Stewards/Elections 2021/Votes/Klein Muçi

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

Klein Muçi

ContentsYes • No • Neutral

Klein Muçi talk • contribs • accounts (stalktoy) • globalcontribs • confirm eligibility  — Translate: translation help, statement, template

• Languages: sq-N, en-N, it-3
• Personal info: (English)
  Hello, I'm Klein Muçi! I'm an administrator and interface administrator on SqWiki and SqQuote. I've been a member of the wiki community for around 8 years now and gradually I've levitated towards the technical side of the project. Given that the Albanian wiki community is a small one and the tech-savvy community is even smaller, I tend to look after everything tech-related including extensions, tools, modules, bots (I have an approved ToolForge account), system messages, edit filters and interface changes in regard to projects standardization and new-user friendly optimization. I do enjoy taking part in global discussions and I've been part of some of those on here (Meta) regarding auto-translations for system messages, talk page infrastructure, Abstract Wikipedia/Wikilambda and most importantly the support of module/template globalization. I spend much time with citations infrastructure myself (most of my interactions with the EnWiki community are in regard to that concept and the responsible module, CS1) so M/T globalization is a project I'm much fond of because of that. In the Albanian community, I've been part of many physical wiki workshops and edit-a-thones where I offered technical support on different wiki subjects, starting from basic wikiediting to concepts related to Wikidata. Now I'm eager to interact in a bigger scale regarding standardization projects and to generally learn more about other wiki communities. I can interact in English (and of course in Albanian) in a native level. I also know Italian in a decent manner. This is my first time submitting myself as a Steward candidate so the overall text template might appear strange to the eyes of more veteran users here as I'm not yet familiar with the procedures or technical templates for that. (I would greatly appreciate some help.) If elected, I'd use the opportunity to learn more about the global wiki community and hopefully help small wikis (preferably Wikipedia's sister projects) to catch up with bigger ones on technical aspects and crystallize their active wiki communities better. Hopefully even my community (Albanian) indirectly by encouraging them to be more active on global discussions (even though we're a small wiki) given that they would have users who would be in the positions of Stewards. Trying to help in making the global language-barrier thinner on a technical aspect is also a sort of resolution (hence the support for module/template globalization). Of course I'd also volunteer on helping on general Stewards' duties when possible. - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2021/Questions#Klein Muçi

English: You are not eligible to vote. More information

Yes

1. Leaderboard (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  You are one of the four candidates in this election that I've never seen before (and never had GR/GS), and your statement is tricky to understand, which I won't take against you. What led me to support you is that you are clearly clueful in your answers despite this lack of crosswiki experience. This is demostrated especially in your two answers to the questions I set for you. Your handling of the second question (the "bizarre situations" questions), while a bit unorthodox in your answer (as the only user to take a literally-minded approach towards the problem), was insightful and demostrated a good understanding on how to handle a complex situation. Hence you're getting my vote, despite the imperfections. Leaderboard (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Natuur12 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  On the one hand the user lacks some cross wiki experience. On the other hand, this user is definitely capable and has good technical skills. And we need more candidates that have small-wiki roots and speak more language's than just English. The positives outweigh the lack of experience. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
3. David Wadie Fisher-Freberg (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  For a more diverse stewardship. dwf² ✉ 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Elliot321 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  I'd have no concerns about the user becoming a steward, given their experience and answers. Elliot321 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Wiwik P (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Wiwik P (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
6. Esc0fans (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2021 •  Esc0fans (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
7. NickK (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Albanian community has a good reputation in the CEE from the technical point of view, and Klein Muçi seems to be among the most experienced people from the community. I think the experience is relevant, and the qualification is sufficient — NickK (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Daniuu (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Agree with Natuur12. Daniuu (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
9. Arianit (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  I have seen Klein's passion and dedication at helping the Albanian language Wikipedia and other projects. I'm convinced Klein can be an asset to the broader community. He has my full support. Arianit (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
10. Whiteguru (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  On the one hand the user lacks some cross wiki experience. On the other hand, this user is definitely capable and has good technical skills - worth giving them the experience Whiteguru (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
11. Liridon (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Agree with above supporters Liridon (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

