Stewards/Confirm/2019

Translate this page at Template:Steward confirmations.

The 2019 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

The 2019-20 Confirmation will begin on 8 February, and will finish on 28 February.

The 2019-20 Steward Confirmations are an opportunity for the Wikimedia community to comment on the performance of existing stewards. To make the process as smooth as possible, the confirmations are organized as follows.

To comment, please log in with an account that has edits (on any wiki) before 8 February. During the 2019 Elections, please mention if you are comfortable or unhappy with the use of steward tools of any of the people listed below and why.

After the election, stewards (including the newly-elected ones) are invited to review the confirmation comments and to give their impression of the outcome (consensus to confirm/remove etc.) on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2019 for every steward who stood for confirmation. Of course, they are not required to do this for every candidate and will be especially careful to do it regarding someone about whom they expressed strong opinions in the confirmation. Non-steward comments are welcome outside of the "Final Decision" section, subject to the usual expectations of civility. Confirmation discussions will last one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards. This may be extended to two weeks for one or more confirmations at the discretion of the Election Committee if the committee believes further input is required before concluding. The Election Committee will close these discussions and implement the outcome (which also means making a decision in non-obvious cases).

All stewards elected before February 2019 will undergo this process.

-revi

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: ko, en-3
Personal info: Hey, I'm revi. I have been doing lots of things this year, including familiar stuff of SRP (and SRGP/SRB), Global Rename business, as well as locking LTAs and spambots and pushing myself into unfamiliar areas with SRCU. I have been taking care of SRCU request for zhwiki (after their local CU permission was removed by WMF Office action), though I have to accept I probably have burned out handling their request by end of year and had to take break from SRCU to recover myself. I also respond to Oversight requests and other enquiries sent to OTRS.
This is my first confirmation as a steward, and I look forward to continuing the same work in 2019 as I did in 2018, if the community wishes so.

Full disclosure

I still work for / provide service to the WMF (see my SE2018 statement), but my contract is scheduled to end sometime this year. (Note that it can be extended.)
— regards, Revi 11:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about -revi

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep duh Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepVery active, good in crosswiki vandalism, COIbot, SR. However, I note two occassion where they fails to do an immediate CU as well as some perceived slowness in handling CU. Those aside, clear net positive. Language skills are a plus.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly active and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trusted and active, especially contributed a lot in dealing with SRCUs from zhwiki. Work appreciated.--無聊龍 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Vermont/SE/2019. Vermont (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no problem with your steward actions, but have concerns based on your perceived conduct at times. Leaderboard (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? I have no problem with descriptions without diffs in confirms since so much activity takes place on IRC, but they actually need to be descriptive unless the person isn’t a native English speaker, so it’s difficult to go into detail. You appear to be a native speaker, so there’s no excuse. If I had to bet, Leaderboard, this is yet another revenge vote because -revi was the one who told you that you couldn’t keep your failed RfCU open indefinitely until it hit 25 supports. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's RfCU? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: What nonsense. Since when did my failed RfCU (Requests for CheckUser on en.wikibooks) have anything to do with this? I don't even recall him saying this in the first place. This is not a revenge vote, and please don't jump into unsubstantiated conclusions, thanks. Leaderboard (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven’t explained what your vote means. I’m going to assume my guess here is right. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Your guess has gone horribly wrong. Well, my concerns stem from Cohaf's note about handling zh.wiki CU requests. I noticed that he entirely stopped continuing a CU request simply because one user made somewhat inappropriate comments about him. While I do not condone the other user's attitude - they did deserve a block - it was poor of him to leave the request in an unfinished state for many days to the determent of the zh.wiki community. I also don't see him handling any further requests. Even on IRC, I noticed that his attitude is slightly condensing at times. Leaderboard (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so “Neutral because revi doesn’t like putting up with borderline racist comments.” That makes your revenge vote seem even pettier. Thanks for clarifying this to everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if you wish to read my response, it is. Collapsed for neatness.--Cohaf (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.)Leaderboard I beg your pardon, while I'm not especially pleased with how revi process zhwp SRCU speed, it is slow, it's not until the extent I will abstain my support. At times it is frustrating to wait for 6 - 7 days and this I must say. However, most of the other occassions other stewards will step up to help. I also note that revi doesn't have CU experience before Stewardship, hence, there is some learning curve and we should give the allowance. For the 2 incidents, one is over #wikipedia-zh (that was immediately needed as socks are out every time - he acknowledge he'll do it but didn't). However, the impact was minimal, as the CU is just for a range block to stop the socks from appearing. The socks are easily DUCKable. And in the end the master did use IPs to edit too - and we rangeblocked that and hence, it's a meh. In addition, do note that request came at 2AM local time for revi and it's reasonable for him to wish to rest and not do such CUs. Another occasion is the zhwikiversity case where he ask me to do a discussion which I don't see a need, that can be done immediately IMO. For that particular CU you referenced, I made remarks there and I have nothing more to add. Data was on CUwiki and while it may not be the best approach he could have taken, I will not fault so greatly (as it is once - off, if repeated that's another story). Revi has handled more than 50 CU requests before that and I feel that amount is fair enough. Other than those, he's still a fine CU working at SRCU and other immediate requests (such as potential compromised accounts) he did it. I hope this explains. --Cohaf (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral due to recent inactivity and your conduct. --云间守望 14:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirm and special thanks to this user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see them everywhere, and I haven't seen issues where I see them. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good activity. --Vogone (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great steward overall. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if he is lazy :p TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doug Weller (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saederup92 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just positive experiences. --MarcoSwart (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks for your service. Miniapolis 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SQL ^{Query me!} 19:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mkdw (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consistently good --AGK ■ 21:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would be a netloss if not kept. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, active and helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--جار الله (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 23:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scrutineer for Persian Wikipedia elections. Thanks for your service. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muhraz (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Leaderboard. ——SerialNumber54129 07:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 08:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove They should have a break and sleep more. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the nicest stewards, I've ever come across. No-brainer. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – KPFC 💬 11:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of democracy makes infiltration by such persons inevitable. But let’s hope to see less privileges for petty censors. Remove. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm extremely familiar with -revi and they're helpful, friendly, co-operative. Their transparency and accountability is excellent as a Steward, always willing to explain actions to the limit of what they can divulge. Incnis Mrsi is sadly mistaken about file language, the Commons language policy explicitly states that "Files can be named in any language. The name of the file should be descriptive." so complaining about a user's English language ability when they requested filemover rights is, as -revi noted and then warned, unacceptable behaviour. A look through c:User talk:Incnis Mrsi will show it's not entirely unusual to find Incnis Mrsi being mistaken about Commons policies and guidelines, or to be workout outside of community consensus. Nick (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-revi’s message is “Nobody gave you the right to judge other’s English skills under no circumstances” which shows that the disagreement is not about filemover rights, nor appears to be limited to Wikimedia Commons. As for :c:User_talk… can Nick please remind which position does Incnis Mrsi seek currently, or is about to apply for? The link Stewards/Elections_2019/Statements/Incnis_Mrsi is red, nor can we find c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Incnis_Mrsi. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work done in the last year! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban16 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you need a break, take one. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of-course! Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 07:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Super Wang hates PC _{You hate, too?} 09:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 09:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I hope that you can be better.--Rowingbohe (_Talk|zhwiki) 11:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alraunenstern۞ 15:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very active, very helpful, and all our interactions have been excellent; a good keeper of the tools. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very helpful over IRC. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work during the year — NickK (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Joalpe (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ixocactus (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? A Korean is better than "no Asian". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good interactions and technical knowledge.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDGG (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SITH (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He like popcorn and sleep at 4am : good stewards ; Like it.Tomybrz Bip Bip 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ----Bonnielou2013 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 100% human. I like his response at SRCU--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also helped a lot when dealing with zhwiki LTAs. Impressed by his quick response on IRC. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Klaas `Z4␟` V: 17:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helpful and nice person with great sense of humour. Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 18:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chico Venancio (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TheDragonFire (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active steward and Thanks For All You Contributions --AFlorence (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 17:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 11:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajraddatz

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: en-N, fr-1
Personal info: Hello community! For the past year, I have been active in responding to cross-wiki and long-term abuse, addressing checkuser requests at SRCU, addressing requests for permissions at SRP, responding to email on the stewards' OTRS queue, and responding to multiple emergency situations involving account compromises. I have the capacity and interest to continue in these areas over the next year, with the community's permission. While my IRC availability has gone down, I remain available via email, discord, and my talk page. As always, please feel free to ask questions or leave constructive criticism. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Ajraddatz

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepVery Active, I can see them everywhere, and I appreciate them even going to local wikis RFA pages to explain why they gave tempsysop them perm sysop. I strongly endorse them and have a good time working with them.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Vermont/SE/2019. Vermont (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For sure. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of okay. --Vogone (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above.--云间守望 15:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heart. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MarcoSwart (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trusted --Rax (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mkdw (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Turkmen ^talk 22:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep active and helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SarahSV ^talk 23:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very valuable dedication. Sa vh ^ñ 00:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muhraz (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? Awesome steward with enviable competency. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't foresee any possible opposes to this candidate. ——SerialNumber54129 07:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No issues. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple times winner of the Billinghurst prize. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – trustworthy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good. Leaderboard (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban16 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fine steward —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahir256 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Belated Keep. Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 00:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 07:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alraunenstern۞ 15:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, off course. Syum90 (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Active, helpful, and a good keeper of the tools. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Faisal ^talk 03:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airbornemihir (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 12:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, experienced, active and helpful — NickK (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All my interactions with them have been entirely positive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--DARIO SEVERI (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC) go on and have fun with your work[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have strong opinions that are essential to the group.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -kyykaarme (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SITH (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Eihel (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klaas `Z4␟` V:
Keep Only positive experiences. Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yeza (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kurihaya (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Déjà vu • ✉ 13:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Ping08 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active steward.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 02:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 17:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 11:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --CreativeC (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bsadowski1

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: I've been a steward for almost 8 years now and have worked with my colleagues on dealing with spam, disruptive individuals, and other issues. I plan to continue helping the Wikimedia Foundation wikis with my tools this year as well.

Comments about Bsadowski1

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepClear need, spambots alone. No brainer.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Vermont/SE/2019#Bsadowski1. Vermont (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your help with anti-LTA efforts. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the best stewards, always active on IRC and SR, and always helpful. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always active and doing good stuff. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easy keep on this one. No issues and very active in handing vandalism, spam and globally banned users. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable, unflappable, available. Thank you for all you've done over the years. Antandrus (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SQL ^{Query me!} 19:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for all the work you've done over the years. Keep up the good work! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always seems to be around when needed. Helpful and precise. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Antandrus. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very active. Ankry (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent. Leaderboard (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good work anti vandalism/spam! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban16 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Baden-Paul (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful and of good character —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Available, accessible, and tireless defender. No brainer. Operator873^talkconnect 17:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Active, helpful, and a good keeper of the tools. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mz7 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 12:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very active on LTA and good results on this — NickK (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC) have some fun during work in the WP[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good to go? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ——SerialNumber54129 12:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AntiComposite. SITH (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klaas `Z4␟` V:
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Ping08 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Barras talk 17:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, active stewards.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 06:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 11:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes of course --Alaa :)..! 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defender

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: pt-N, en-2, es-1
Personal info: Hello everyone. I was elected in 2017, this being my second confirmation. I've continued dealing with cross-wiki vandalism/spam/LTAs and processing steward requests. I would like to continue serving as a steward for another year if I still deserve the confidence of the community. Suggestions on how I could improve my contribution to the Wikimedia movement are always welcome. Thanks for considering and don't hesitate to ask questions. Defender (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Defender

