especially from their time on the OC. I have no doubt Amanda would be a great steward. Vermont (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. DannyS712 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Can be trusted with the tools, would be a positive addition. Also per experience with CU and OC. LGTM DannyS712 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Superpes15 (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Superpes15 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. GeneralNotability (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Absolutely, capable and trustworthy. I agree that Amanda isn't the most active xwiki, but I believe her experience as an Ombud will be a great contribution to the steward team. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Kizule (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Kizule (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. SQL (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  SQLQuery me! 16:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Majavah (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Majavah (talk!) 16:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Aranya (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Aranya (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Vit Koz (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Vit; talk 17:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. M-Mustapha (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Em-mustapha User | talk 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Kb03 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I've had nothing but positive interactions, would serve the Wikimedia community well as a steward. Kb03 (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 1989 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  For sure. 1989 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Susann Schweden (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Susann Schweden (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Racconish (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 • . — Racconish 💬 18:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. CAPTAIN RAJU (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. L235 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  KevinL (aka L235 · t) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Mz7 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Mz7 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. BrunoBoehmler (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  BrunoBoehmler (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Perryprog (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Perryprog (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Kusurija (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Kusurija (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. P,TO 19104 (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Lots of expirence at enwiki. P,TO 19104 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. ToBeFree (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Legoktm (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Legoktm (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. History DMZ (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Amanda's diverse portfolio makes for a candidate especially suitable for stewardship. History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Stwalkerster (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  stwalkerster (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. DrTrumpet (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Enough Experience to collect more experience DrTrumpet (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Leijurv (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Leijurv (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. The Earwig (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I trust her. I think the reaction to the recent IAR action, while based in a reasonable fear of IAR being used inappropriately, is overblown given what happened. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. David Wadie Fisher-Freberg (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Ombuds experience is an asset. dwf² ✉ 01:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. JavaHurricane (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 • Sysop and bureaucrat, former arb at enwiki, has been on Ombuds also. Crosswiki contribs could have been better, but those are not really concerning to me. The IAR fear is rather overblown I think. JavaHurricane 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Mirisa56 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Mirisa56 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Elliot321 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  No concerns for me, they've been helpful at enwiki. Elliot321 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Krinkle (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Krinkle (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60. 游魂 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Yo Yan 06:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Meiræ (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  per Tks4Fish and RadiX. Limited cross-wiki experience is a downside, but in all other aspects it's almost a perfect candidate. Meiræ 06:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. AfroThundr3007730 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 07:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Mtarch11 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Mtarch11 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Jack Frost (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Jack Frost (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Cyfraw (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2021 •  cyrfaw (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Lt2818 (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2021 •  Lt2818 (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Wagino 20100516 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Asartea (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2021 •  Asartea Talk (Enwiki Talk (preferred)) 13:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Aca (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Aca (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Joseywales1961 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Girth Summit (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Long-time trusted contributor GirthSummit (blether) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. นคเรศ (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Nakaret (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Doug Weller (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  I've known Amanda for quite a while and served on the English ArbCom with her. I'm sure she'll do an excellent job. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Michel Bakni (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Michel Bakni (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. باسم (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  باسم (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Hasley (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Sgd. —Hasley 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Imetsia (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Imetsia (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 1ForTheMoney (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I also consider the IAR matter to be overblown. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  79. SoWhy (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  SoWhy 19:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Betseg (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Betseg (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Woody (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Woody (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Waggie (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Clearly qualified to use the tools and has the long-term trust of the community. Waggie (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Comte0 (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Comte0 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Patrik L. (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Patrik L. (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Sakretsu (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Sakretsu (炸裂) 22:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Dostojewskij (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Dostojewskij (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Spicy (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Spicy (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Krzysiek 123456789 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Krzysiek 123456789 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Wiwik P (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Wiwik P (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Fastily (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  FASTILY 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Blue Sonic (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Blue Sonic (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Esteban16 (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Esteban16 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Maynich (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Maynich (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Enjoyer of World (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Enjoyer of World (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Mirer (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Mirer (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  96. MJL (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  AmandaNP is pretty trustworthy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Cryberghost (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  He/she had a global experience as an ombudsman. Also active on home-wiki. --👻Cryberghost 06:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  98. TSK201911 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  TSK201911 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Kocgs (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Kocgs (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  100. MarioJump83 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  MarioJump83! 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  101. ItsPugle (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2021 •  ItsPugle (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Gripweed (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 • --Gripweed (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Firestar464 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Amanda knows the ropes. Why not elect her? Firestar464 (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  After much consideration, I have decided to support. I think they will be an asset to the community. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  105. NickK (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  AmandaNP is very qualified, has relevant experience, and while the cross-wiki experience could be better, I think she would be a good addition to the steward team. I see mentions of an enwiki IAR conflict but I don't see it as a huge issue — NickK (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Diannaa (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Tucoxn (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2021 •  - tucoxn\talk 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Daniuu (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Daniuu (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Meneerke bloem (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  110. John M Wolfson (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  John M Wolfson (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  111. SK2242 (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2021 •  experienced and knowledgeable. SK2242 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  112. NANöR (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  NANöR (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Packa (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Packa (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Jusjih (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Jusjih (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Impartial just (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Impartial just (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  116. جار الله (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  جار الله (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Carlotm (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2021 •  Carlotm (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Roller26 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Roller26 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Jni (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  jni (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Stigfinnare (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Stigfinnare (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Whiteguru (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Competent and will likely to be a fine steward Whiteguru (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Nosebagbear (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Minor negatives seem outweighed by significant positives Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Ammarpad (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  – Ammarpad (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Kudpung (Eligible, checked by Perryprog)2021 •  Kudpung (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  125. PoetVeches (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  PoetVeches (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dreamy Jazz (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 13:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Veracious (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Veracious (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Feroze Ahmad 2 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Feroze Ahmad 2 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  128. 94rain (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  94rain Talk 16:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Hiàn (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Hiàn (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Klaas van Buiten (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •   Klaas `Z4␟` V:  21:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Iluvatar (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Iluvatar (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Awesome Aasim (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Trusted Admin. Aasim 01:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Coffeeandcrumbs (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Sashatrk (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Sashatrk (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Cbyd (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Cbyd (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  136. L293D (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       Kamilalibhat (Not eligible, checked by Uncitoyen) • . Kamilalibhat (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  137. موسى (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  MUSA (talk) موسى (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Chz (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Chz (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Centaur271188 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Centaur271188 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  140. InsaneHacker (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  My guiding principle for granting user rights is whether the user needs the tools, and whether they can be trusted with them. I believe both points are fulfilled here. I don't consider the bureaucrat incident a sufficient indication to the contrary. InsaneHacker (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Eatcha (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Eatcha (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Wim b (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Wim b 19:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  143. ArdiPras95 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  ArdiPras95 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  144. MusikAnimal (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  I have worked with AmandaNP closely in the past and can attest to her fine judgement. She has extensive experience in administrative roles dating back nearly a decade or more. I am thrilled to see her candidacy here and I think she would bring a lot to the team. — MusikAnimal talk 22:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  145. KPX8 (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  KPX8 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Johannes Maximilian (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Alexdoherty4 (Eligible, checked by 94rain)2021 •  Alexdoherty4 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Yahya (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 07:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Nightfury (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Nightfury (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Ahmad.aea.99 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Ahmad.aea.99 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  151. 20041027 tatsu (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  20041027 tatsu (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Vituzzu (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Vituzzu (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Juan90264 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Juan90264 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  154. علاء (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Will be a great addition to the steward team --Alaa :)..! 17:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Britishfinance (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Britishfinance (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Filipović Zoran (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Filipović Zoran (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Zezen (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  A competent candidate: the recent resysop incident seems minor. Zezen (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  158. CanadianToast (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  CanadianToast (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Nehaoua (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Nehaoua (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  160. DENAMAX (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  DENAMAX (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Pharaoh of the Wizards (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Cairo2k18 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Hosseinronaghi (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Hossein (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Ponor (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Ponor (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Gobonobo (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  gobonobo + c 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Opsylac (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Opsylac (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Érico (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Cross-wiki experience is far from perfect, but the length experience as editor and diversity are decisive to me. Érico (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  168. FeydHuxtable (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Alfie (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Absolutely. -- Thanks, Alfie. enwiki 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Bff (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Bff (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Mykola7 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mykola7 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  172. EVinente (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  EVinente (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  173. AntiCompositeNumber (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Dorian Gray Wild (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Good luck! Dgw (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  175. JJMC89 (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Absolutely — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Ddxfx (Eligible, checked by -akko)2021 •  — Ddxfx 09:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Moheen (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  No concerns for me. ~Moheen (keep talking) 10:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Chicdat (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  No issues - why not? Chicdat (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Jon Harald Søby (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Tomasz Bladyniec (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  <optional comments>. Tomasz Bladyniec (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Anarchyte (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Fanchb29 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Fanchb29 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Maestro Ivanković (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Maestro Ivanković 17:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Cybularny (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  ~Cybularny Speak? 20:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Luizpuodzius (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  no concerns! Dr. LooLets talk about it 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Luensu1959 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I am in favor! Luensu1959 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  187. DraconicDark (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  DraconicDark (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Bilorv (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  An extraordinarily talented and accomplished candidate. The excessive focus on a recent action distracts from the long-time excellent behaviour of the user; even if we were to accept the premise that the action is mistaken then we need evidence that it is part of a long-term pattern or some larger behavioural issue, as you can't edit for over a decade without some bad actions. — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  189. MZaplotnik (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  MZaplotnik(talk) 00:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Elizium23 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Sj (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Quadruple yes. –SJ talk  03:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  192. JN Dela Cruz (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  JN Dela Cruz (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Sergey Tsvigun (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Sergey Tsvigun (talk) Having a vast experience on serving at Wikipedia in different roles, she is able to perform steward duties effectively. 11:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Юрко Градовський (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Юрко Градовський (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Hadrianus (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Hadrianus (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Bencemac (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Bencemac (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Jmbranum (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Jmbranum (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Paradise Chronicle (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Support, experienced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Zabia (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Zabia (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  200. DarwIn (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  - Darwin Ahoy! 15:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Mfb (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  mfb (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  202. فيصل (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Faisal talk 05:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Nawaraj Ghimire (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Competent and capable Nawaraj Ghimire (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Malikaveedu (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Malikaveedu (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Saroj Uprety (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Saroj Uprety (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  206. chansey (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  I think AmandaNP is enough experienced for being a steward according to his/her contributions. Yes. chansey message? 13:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Teles (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  A falta de atividade cross-wiki é de fato algo que fala contra a escolha, mas a candidata possui conhecimento e prática sólidos em áreas diretamente ligadas ao trabalho dos Stewards e acho que isso deve pesar mais. —Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 14:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Geraki (Eligible, checked by Hasley)2021 •  Geraki TL 19:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Shizhao (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Shizhao (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  210. JamesLucas (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  JamesLucas (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  211. DePlusJean (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Personally, in view of his comments and his counters (Wikiscan and Xtools), Amanda has the skills with stewards. Good luck. DePlusJean (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Eraevsky (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Eraevsky (обс.) 13:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  213. LuK3 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  214. CaptainEek (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Extremely capable. I do not worry about having too many roles, I would worry more about someone with less roles and less experience. Has she made some mistakes? Yes, and we all have. None of them are disqualifying and her positives far outweigh any issues. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       Storkk (Not eligible, checked by Jianhui67) •  Storkk (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Tolly4bolly (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  T4B (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  216. DutchDevil (Eligible, checked by Xaosflux)2021 •  (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Gereon K. (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Gereon K. (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  218. GrandCelinien (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  GrandCelinien (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Jules* (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  — Jules Talk 10:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Rzuwig (Eligible, checked by Hasley)2021 •  Rzuwig► 11:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Ed6767 (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Ed6767 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Darkhan (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Darkhan 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Cwmhiraeth (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  224. SMcCandlish (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  225. David Fuchs (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Impressed with Amanda's efforts all times I have crossed paths with them. David Fuchs (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Ssstela (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Ssstela (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  227. *Youngjin (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  *Youngjin (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  228. CommanderWaterford (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Octahedron80 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Octahedron80 (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Rashid Jorvee (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Rashid Jorvee (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Tiputini (Eligible, checked by Xaosflux)2021 •  Tiputini (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       MdsShakil (Not eligible, checked by Fitindia) • 
  232. The Anome (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  A well respected and very capable Wikipedian, recommended without reservations The Anome (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  233. AVSmalnad77 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  --AVSmalnad77 talk 15:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Steindy (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  --Steindy (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Jessamyn (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Jessamyn (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Arccosecant (Eligible, checked by -akko)2021 •  — csc-1 23:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  237. NK1406 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  NK1406 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bestoernesto (Verification pending) •  Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC) --Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Suvray (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Suvray (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Santasa99 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Amanda would be only lady in this role at this time! s a n t a | t a l k | p i t 13:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  240. JLavigne508 (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  <always need to go back and clean things constantly>. JLavigne508 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Seewolf (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Harald Krichel (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Davey2010 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  In regards to the Ivan situation - Everyone makes mistakes no one's perfect. Excellent admin on EN and would without a doubt make a great Steward here, –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Andrew nyr (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  244. User3749 (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  User3749 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Ameisenigel (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Ameisenigel (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Amorymeltzer (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  The enwiki resysop thing is absolutely nothing issue. I do understand concerns about the lack of traditional x-wiki experience, but Amanda clearly has experience working with and understanding crosswiki communities. It's not what we usually see for stewards, but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. She has extensive experience at nearly every level, and is always thoughtful and considered. No concerns at all. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Coffins (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  Coffins (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Dash77 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  Dash77 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  249. WikiAviator (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  WikiAviator (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Guerillero (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       VKG1985 (Not eligible, checked by ZabeMath) •  VKG1985 (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  251. OlEnglish (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  OlEnglish (Talk) 13:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Mbrickn (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Mbrickn (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Cabayi (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  254. LilyKitty (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  LilyKitty (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Serial Number 54129 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Go for it. ——SerialNumber54129 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Mrschimpf (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mrschimpf (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  257. သူထွန်း (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  သူထွန်း (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  258. QuiteUnusual (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Nobody is perfect, AmandaNP though is good enough and will be a valuable addition to the team. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  259. ZI Jony (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Beyond My Ken (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Bradv (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  – bradv🍁 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  262. கி.மூர்த்தி (Verification pending) •  கி.மூர்த்தி (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Robert McClenon (Verification pending) •  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. Herbythyme (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Inadequate cross wiki experience for a cross wiki role Herby talk thyme 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Naleksuh (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Well, someone had to mention it. AmandaNP recently resysopped a user in violation of policy, ignoring local policies. That is concerning enough on its own-- if a user cannot even follow policies on their home wiki for strict crat work, how can they be trusted to when venturing onto other wikis as a steward? But I could have ignored this, had it been handled properly. Humans make mistakes. But your response to it in questions seems like you don't even think it is a problem. And that is bad. Naleksuh (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ImprovedWikiImprovment (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  There is no denying that Amanda has the knowledge and expertise to act well as a steward, but their cross-wiki activity is not enough for me. I don't believe their work as an ombudsperson or OTRS helper is enough for me to support someone being elected to a global role. A steward should be at least somewhat experienced in editing a variety of wikis, even ones where they don't speak the language. If they became more active, I would happily support them next year. --IWI (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MF-Warburg (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Seems capable, but low cross-wiki experience gives me pause. MF-W 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Sorry – you obviously mean well, but you have been too error-prone. As well as judgement and care, reliable availability is obviously a problem too. I do appreciate and thank you for the work you're doing in existing roles. AGK ■ 14:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nguyentrongphu (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Using IAR as an excuse for going against policy (in non-emergency situation) is a recipe for disaster. I can't trust this user to be a good steward (who has to follow policy strictly) with this incident. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dolotta (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Knowledgeable person, but the IAR incident is too recent for me to ignore. Dolotta (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pppery (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  * Pppery * it has begun 17:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Samuele2002 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Insufficient cross-wiki experience Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gamaliel (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Per Naleksuh and AGK. Gamaliel (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nurtenge (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Insufficient work experience Nurtenge (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. KPFC (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Relatively low cross-wiki experience and the recent resysop incidence. KPFC 💬 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Johannnes89 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  not enough cross-wiki experience Johannnes89 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. OhKayeSierra (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. O.Koslowski (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2021 •  O.Koslowski (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sun8908 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Sun8908 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Lepricavark (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  per resysop incident. Lepricavark (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Beaneater00 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  "Ombudsperson" Beaneater00 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beaneater00: Could you please elaborate on the issue with the term "Ombudsperson"? Praxidicae (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: Frankly I find that the term is ridiculous. The applicant is female; she could have said 'ombudswoman'. I don't think that this should disqualify her but the election is already in her favor and so I wanted to use my vote to make a point. Beaneater00 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ElectCom member comment: Extended discussion around this topic has been moved to Talk:Stewards/Elections 2021/Votes/AmandaNP#Discussion for Beaneater00's comment. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 01:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Atcovi (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  insufficient cross-wiki experience —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. SPQRobin (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  SPQRobin (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RandomCanadian (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Don't like bringing personal issues into this, but mistakenly blocking someone while (mis-?)using CU tools makes it hard for me to support this user with even more advanced permissions. Experience is clearly there, but errors such as my case and other incidents reported above are not what you would expect. RandomCanadian (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Carsrac (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  There is more then the EN wikipedia and all answers are, but on EN we do it this way. So it is a very strong NO vote. Carsrac (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Moneytrees (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I'm truly sorry, but per AGK, Lepricavark, and RandomCanadian. I don't like the implications of this unblock and this interaction. Moneytrees (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the interaction, so? It was terse, perhaps, but "I don't want to weigh in" is a fine stance to take, especially given ArbCom unblocked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't come off to me as "I don't want to weigh in". That's all I say. Moneytrees (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Smallbones (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Too many mistakes. Aloof, unfriendly attitude, Has simply ignored established policy while on ArbCom, simp[y because she didn't like it. Smallbones (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sdrqaz (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  I am unfortunately concerned by the resysop incident. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ProcrastinatingReader (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Partially resysop incident concerns and too many roles imo. But mainly I don’t really see any need here. The evidence of crosswikiness via work on the Ombuds commission is unconvincing. The OC is backlogged and closes like 4 cases per year iirc, and seems to be so inactive that they forget to fill out the activity reports half the time and AGK had to do it retrospectively for past terms. On the talk page an Ombud said that just one person does all the work gathering evidence on a particular case. So not really convinced that being on OC evidences anything, much less a transition to the steward role. Not in oppose solely because I have no concerns with Amanda’s overall competence and I think she has good communication skills which is important, but I still don’t see much prior evidence of capacity to be an effective steward, and I imagine that this request would be a snowing no if it were someone with less positions on enwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctantly moving to no. On reflection and mostly per AGK and Moneytrees, and because I think the support mostly rests on credentialism rather than the normal requirements/experience leading up to the steward role, and hence may lead to mistakes as a steward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. AFBorchert (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  I would like to see more cross-wiki experience. AFBorchert (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Draceane (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  per AGK and Camouflaged Mirage — Draceane talkcontrib. 11:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Willbb234 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Recent resysoping incident is concerning. Also per AGK. Willbb234 (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mahedi181 (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Insufficient work experience! Mahedi Hasan (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Taivo (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  You have no crosswiki activity. If we take these wikis, which need other languages than English, then you have made 13 edits in French and ... the rest wikis have less than 5 edits. You are not ready to work in multilanguage environment. Taivo (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Zindor (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Re-sysop incident concerns me Zindor (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Ottawahitech (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Seems like a hat-collector to me? but I guess I'll be able to change my mind? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Levivich (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Per the other 'no' votes. Trust and experience aren't the issue for me here, it's too many roles, too many mistakes in those roles (not just the recent IAR resysop, and probably likely due to having too many roles and thus having attention diluted), not enough cross-wiki experience. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Ankry (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Ankry (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Roland Kutzki (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 • --Roland Kutzki (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. BrxBrx (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Relatively low cross-wiki activity is concerning to me. Certainly trust and experience is very good with this user, but stewardship doesn't seem to be a necessary tool for this user. BrxBrx (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Bestoernesto (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Superyetkin (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Recent resysoping incident makes me think AmandaNP would not be the ideal candidate for stewardship. --Superyetkin (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Nsk92 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Primarily per Levivich. For a Steward, having more substantive cross-wiki experience is essential. However, the recent Ivanvector episode leaves the distinct impression that the candidate is overextended already. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129 (Verification pending) •  Over-extended supply lines are the ruin of many a great campaign: per AGK and Levivich, with particular reference to the recent IAR desysop, which is precisely the opposite to the behavoir we want in stewards. ——SerialNumber54129 16:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I absolutely respect your vote, just wanted to make it clear that it was a resysop and not desysop. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. SD0001 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  The resysop of Ivanvector isn't as concerning as the closure of Greenman's RFA a year back which surprisingly no one has commented about. Amanda opined strongly against extending the RFA on the talk page, then closed the RFA herself quickly thereafter, surprising at least two fellow bureaucrats who felt this action was improper. See discussion at en:User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2019#Just_curious. SD0001 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  2. Uncitoyen (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  He/she had a global experience as an ombudsman. Also active on home-wiki. However, there isn't enough cross-wiki contribution. Although his/her answers are a little sufficient to me, they aren't enough to give support. --Uncitoyentalk 15:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Minorax (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Minorax (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Camouflaged Mirage (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Overall competent candidate, functionary on enwp. Experienced as an OC member. However, I wish they have a little more crosswiki experience and the IAR is way too soon. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xaosflux (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Parking for now, need to read in to this more. — xaosflux Talk 23:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Super Wang (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Interesting candidate and cheerful promise, but I choose to be conservative for now. Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 03:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Darkfrog24 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 痛心疾首 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  痛心疾首 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mirinano (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  mirinano (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Geonuch (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Geonuch (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Florian COLLIN (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Florian COLLIN (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ahmetlii (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  I wish to remain as an abstainer for now. Ahmetlii (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
       Toad62 (Not eligible, checked by Uncitoyen) •  My only complaint is AmandaNP doesn't have much cross-wiki experience. However, they do seem to have potential to become a steward. Toad62 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Csisc (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Csisc (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Gampe (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Gampe (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dreamy Jazz (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Moved to neutral per the comment made by Moneytrees Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 22:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mercy (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mercy (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jasper Deng (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  I really admire Amanda's great dedication to CheckUser duties on the English Wikipedia, but would like to see more cross-wiki activity (being on ombuds is a great plus, but there's more to cross-wiki anti-abuse activities than I think they've had experience with) Jasper Deng (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2021/Votes/AmandaNP&oldid=21149796"