       Puntori (Not eligible, checked by ZabeMath) •  Agree with all supporters! The rest of the experience is coming with the time and engagement. Puntori (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

12. Ahmetlii (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  although the user's crosswiki knowledge is not so much as pointed before, I think that they deserve a chance for it. I also think that they're familiar with what should they handle the difficult and different problems. Ahmetlii (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
13. Chz (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  why not Chz (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
14. Abbas dhothar (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Abbas dhothar (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

       Cosnahang (Not eligible, checked by ZabeMath) •  Cosnahang (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

15. ArdiPras95 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  ArdiPras95 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
16. Alexdoherty4 (Eligible, checked by 94rain)2021 •  Alexdoherty4 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
17. Ahmad.aea.99 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Ahmad.aea.99 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
18. Zezen (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mostly due to the reason stated in the discussion below (in the No votes). Zezen (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
19. Fernando de Gorocica (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Fernando de Gorocica (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
20. Carsrac (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Carsrac (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
21. Ponor (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Because of Klein's enthusiasm. Not every steward needs to come from a steward bubble; some fresh (and small-wiki) blood would be good to have. Ponor (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
22. Csisc (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Csisc (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
23. Jü (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  --Jü (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
24. M.Tarnowski (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  M.Tarnowski (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
25. Luensu1959 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I strongly support people from small Wikis Luensu1959 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
26. MZaplotnik (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  MZaplotnik^(talk) 00:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
27. Юрко Градовський (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Юрко Градовський (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
28. Jmbranum (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  I support this candidacy largely because of the candidate's experience on a smaller wiki, which I think will be helpful.Jmbranum (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
29. Teles (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Pelo dito por LeaderBoard. Não conhecia seu trabalho, mas gostei das respostas e acho que poderia começar devagar e ser ajudado pelos demais no início. Caso não seja eleito, espero vê-lo no próximo ano por aqui. —Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
30. Majavah (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Per Ponor and my experience with working with Klein before. Majavah (talk!) 06:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
31. Gereon K. (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Gereon K. (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
32. Mattia Luigi Nappi (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  sNappy_ML 22:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
33. Octahedron80 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Octahedron80 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
34. Bestoernesto (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 03:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
35. Ai24 (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 • --Ai24 (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC) (think I am eligible, but please cross-check, thank you)

    You are eligible indeed. Leaderboard (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

36. YaganZ (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  YaganZ (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
37. Coffins (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  Coffins (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
38. Serial Number 54129 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  per Jusjih. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
39. Novak Watchmen (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Novak Watchmen (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
40. Base (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Kind of moral support vote at this point. I do hope that you get involved in conventional xwiki areas and with this together will pass next time or so. Base (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No

2. Martin Urbanec (Eligible, checked by Blablubbs)2021 •  My rule of thumb is that all stewards should have some functionary and GR experience. You fail both those criterias. In addition to that, your response saying "You can't be trusted if you have no proof of your work and you can't have good proof of your work if you don't have the privileges to do the said work. Stewards are one of the only groups that allow for elections in the way they do and are more open to discussions overall." is really concerning to me. There are a lot of ways to get involved in xwiki patrol, or other areas of steward interest. A steward candidate should know them. Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
3. MF-Warburg (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Makes a good impression and seems to have useful technical knowledge, but low cross-wiki experience gives me pause. MF-W 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Stryn (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Not enough cross-wiki experience, maybe next year? Stryn (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
5. AGK (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Per Martin Urbanec AGK ■ 14:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
6. Ajraddatz (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  As above, good technical experience, trusted user, and good answers to questions. But some cross-wiki experience is needed for this role, or at least an understanding of how the movement operates outside your home project. All (or at least most) of a stewards' work is away from their home projects. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
7. Xaosflux (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  A bit light on x-wiki interaction, would suggest engaging via a process such as SWMT and may support next year. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
8. ImprovedWikiImprovment (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Not convinced. --IWI (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
9. -revi (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Fails User:-revi/SEV#3. — regards, Revi 15:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
10. Uncitoyen (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  No enough cross-wiki activity. Maybe he/she may be a better candidate in the future. Also I would like to thank you for being the 2. most active admin of your home wiki in this year, from your election in May 2020. --Uncitoyen^talk 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