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Active Steward, competent on all areas.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly active and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Vermont/SE/2019#Defender. Vermont (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doug Weller (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above.--云间守望 15:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good works in steward areas, no concerns. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MarcoSwart (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pórokhov (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep active and helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good. Leaderboard (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hhkohh (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent Work! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep active —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, active and experienced — NickK (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC) and have some fun in your work for the WP[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to see more participation on list, but Defender is a highly active Steward with a steady contribution along the year.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ——SerialNumber54129 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good activity, helpful and even-handed. SITH (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klaas `Z4␟` V:
Keep Only positive experiences. Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yeza (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban16 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kurihaya (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 17:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DerHexer

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: de, en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-1
Personal info: It's been more than 11 years now that I serve as a steward. In the last 12 months I couldn't hold the same activity level as before because I got some new reseponsibilities at work which reduced my free time, and shifted my focus to Wikimedia Commons (in almost all of October, I had almost no connection in Buenos Aires while taking photos for the Youth Olympics). Nevertheless, I am still active in the areas which I engaged before, mainly anti-vandalism activities which includes checks on loginwiki, and IP blocks and account locks. Beyond logged actions, I try to be responsive on IRC, at mailing lists, and steward phone calls; I also handled some OTRS tickets but not as many as I wanted to. Besides that, I was working on a couple of banners in the last year.

Knowing the development of the role of Wikimedia Stewards pretty well due to my long-term committment, I also try to explain to the Wikimedia public wherever possible what it contains and how they can help. I'd like to continue with all these activities at least in the same way as before and look forward to your feedback.

Comments about DerHexer

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some gaps in activity, but active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019. Vermont (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nolispanmo (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirm and special thanks to this user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --1971markus (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Geolina163 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Rmcharb (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting a bit old in steward years, but hasn't lost any of his mental sharpness yet ;-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FriedhelmW (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bubo 容 19:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure --Rax (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ra'ike (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC) per Ajraddatz ;-)[reply]
Keep --Jivee Blau (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ldorfman (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Funkruf (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SarahSV ^talk 23:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Brainswiffer (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good. Leaderboard (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bahnmoeller (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 16:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Alraunenstern۞ 18:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Pankoken (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC) A very reliable user. Thanks for all your efforts so far.[reply]
Keep activity is somewhat a concern, but not enough of a concern to drive me to {{remove}}. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maire ♣ 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All my interactions have been positive. Helpful and a good keeper of the tools. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M-J (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So Why 11:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 11:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very reliable, good to see you active for that record time — NickK (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC) aber sowas von pro !!! bien sûr ![reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Helfmann (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Derzno (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDGG (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ——SerialNumber54129 13:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep activity gaps don't concern me, we're all volunteers, even the stewards. SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course... --Udo T. (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Matthiasb (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klaas `Z4␟` V: 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mario-WL (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verläßlich. --smial (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. --Meno25 (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jacob (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Barras talk 17:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure thing. --Martina Nolte (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bluemel1 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jbergner (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nicola (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 18:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – KPFC 💬 12:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Giant

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hello all. This was my first year as a steward. I was relatively active up to the autumn (or fall if you wish). The main areas I was active in was cross-wiki abuse and attending to the OTRS queue, which is often backlogged. I made a few mistakes, particularly when I started but I was willing to correct them as soon as possible. For the last three or four months I have been very busy in my job because of the build-up to Brexit, trying to solve problems before they become unmanageable. This has often meant very long shifts and very little sleep in between. Consequently I haven’t been on-wiki much lately. I anticipate my workload easing in about seven weeks time when the U.K. will either sink or swim out of trouble. Whatever the outcome I would like to continue as a steward for the coming year, with the intention of consuming in tackling crosswiki abuse and on OTRS. Thank you for reading this far. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Green Giant

Keep despite the level of activity, I think he is still trusted. --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepReason for inactivity is valid. Seen good work previously, good to stay on.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active enough during the first part of the year and actions were reasonable. As far as the break, while I would say that it isn't as usual during the first year, I know I myself had to take one during my (only) term due to real-life issues, so I understand the feeling. --Rs chen 7754 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep details here Vermont (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirm and special thanks to this user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all for sensible people staying steward. He is sensible. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's try to minimize the damage of Brexit. I liked the things you did do. --MarcoSwart (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glad to hear you're still around. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to remove. Hiàn (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SarahSV ^talk 23:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – could be more active, but one bold action in defence of a wronged user is worth a thousand blocked vandal IPs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good, but did you mention your inactivity somewhere on your userpage? If not, please do so. Leaderboard (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Work! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahir256 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alraunenstern۞ 15:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep helpful and of good character —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Active, helpful, and a good keeper of the tools. Here's to swimming rather thank sinking! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 12:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sad to see Brexit damage and hope you will overcome that — NickK (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC) keep on working for the WP[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing bad. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, gaps in activity with good reason are not concerning, thanks for volunteering! SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Klaas `Z4␟` V:
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 18:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HakanIST

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: tr, en-4, az-3, es-2, de-1
Personal info: This is my second confirmation. Throughout the year I've been actively monitoring and taking action on Wikimedia projects against crosswiki vandalism/spam and LTA activity. I also did my best to process requests from OTRS and onwiki. I'm available on IRC most of the time and responsive. I wish to serve another year with same level of activity.

Comments about HakanIST

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepNo reason not. I also note they do local rollbacking on Simple Wikis, shows they are still involved with the community. Clear positive.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019 Vermont (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work. --Vogone (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many valuable actions. --MarcoSwart (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Turkmen ^talk 22:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – KPFC 💬 11:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 16:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Work! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meisam (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep helpful steward and languages are a plus. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work and activity — NickK (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good work. SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 14:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 18:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo man

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: de-N, en-3
Personal info: I have been a Wikimedian since 2008 and a steward since 2014. Furthermore I'm active as MediaWiki (extension) developer and Wikidata administrator.
Nowadays I volunteer by helping to maintain MediaWiki extensions related to global administration, also I have access to the Wikimedia foundation's servers which I also occasionally use to support steward actions. Besides, I'm working as a Wikidata developer for Wikimedia Germany.
In 2019 I plan to keep working on incoming requests and hope to help out with technical matters. - Hoo man (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Hoo man

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
More of backend, but hope to see more front end this year. Yes, the tagger is very good.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019 Vermont (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --1971markus (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Geolina163 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Bahnmoeller (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep roll on ;-) --Rax (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure -- Ra'ike (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 23:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alraunenstern۞ 15:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep love your scripts. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work and contribution to the stewards team — NickK (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC) keep on working for the WP[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bi-lingualism and familiarity with Wikidata are both good reasons to support. SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Ping08 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active steward and Thanks For All You Contributions --AFlorence (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enfcer (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 19:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jyothis

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hello, fellow Wikimedians! It has been a busy year for the world! For 2018, the main area of focus for me was fighting spambots and long term vandals. I have been on and off for 2018 due to work travels and I do hope to improve that for 2019. If the community still trusts me with the tools, I would be happy to continue for 2019.