    CommentI'm not sure if comments are allowed during the voting (if not, of course, please remove) but I felt that I needed to make a clarification about myself. I've mentioned it quite some times now during the questions phase that rollbacking (assuming that's what it is meant with GR) is out of my main interest in my overall wiki experience and would be the same in my Steward interest, if I was elected. That's why I haven't tried to be part of SWMT or anything of the same sort and probably never will. That is not something I'm trying to hide. It's a fact I've said plainly in the past and I'm repeating it now. Maybe Global Sysops privileges would have helped me more in my interests, as mentioned in my presentation and answers, but the implications of lack of overall wiki/Meta knowledge because I haven't dealt with vandalism in the past looks a bit bizarre to me. If I'm allowed to put it more in a vulgar way, what's the point of faking some interest/work on anti-vandalism just to appear more "charismatic" during voting if I never take interest/work on that after being elected (especially after saying clearly that it wouldn't be my main priority on my interests)? An argument of the sort "anti-vandalism duty experience is mandatory and you lack that so you're not trustworthy enough" would be better than the many arguments implicating I have yet to learn about anti-vandalism, because my wikiwork has rarely dealt with it even on my homewikis (appart from dealing with the edit filters). - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

11. ElHef (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  No demonstrated need for the tools. Stewardship isn't a tool to learn about the global WMF community. A steward should already know about the global community and assisting small wikis prior to putting the hat on. There are plenty of ways to assist small wikis that don't involve SWMT or stewardship - you can read and participate in village pumps on any project you'd like without having a steward flag. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

    What you write is true theoretically. Practically, there are 2 reasons which sort of halt the progress in situations like these:

    Without a certain flag you risk getting ignored most of the time in your offerings, especially in small Wikis which don't have pretty dynamic (to say the least) village pumps. I don't know what your personal experience is on these cases but in general, certain user talk pages are way more dynamic than the village pumps;

    Like many of us, I'm already an admin (and i-admin) on 2 Wiki projects. As Uncitoyen mentioned above, I'm one of the most active admins/users there. If I was elected, I'd make new arrangements on my daily schedule that allow me to dedicate myself to both privileges given and if I couldn't, I'd ask for help from some of the other admins at my homewikis to delegate some of the sysop duties to them. I can't make these changes pre-emptively and take "global missions" "on my own" because I don't know what new arrangements to make exactly (especially the duty delegation part which is really weird to act on if it was randomly). Now, if you'd have suggested to have a GS flag instead of a steward one, then yes, I'd agree with you. (This is literally the first thing I discuss on the first question I was asked.) But proposing to start making changes globally without any global flag looks really hard to pull of in practice. This is the sort of vicious cycle I mentioned in my answers which you fall to in these cases. But I do understand the lack of trust so I can't argue much more than this with it. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    I am a strong proponent of the idea that a person should be given the jobs that they're already doing (to the extent possible with the tools they possess). Stewardship is not a badge that grants you access to the global community. It's a set of tools to be used by someone who is already active in that community. I have no doubt that you're doing great work in the Albanian community, but you need to be more active xwiki before I would vote to entrust you with any global toolkit, whether that be GR, GS, or steward. This has nothing to do with the size of the project you call home - I would have the same response to anyone had they not made more steps to participate in the wider global community. I'm sorry, but I stand by my vote. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, of course, don't worry about the vote per se. I was invested especially in your argument because I'm interested in that subject generally. I've talked about it a bit even on my questions, what Martin Urbanec referenced in the first vote. I haven't elaborated in detail about that because I believe it would require a discussion on its own but in general, personally, I hold the opposite viewpoint regarding what you just said. I fully understand that we must gain the trust of new users somehow before giving them privileges but I don't like the vicious cycles that usually start in these cases (again, what was referenced by Martin Urbanec). I feel better saying something like "you must get involved more with the community to gain their trust" than asking them to already de facto do the job before de jure getting privileges for it. Sure, sometimes that's easy enough to do and when that happens it's a great thing for all parties involved but on many other cases, the whole thing manifests itself as a barrier with a cryptic ad infinitum regressing saying similar to the joke "you need experience for a job but you need a job for experience". I can actually go on more about this because it's a subject I enjoy discussing, as I said, but it would shift us away from the voting process so... - Klein Muçi (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

12. MrJaroslavik (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Who are you? MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

    Not the candidate, but I find this a disappointing, and even rude, response. Leaderboard (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, thank you, Leaderboard! It's really uncivil to give oneliners like these after we take the time to answer questions in a thorough manner. Even just a vote without a reason would be better than what you wrote. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    This is a rather rude response, and disappointing considering it was written by a member of the Ombuds Commission. MrJaroslavik, Klein is an admin on two projects with 7 years of contributing history. You can see that, and it was patently unnecessary to word your comment in this manner. If you intend to say that their presence on the global scene is inadequate for what you’d expect of a steward candidate, you should probably have said that plainly rather than writing a message liable to be taken as an insult. Best, Vermont (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    Hello @Vermont and Klein Muçi: and others.

    Hmm, I already wrote it, I cannot change it, but I didn't want to be rude. I just wanted to point out that I had never heard of this candidate. But I apologize, and next time I will think over if my message cannot be understood otherwise. Thank you, sinrecely--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    FYI, your curt comment made me vote yes here. Zezen (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Zezen Hey, while I agree the original comment isn't very ideal, and is uncivil as called out; however, they apologized. Do you have to really make a w:en:WP:POINT vote? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

    That is a valid comment @Camouflaged Mirage (talk and I thank you for that. However, as I commented in the vote itself (cf. hereinabove), it was but a partial reason, as I had checked the candidate's background itself, time permitting. Indeed, my very comment here looks unCIVIL itself now, the day after. So as not to unduly continue this topic here, please post on my Talk in private should you wish so. Zezen (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

13. Kizule (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Kizule (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
14. SQL (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  SQL^{Query me!} 16:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
15. Pppery (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
16. Camouflaged Mirage (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Thanks for volunteering but there is a need for more crosswiki experience for this role. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
17. BrunoBoehmler (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  BrunoBoehmler (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
18. Holmium (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Holmium (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
19. Samuele2002 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Insufficient cross-wiki experience Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
20. ToBeFree (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  "I'd use the opportunity to learn more about the global wiki community"?! Please do that first. ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
21. JavaHurricane (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  needs more xwiki experience. A year or two later perhaps? JavaHurricane 02:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
22. Cyfraw (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2021 •  cyrfaw (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
23. Ejs-80 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Not enough cross-wiki experience. Perhaps later. –Ejs-80 10:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
24. Johannnes89 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  not enough cross-wiki experience Johannnes89 (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
25. Michel Bakni (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Michel Bakni (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
26. Imetsia (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Imetsia (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
27. OhKayeSierra (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
28. Des Vallee (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Per all above, great contributor maybe get more cross wiki experience, if you are a steward you are a god, extremely powerful, perhaps too powerful. All boxes must be checked. Des Vallee (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
29. Patrik L. (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Patrik L. (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
30. Dostojewskij (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Dostojewskij (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
31. Fastily (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  concerns with limited x-wiki experience FASTILY 02:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
32. Mirer (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Mirer (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
33. MJL (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Per Martin Urbanec. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
34. MarioJump83 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Lack of cross-wiki experience. MarioJump83! 08:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
35. O.Koslowski (Eligible, checked by WhitePhosphorus)2021 •  O.Koslowski (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
36. Gripweed (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Gripweed (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
37. Tucoxn (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2021 •  Insufficient cross-wiki experience. - tucoxn\^talk 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
38. John M Wolfson (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Per all. John M Wolfson (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
39. Jusjih (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Did not answer my question to oversight false vanishing, or I might have voted yes. Jusjih (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but I couldn't understand thoroughly your question, as many other candidates said, even after reading your proposal. The "condemning" part was really confusing. Were it another subject I'd have asked for more explanation but in that case, that was one of those requests that, even if I was a steward I'd kindly have let someone else to deal with given that the vanishing part is not something I've put much interest in the past myself (I've only gone as far as to deal with rename requests). The fact that none of the Albanian wiki projects have oversighters, check users, ArbCom, etc. (like any other small wiki) also plays a role on this. Just explaining so I don't risk appearing rude in your eyes for not participating in that discussion. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