Comments about Jyothis

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepI didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some gaps in activity but still did a significant amount of work when active. --Rs chen 7754 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#Jyothis Vermont (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirm and special thanks to this user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— Bukhari (Talk!) 07:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good. Leaderboard (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahir256 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trusted and reasonably active — NickK (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Always friendly and positive.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jacob (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 19:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linedwell

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: fr, en-3, it-2
Personal info: Hello Wikimedia Community. I joined the French Wikipedia 11 years ago and I'm serving as a steward since 2015. As same as the previous years, I mainly handled LTA/cross-wiki/spam and rights management requests. I have also been active in global renames requests. During the last year, I have also been a scrutineer for the English Wikipedia ArbCom election and I was glad to help. I plan to remain as more active as I can, as I was for the previous years.

Comments about Linedwell

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepActive in SRG, and many of my requests they processed. Thank you for your service. I am happy working with them and their responsiveness. Clear Yes.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though activity outside of global renaming (which has a separate right) is on the lower side. --Rs chen 7754 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#Linedwell Vermont (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MarcoSwart (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OT38 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep P@d@w@ne 13:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 16:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lofhi (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In trust. 3(MG)² (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Authueil (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mattho69 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 12:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Omondi (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work — NickK (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC) bien sûr[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Lemure Saltante (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomybrz Bip Bip 16:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: en
Personal info: Last year, I asked for the opportunity to rectify my low activity level. Unfortunately, my real life responsibilities only multiplied and my wiki-time further declined. Accordingly, I intend to step down as a steward at the end of this election. I want to thank everyone in the community who I have worked with or for as a Steward since 2012. I hope to continue to maintain some level of activity on en.wiki and commons, and look forward to the seeing the broader community continue to grow and thrive. Regards, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about MBisanz

Thank you for your service. --Stïnger （会話） 14:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Resigned. Didn't have much contact. Thanks for Service. =)--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service and for your help in the past! --Rs chen 7754 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you contributions to Wikimedia; you will be missed. Vermont (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :-) --Vogone (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go, and thanks for all your work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. You'll be missed. RadiX ∞ 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your service and all the best, Miniapolis 17:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you service! —DoRD talk 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long time, no see! Thank you very much for your service. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mkdw (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your 7 years of service. --AGK ■ 21:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service. Can't say I'm familiar with your work but you'll be missed nonetheless. Hiàn (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say Keep, but my thanks for your help and service will have to do instead. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers User:MBisanz, thanks for everything and best of luck for the future! ——SerialNumber54129 07:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
!--Vituzzu (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for all the work done as steward! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service! Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your years of service. Linedwell ^[talk] 08:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the fun :) Legoktm (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service --*Youngjin (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good work.--Syum90 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll always trust your judgment, and after years of service you've earned a break ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 12:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable decision, thank you very much for your work over these years — NickK (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 16:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see you go. Thanks for your service and best of luck in your future. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy life — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good bye. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work.- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protected free knowledge Sakhalinio (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes, thanks for all the good work. SITH (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your past work. Wishing you the best in your life. --Meno25 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything! Bencemac (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all these years, and a lot of wishes. --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and we are waiting you in Commons. Sincerely, you have made no logged actions in Commons in February. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. Matanya (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts --Alaa :)..! 12:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MF-Warburg

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: de-N, en-3, etc. pp.
Personal info: Dear community, dear friends,
I have now been a steward since 2013. This year, I am not standing for reconfirmation. At the moment, I am not as active as a steward as I would like to be and I am focussing more on other projects. Thank you for your support in the past years, it has been a pleasure to serve in this role. You will continue to see me as e.g. a Meta bureaucrat, a Langcom member, a new wikis importer and in other roles.
My steward colleagues have told me that in their opinion I could resume global sysop and global rollbacker rights after resigning, so that is what I intend to do, if the community is not against it.
Best regards --MF-W 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about MF-Warburg