40. Ammarpad (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  – Ammarpad (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
41. Kudpung (Eligible, checked by Perryprog)2021 •  Kudpung (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
42. PoetVeches (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  PoetVeches (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
43. Klaas van Buiten (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •   Klaas `Z4␟` V:  21:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
44. Iluvatar (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Iluvatar (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
45. 20041027 tatsu (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  20041027 tatsu (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
46. Juan90264 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Juan90264 (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
47. Cairo2k18 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
48. Taivo (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  You said correctly: "You can't be trusted if you have no proof of your work". You have no crosswiki activity, even I have more. You spoke about helping small wikis without steward tools and this is what you must do. If you come after two years and say: this is how I helped small wikis, but with steward tools I could help them more, then I will support you. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
49. Mahedi181 (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Mahedi Hasan (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
50. Roland Kutzki (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 • --Roland Kutzki (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
51. *Youngjin (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  *Youngjin (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
52. Mercy (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mercy (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
53. JLavigne508 (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  JLavigne508 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
54. Ameisenigel (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Ameisenigel (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
55. Atcovi (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  seems like a very unique individual but the cross-wikiness is what puts me here. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
56. Amorymeltzer (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Basically per Martin ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
57. WikiAviator (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  WikiAviator (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
58. Guerillero (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
59. Jasper Deng (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Misses the point of stewardship. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
60. P,TO 19104 (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  per ElHef. P,TO 19104 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
61. Beyond My Ken (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
62. Bradv (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  – bradv🍁 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
63. ZI Jony (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
64. Masti (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  masti <talk> 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
65. Nadzik (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Nadzik (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Rschen7754 (Eligible, checked by -revi)2021 •  Sadly, I think the elections process does tend to disadvantage candidates who don't come from wikis large enough to have CU/OS. That being said, I don't see enough experience especially in terms of policy to where I feel comfortable supporting. Rschen7754 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Zblace (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Agree with the above. Maybe worth retry next year or soon after... Zblace (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
3. TonyBallioni (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Agree with Rschen completely. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  I agree with Rschen7754. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Minorax (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  per Rschen7754 Minorax (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
6. Miniapolis (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Miniapolis 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
7. Miraclepine (Eligible, checked by Praxidicae)2021 •  Agree with everyone here. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
8. CptViraj (Eligible, checked by Blablubbs)2021 •  per Rschen7754. CptViraj (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
9. Mirisa56 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Mirisa56 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
10. 痛心疾首 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  痛心疾首 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
11. Nurtenge (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Nurtenge (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
12. Wagino 20100516 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
13. Joseywales1961 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
14. 1ForTheMoney (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Not voting No as they are technically-minded and come from a smaller community (which is always welcome). Spend some time on global contributions and run again next year. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
15. DraconicDark (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  This user has good reasons to want to be steward, and having stewards from smaller communities is good, but the lack of cross-wiki experience is a bit of a problem. DraconicDark (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
16. Geonuch (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Geonuch (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
17. Blue Sonic (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Blue Sonic (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
18. Giraffer (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Giraffer (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
19. SK2242 (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2021 •  SK2242 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
20. Packa (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  Packa (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
21. Florian COLLIN (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Florian COLLIN (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
22. Impartial just (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  I think he/she need to contribute more on other wiki. (lack of cross-wiki) And looking forward you to edit Sqnews. ℑ𝔪𝔭𝔞𝔯𝔱𝔦𝔞𝔩 𝔧𝔲𝔰𝔱🎙️ 01:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

    He. Unfortunately, SqNews is the trickiest wiki project to keep alive as it is supposed to be the most dynamic one. My initial plan was to jumpstart SqQuote and to go deal with SqSource (currently not really a Sq domain). Sadly, SqQuote failed to get new volunteers to keep it on its tracks, despite my enormous "marketing campaigns" and it is currently maintained only by 2 users (me and another Albanian user). Given that I couldn't find volunteers helping on SqQuote to write/translate articles monthly, SqNews became something unthinkable to deal with, especially after having suffered a soft closure in the past. Even dealing with SqSource was put to a halt because of the same reasons. There is only so much a single person and automation can do. Without other human volunteers it is impossible to run a wiki properly, no matter the dedication. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

23. Veracious (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Veracious (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
24. Hiàn (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Per others. Please don't be discouraged - I look forward to seeing your future cross-wiki work. Hiàn (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
25. Cbyd (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Cbyd (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

       Toad62 (Not eligible, checked by Uncitoyen) •  Toad62 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

26. KPX8 (Eligible, checked by ImprovedWikiImprovment)2021 •  KPX8 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
27. Dylsss (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Dylsss (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
28. Sun8908 (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Sun8908 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
29. علاء (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  Agree with Rschen --Alaa :)..! 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
30. CanadianToast (Eligible, checked by Miraclepine)2021 •  CanadianToast (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
31. Mykola7 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mykola7 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
32. Cybularny (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  ~Cybularny ^Speak? 20:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
33. Sj (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  Would love to see you spend time discussing more cross-wiki policies –SJ talk  03:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
34. AVSmalnad77 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  AVSmalnad77 ^talk 07:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
35. Santasa99 (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Experience - someone said ^{s a n t a | t a l k | p i t} 09:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
36. Zabia (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Zabia (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
37. Gampe (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Gampe (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
38. Saroj Uprety (Eligible, checked by Tks4Fish)2021 •  Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
39. DePlusJean (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  As much, I am sincerely convinced of the good work accomplished these last three years by Klein Muçi (Wikiscan and Xtools). As much, I have a doubt as much as to disperse in other additional tasks among the eleven administrators (Statistics and list of administrators). DePlusJean (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
40. Jules* (Eligible, checked by Saroj Uprety)2021 •  Very small cross-wiki experience. — Jules ^Talk 11:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
41. Rzuwig (Eligible, checked by Hasley)2021 •  Rzuwig^► 11:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
42. Darkhan (Eligible, checked by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker)2021 •  Darkhan 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
43. SMcCandlish (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  Mainly due to lack of cross-wiki experience. I would be in the "support" camp in next time if this changed. I agree with supporters that this is a good "tech editor", but that's not really much of a Steward criterion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
44. Paradise Chronicle (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2021 •  Maybe not this year, but seeing their resilience, they sure can make it, if this is the goal.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
45. Tks4Fish (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 17:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
46. NK1406 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  I agree with Rschen7754. NK1406 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
47. Davey2010 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  as per Rschen7754. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
48. DannyS712 (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
49. Dash77 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2021 •  Dash77 (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
50. OlEnglish (Eligible, checked by Fitindia)2021 •  OlEnglish ^(Talk) 13:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
51. Mrschimpf (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Mrschimpf (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
52. Robert McClenon (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2021 •  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
53. Robert Važan (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2021 •  — Robert Važan (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
54. Charitwo (Eligible, checked by ZabeMath)2021 •  Charitwo (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)