Thank you for your service. --Stïnger （会話） 14:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Resigned. Great loss. I wish you all the best in future endevours and glad you are retaining rest of the permissions, including GS/GR and new wiki importer.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service! You might have been reconfirmed, but I think there is something to be said for stepping down while you are still semi-active. Anyway, thanks for your help in the past.--Rs chen 7754 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. Vermont (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and come back soon--Ghilt (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --1971markus (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Geolina163 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Vogone (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. A truly great loss for the team. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to vote for keep before your decision of resigning. Thanks for your service.--云间守望 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go. Hopefully you come back in the future, so we can once again form a glorious electcom. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your services. I have learned a lot from you in working on the steward team. RadiX ∞ 16:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Living up to your own standards adds to the value of the work you already did. --MarcoSwart (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 17:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. Yes please. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service as steward, and all the best with your old rights. Miniapolis 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service! —DoRD talk 18:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bubo 容 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! --Rax (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ra'ike (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service the past 6 years. --AGK ■ 21:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your service. You'll be missed. Hiàn (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 23:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your dedication to the steward tools, hope to see you around. Sa vh ^ñ 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work as a steward, and I'm glad you have decided to continue to help the global community as GS/GR. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look forward to seeing you back very soon, User:MF-Warburg, and best of luck with your endeavores in the meantime! ——SerialNumber54129 07:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your service. Hopefully, you will come back some day. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
!--Vituzzu (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! – KPFC 💬 10:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Brainswiffer (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for all the work done as steward! —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service! Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Linedwell ^[talk] 08:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great works being in the role. Sorry to see you go. I hope you come back soon. Good luck! Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 08:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alraunenstern۞ 15:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maire ♣ 22:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your service throughout past years!--*Youngjin (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This and this give me the impression that communication skills have not improved since last time. Thank you for resigning. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --BotBln (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your service. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 11:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work and good luck in other roles — NickK (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. --QEDK (talk 桜 enwiki) 16:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to see you go, but thanks for your service. Best of luck in your future, and see you around. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see your resignation in light of your pathetic communication skills. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and support the roll-down to both global sysops & global rollback assignations — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your langcom works. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have no doubt that MF would be confirmed as Steward if that was his desire, so I don't see any problem on changing them to GS/GR.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. SITH (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 18:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work. I wish you all the best. --Góngora _(T•ES) 01:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything! Bencemac (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of thanks, support for the rights, best wishes for what you will do. --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Active steward and Thanks For All You Contributions --AFlorence (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work and good luck for your future endeavors. --Martina Nolte (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Taivo (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Kaganer (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obrigadu barak. :-) PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Lalika temi! --MF-W 23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your service. Matanya (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts --Alaa :)..! 12:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saddest day in the history of stewardship. SPQRobin (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarcoAurelio

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: es, en-2, fr-2 (can read and understand an, ast, ca, gl, pt and few other romanic languages).
Personal info: Good day. During the 2018 I have continued to help in the areas I used to collaborate in the past. As such cross-wiki countervandalism and processing on wiki requests have been my main area of activity with also some spam blacklist and title blacklist management activity. I'm also keeping an eye on edit filter logs and others to catch the never ending problem of spambot registration and spamming which does not seem to get resolved at the technical level yet and which consumes ridiculously large ammounts of our time. Sidework have included: participating in discussions, global bot policy implementation, oversight and checkuser requests. I am also taking care of the admin activity review rounds with the help of my dear colleagues. I have also continued to help with requests for wiki configuration changes at Phabricator and uploading configuration changes at Gerrit. I still feel I can give a hand in the steward duties and therefore I would like to ask for your support for another term if you think I'm worth of it. Thank you.

Comments about MarcoAurelio

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
KeepNo brainer. Very active and responsive to requests. Active in all areas of steward job. Clear Yes.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly active and taking care of maintenance tasks (wikisets, etc.) that are often ignored. --Rs chen 7754 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--PiefPafPier (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#MarcoAurelio Vermont (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above.--云间守望 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sic transit gloria mundi, Marco. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks for your continued excellent work this year. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --MarcoSwart (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zoranzoki21 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Rax (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Turkmen ^talk 22:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiàn (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 23:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, muchas gracias por tu dedicación constante a estas herramientas. Sa vh ^ñ 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — xaosflux ^Talk 02:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muhraz (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Generally positive, however neutral due to this request waiting two months for any stewards' response. I think this is unacceptable even in very complex cases. Ankry (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Garam (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saederup92 (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ontzak (Bilbo ta Bizkai guztia) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban16 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahir256 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Vercelas (quæstiones?) 23:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, very active. Rafael ^{(stanglavine) msg} 00:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of-course! Strong keep - Thank you for the services. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 07:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very active and involved in steward matters. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alraunenstern۞ 15:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maire ♣ 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fantastic work this year. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, great work again. Syum90 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Active, helpful, and a good keeper of the tools. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 11:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work and experience — NickK (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep on working in the WP --Elmie (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No brainer-Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work. --Góngora _(T•ES) 00:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Fulano! ^Talk 12:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. SITH (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Melquíades (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomybrz Bip Bip 16:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Ping08 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yeza (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost everywhere. --Ruthven (msg) 18:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -kyykaarme (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Barras talk 17:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meow :) Bencemac (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Baiji --> (Opinión) 02:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kaganer (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taichi - (あ！) 04:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --CreativeC (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mardetanha

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: fa, az, en
Personal info: Hi again, I have continued my steward work in 2018 and given the situation I am still avaiable and still have time to help Wikimedia community so I think I would be able to offer the community my service, In the past year, my era of activity was mostly dealing with LTA and spambot and helping issues raised on IRC.

Comments about Mardetanha

I didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on. --Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The preceding unsigned comment was added by GZWDer (talk)
Keep Not as active as in the past but still active enough. --Rs chen 7754 14:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#Mardetanha Vermont (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Not active on Steward Requests. --云间守望 15:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been useful for x-wiki oversight things on wikis where not many people speak the language. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as active as in the past, but still around. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Turkmen ^talk 22:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 23:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep --Wim b 23:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muhraz (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very good. Leaderboard (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 08:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A traveling Wikimedia community glue! -- Meisam (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maire ♣ 22:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 08:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Krd 08:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trusted and helpful — NickK (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— Bukhari (Talk!) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ability to deal with spambots and LTAs in multiple languages is good enough for me SITH (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Déjà vu • ✉ 13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wishing you the best in your life. --Meno25 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Lasta (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks For All You Contributions --AFlorence (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--NMW03 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 19:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Elajan (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masti

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: pl-N, en-4, de-3, ru-2, several other European-1
Personal info: I am keeping my work in cross wiki vandalism mainly concentrating on Long Term Abusers and crosswiki spambots. Also trying to help with checkuser function on small wikis. I am easily available on stewards IRC so can react quicly on the incoming requests. I think I will be able to keep with at least same level of activity in the coming year. masti <talk> 19:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Masti

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Highly active and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But with that being said, we do expect more prompt replies to concerns about actions (see nlwiki merge issue below) --Rs chen 7754 19:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepActive, able to answer queries as well as doing very well with spambots, Clear Yes.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#masti Vermont (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Torrosbak (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure. tufor (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove assisted in the out of proces deletions of talk pages at the Dutch Wikipedia and in doing so breaking links used by people to support their arguments for or against desysop. After being confronted Masti only undid part of the damage and failed to understand what was asked of him. As of this day the damage hasn't been undone and not a single response from Masti was made. Natuur12 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue Natuur12 mentions also struck me. I do not think this single incident should lead to removal, since Masti is a sensible user otherwise, but I hope this issue finally gets resolved. --Vogone (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the issue presented above does not concern me. No other concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isolated incident no concern; seems like a misunderstanding. Miniapolis 17:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ptjackyll (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was confused by the issue with the nlwiki merge, but overall the work is good. Please engage when concerns are raised, not just disappear. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Natuur12. ——SerialNumber54129 07:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep.--BRP^ever 08:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PawełMM (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gdarin | talk 13:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 16:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wieralee (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Itti (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 09:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thraen (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Maire ♣ 22:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~Cybularny ^Speak? 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @xqt 11:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 12:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work and activity — NickK (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Micpol (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noting comments about nlWP and accepting that there is little perfection in life, let alone this complex role. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actions at Dutch Wikipedia appear totally justified, fully confident. SITH (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PiotrekD (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep up good work, please! Tymon.r (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ented (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matanya

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hello, similar to past years, I have done mainly anti-vandalism/spam and rights requests. I also help in other stewards work such as on phabricator and technical spaces like stewardsbots. In addition am in touch with various stakeholders in the movement to help in steward-related work and advice. I'm on IRC regularly and try to be helpful. I'm planning to remain active this year. questions and comments are welcome. best Matanya (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Matanya

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Not as active as in the past but still active enough. --Rs chen 7754 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#Matanya Vermont (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 17:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ldorfman (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--BRP^ever 07:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 09:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Baden-Paul (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep דגש חזק (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Krd 08:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 12:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonable activity and good experience — NickK (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daryag (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...up the good work! Atbannett (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Elmie (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC) have fun with your work in the WP[reply]
Keep חיים 7 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SITH (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IsraelyHomoSapiens (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 20:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matiia

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: es, en-2
Personal info: Hello. I was elected as a steward in 2017. I wasn't as active as I used to be (or I'd like), however, I'm still active in multiples areas and active in IRC daily. I think this year I'll have more time for steward work, thus I'd like continue as a steward for another year, if possible. Please feel free to ask any question or make any comment, feedback is welcome. Matiia (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Matiia

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepVery active, good activity, competent and responsive to request. Thank you and yes, keep--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it’s not exactly a secret that I’m not a fan of the way Matiia acts as a steward: he’s overly bureaucratic, is biased against all large projects, refuses to do routine tasks that any other steward wouldn’t bat an eye at, and often forgets that he’s actually dealing with real people. I had planned on opposing this confirmation for those reasons, but ended up as a keep for the simple reason that when he’s not acting as a steward I actually like him a lot and think he’s a great guy. That may sound like an odd reason to keep someone, but my view on all advanced permissions is whether or not the person holding them is someone we can trust. While I disagree with Matiia about virtually everything he does, I think we can trust him. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#Matiia Vermont (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To counter TonyBallioni a bit I really appreciate that Matiia volunteered (along with three other stewards) to be a scrutineer at the 2017 English Wikipedia ArbCom elections at a relatively short notice.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I’m supporting this confirmation and I do appreciate the work he does. He asked for feedback though, so I gave it. My larger concern here is that Matiia looks for every possible reason not to take action rather than looking for reasons to be helpful. I’m hoping he changes that in the next year. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not have a broader picture, but in this episode I mentioned I just came on Meta, asked for help, and four persons volunteered. This is good enough for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I cannot agree with TonyBallioni's assessment with regards to an overly bureaucratic large project-bias at all. He is doing an excellent job as a steward, and communicating in a language one has intermediate skills in is not always easy and obviously leads to a "less natural" way of communication. This is normal and a thing every language learner is probably able to relate to. --Vogone (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truested, no concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concerns. Miniapolis 18:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, realiza una labor correcta e importante con estas herramientas. Sa vh ^ñ 23:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kayser Ahmad (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep.--BRP^ever 08:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep active and competent – KPFC 💬 10:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ontzak (Bilbo ta Bizkai guztia) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Esteban16 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Vercelas (quæstiones?) 23:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of-Course! Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 07:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 09:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, great work. Syum90 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work this year — NickK (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, vale. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep on working in the WP --Elmie (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sakhalinio (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sandeep Raut (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Eihel (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good x-wiki activity and has always responded to my queries promptly. Scrutineering at short notice also commendable. SITH (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yeza (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kurihaya (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Meno25 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your help on Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very kind and helpful. Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taichi - (あ！) 04:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ankry (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 12:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melos

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: it, en-3
Personal info: Since 2010, as a steward, I deal with spambots and other "nice" crosswiki issues. Recently I have enforced the activity in developing patches for Stewards-and-global-tools project. I hope I can work, with the community consensus, for another year in this role. Regards --Melos (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Melos

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#Melos Vermont (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Parma1983 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miniapolis 18:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —DoRD talk 18:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not very active, but still around. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --AGK ■ 21:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 23:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep.--BRP^ever 08:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vituzzu (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 18:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Linedwell ^[talk] 08:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -FASTILY 09:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widr (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Aplasia (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stryn (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--*Youngjin (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syum90 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Krd 08:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nihlus 11:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful contribution to the team — NickK (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sì, grazie. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep on working for the WP --Elmie (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salutamu. - εΔ ω 14:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep. --Góngora _(T•ES) 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 05:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Eurodyne (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uğurlar! ►Cekli 829 10:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huji (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Melquíades (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SITH (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -J. Ansari Talk 14:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Udo T. (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jusjih (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Barras talk 17:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your work! Bencemac (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antonio1952 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enfcer (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alaa :)..! 12:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RadiX ∞ 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifisto

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Mentifisto's original statement was: "Deal mostly with spambots, check RC for updates, but can't believe another year slipped by..."
Rewritten statement: for those with concerns about activity, I admit I wasn't very much available, this was mainly because I interacted with the sites through the web. I had problems retrieving some former IRC client configurations (no backups, my bad) due to hard drive failures, and IRC is undeniably more efficient for this role.
I have now, finally, overcome procrastination (it's difficult when scripts are about a decade old and suddenly they disappear in a digital abyss) and restarted these config files, so I'm available on IRC again, which clearly is very much more efficient when it comes to activity (exponentially? All those bots are clearly helpful). I will remain this active regardless of the outcome. -- Menti fisto 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Mentifisto

~~Neutral~~ I was thinking this user was going to improve his activity, but this user's level of activity is still the same. I'm concerned about that. Also, per Vermont below. --Stïnger （会話） 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
May I ask how much is ideal? It's kind of like measuring a string and I'm never sure whether it's sufficient. Do you perhaps think a discussion could be useful wherein a sort of average ideal is established? -- Menti fisto 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing you. I just thought you were going to have more activity, but okay. It is only my comment. --Stïnger （会話） 14:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, I never say "yes" or "no" on your question about a discussion of this. I was only giving my opinion about your trajectory as a Steward. --Stïnger （会話） 17:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

For me, this is the wrong question to ask. There is much more work for stewards to do than there is time to accomplish it - besides the usual steward pages, AAR, global bot maintenance, SRM, OTRS, a lot of other cleanup projects (see some of my old pages on stewardwiki for instance), maybe even some auditing of CU/OS logs, maybe even trying to fix hrwiki. If you asked on stewards-l I'm sure that the current stewards would give you a list of things that could be done. It's about being a team player and being a good contributor. No, I don't expect stewards to devote every waking moment to Wikimedia (and think that doing so is rather unhealthy), but when one does just above the minimum to be confirmed, it looks bad (think about the person at work who does just enough to get by without being fired). --Rs chen 7754 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't some sort of average adequate amount still be sensible though, if only because everyone has different expectations? Don't minimums work on other wikis, and if they're inadequate are usually increased? If it's always an 'x' beyond minimum then no one can ever possibly know about it, and invariably changes (and averages do change, but that is usually done in collective community discussions). -- Menti fisto 16:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the question is what you are contributing and what you want to do with the steward tools. Once you have the answers to those questions, the activity comes naturally. You're putting the cart before the horse. If you can't come up with a better answer than "So I can do just above the expectation just so that I can keep my steward tools for another year" then maybe you should step aside. To put it another way: even though I was a steward for only one year, I feel like I made a bigger impact than some stewards who served for multiple years. I'm not sure how I should feel about that. (And in the end, I didn't feel like I could really give the role what it deserved and give other things in my life what they deserved, so I stepped down). --Rs chen 7754 19:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Rschen7754 below. Also, preforming many Steward actions after several concerns at this confirmation is not something that I'm going to support here. Sorry. --Stïnger （会話） 12:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but what exactly is the tight-rope I need to walk on, metaphorically? I was trying to genuinely be more active, since that is the main concern... as mentioned below I happened to discover this efficient tool that happened to pass me by... I blame myself for that, sure... but how else can I rectify the main issue here? If concerns were about abusive usage, then I concede it would be inappropriate for me to continue on... but, is it? I thought I was merely showing that I can be active, since that is the crucial thing, isn't it? I am frustrated, myself, for somehow missing a crucial toolkit, but am I not now showing that I can utilize it? For the long-term too, although that is something that time can only provide. -- Menti fisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is your activity in general in your years as a steward and the understand of the Steward role, not your recent massive activity. And what about other works who stewards preforms? Like AAR, SRCU, SRUC or SRM, you have not done almost anything like that at the last years. I don't think it's a good idea to use only the multilock every day to lock spambots to retain your steward rights. The people here have told you the concerns. --Stïnger （会話） 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Why can't someone have a niche? I do at times deal with LTAs, and I did once change usernames, but it's not something I derive satisfaction from, and surely in a volunteer project, especially a digital one, anyone should have the capability to do whatever interests them and in the end all roles are filled even if people do one each? Is it better to be a 'Jack of all trades and master of none'? -- Menti fisto 08:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ though activity is (still) on the low side. --Rs chen 7754 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The direction that some of the replies have been going concerns me. Neutral --Rs chen 7754 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remove The answers are getting stranger and stranger and I am not sure that Mentifisto has a clear understanding of the role of a steward even after all this time, or is a steward for the right reasons. I do not think that activity would continue at a sufficient level, given what happened in past years (oddly timed bursts of activity just to meet minimums). I'll just put this out there: if you asked similar questions ("what is the minimum I can do?") of your spouse, you wouldn't stay married very long, and if you asked similar questions of your boss, you wouldn't stay employed very long. Wikimedia steward is a volunteer role, yes, but if you can't do it anymore or don't want to do it anymore then you step down with minimal consequences. --Rs chen 7754 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what is strange? Is part of the role not dealing with spambots? In past years I mentioned I did not know of multilock, which I regret, but my recent 'bursts' are there mainly because of my usage (sort of testing) of this efficient tool. And no, marriage is qualitatively different from this role, which involves much more maintenance, but I would have thought a conventional job has similarities (and frequently states expectations in adverts). It's not that I couldn't do this in the past, it's that I was missing what was clearly an essential part of the toolkit, and yes, I'm frustrated with myself for missing the obvious, but omniscient I'm not... -- Menti fisto 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Locking a bunch of single-wiki spambots that are already blocked only has so much effect and is worth a lot less than other actions that do more for Wikimedia. --Rs chen 7754 01:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most of them aren't locally blocked, no, and they can theoretically be reactivated, although if and when that happens is left to the obscure programming. What, though, do you refer to as other actions? I am not averse to becoming active in anything I feel comfortable with, but spambots are usually locked, are they not? Of course, if there was a discussion that decided that overall they aren't worth locking then I'm comfortable with stopping... -- Menti fisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Generally when stewards have this much of an activity jump around confirmations it results in a lot of mistakes (example: Axpde) and that is evidenced below. However, I would now say that the comments Mentifisto has left on this page are now grounds by itself to vote for removal. Mentifisto, some advice: your replies are now only making things worse and digging yourself further into the hole. --Rs chen 7754 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I favour clarification over not participating in a discussion... which comments specifically, though, and why are they 'digging'? And where exactly have I made mistakes? Feel free to look over my logs and pinpoint any possible false positives, I'm always open to that. -- Menti fisto 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        In that diff you both claim ignorance of the errors and defend yourself against the errors. I'm done here. --Rs chen 7754 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not entirely sure what specifically you refer to, but if you're 'done' then I guess I'm not even sure what to respond to; I am still always open to discussions, though. -- Menti fisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~I didn't see them much, but clear positive to stay on. I don't think they will misuse tools, so though activity is low, still okay. However, I hope to see more activity in the year ahead.{{k}}~~--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)striken per developments.--Cohaf (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Neutral. I feel that they are not active enough after more review and that may hamper performance,and basically per Jianhui67. --Cohaf (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Further note:Their activity has risen very significantly after remove votes comes in, good developments but the unnecessary drama here keeps me in neutral. If they are kept, hope they will continue this activity level for good time or else the same remove arguments will be there next year. At least this improvement shows they are receptive to feedback which is good. --Cohaf (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned elsewhere I wasn't active due to relativity in missing an essential, efficacious tool, which I'm currently utilizing (and will in a hypothetical future), but ultimately the past is the past which I can't reverse. -- Menti fisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not causing harm. Activity is low, but there is no evidence that is harming any wikimedia project in his capacity as a steward. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per my comments at User:Vermont/SE/2019#Mentifisto. TL;DR, minimal community involvement for almost 7 years. Vermont (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per Vermont's concerns. A minimal activity is expected, and always keeping on/little above the point where the line is drawn is not good. Unfortunately, picking up the pace now, few days before the election, is too late, in my opinion. His loginwiki check stats (see) show that even when locking spambots, no check is done to see if there are other accounts being used for spamming on the same IP. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 15:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is there is no line at all. I've also just been told that this isn't satisfactory, if it was never and been told before then I would have adapted, so by all means I invite anyone to tell me at any point in the year... -- Menti fisto 15:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The line is not explicitly defined, but it does exist, and you can see you're being evaluated on that. Also, everywhere else where it is explicitly defined, you are keeping yourself slightly above it. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 19:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask why it is too late? How does it matter if it's two thousand within condensed time and two thousand within a year? I mean, sure, there are other community-related activities that I need to be active in, and I will in the next year considering my usage of multilock which will certainly facilitate my overall activity (as noticed), but I am not actually trying to keep myself 'above' anything because it was never established in the first place. With multilock, though, I can, I think, do about twenty thousand as described below in my attempted calculation, if indeed that is all that is considered (yes, bewildering that I've missed it for so many years... but I'm not a Prince of Persia with an hourglass suddenly able to wind back what may have been), so I can only show that if its usage is satisfactory then I shall continue as such, but as stated I can't, unfortunately, fix omissions confined to an impermeable part of history. -- Menti fisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove This is a pattern, and I am reminded of the 2015 confirmations where the exact same issue lead to similar arguments. Experience shows there are absolute no expectations for the situation to improve, nor can the very few steward actions performed be regarded as useful. Someone who vanished from the community for so many years should not hold such sensitive user permissions, without using them to contribute in a manner beneficial to the steward team. --Vogone (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's the same problem, then... the 'issue' is what, exactly? Am I supposed to be a mind reader? I try to do more but unless there is a general consensus no one knows and everyone has different thresholds. I'm sure there is someone who wouldn't be satisfied unless there is an action a minute, but even then they don't say it, perhaps because it's an absurd amount, and ultimately, unless there is an average consensus, no one knows what more is. -- Menti fisto 15:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can repeat the 'issue' in case you missed it: Someone who vanished from the community for so many years should not hold such sensitive user permissions, without using them to contribute in a manner beneficial to the steward team. --Vogone (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, with regrets. The concerns with activity level has persisted for some terms and is not something new for this steward. Meanwhile they used to hold local sysop rights at Meta which got removed due to inactivity about 3 years ago. They did not attempt to regain adminship at Meta, and performed some local admin actions nonetheless. I actually don't have a problem with stewards who are not Meta admins to perform admin actions at Meta regarding vandalism or spam, though I think it's better to leave some non-emergency ones (such as author request page deletions) to local admins. If they intend to increase activity level they could have gained local Meta sysop back. If their activity no longer becomes a concern, I don't mind supporting them re-elected as steward. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they might have persisted because no one is clear about what is adequate, I try to do more, but what is more? -- Menti fisto 16:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keepnet possitive Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per concerns raised above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Low activity ≠ no activity. Miniapolis 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Activity for stewards is not necessarily measured by an easy count of actions. There is engagement on the private list, availability on IRC/Discord/other venues, and of course the type and quality of steward actions. Mentifisto has had no presence on the list for years, and generally only locks spambot accounts without even blocking the IPs/ranges associated with them. To me, this indicates essentially zero useful activity with the steward permissions. Despite this, I am not voting to remove them, because I think we should actively work to re-engage users who are slipping away ~~rather than hitting them with the door on their way out~~. I do recognize that this has been going on for a long time, which is why I am not supporting confirmation either. I hope that you commit to engaging in a more meaningful way with the steward team this coming year. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does attempting to re-engage a steward become futile? They haven't been active for almost 7 years. Vermont (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can try to see what sufficient activity is, and as suggested above you or anyone else who desires can give me feedback on it. I really do not mind such active feedback, as opposed to once a year. -- Menti fisto 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Active feedback is reasonable to expect if you make errors, not if you are inactive. Nobody is monitoring whether other stewards are active or not during the year. You've received similar feedback (re: inactivity) at confirmations for years now, so I am less sympathetic than if this were a one-off thing. And Vermont, point taken. The length of time is why I am not supporting confirmation. But, I have removed the bit about the door, since I think the concerns presented here are very reasonable. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've received feedback but nothing specific, and not throughout the year. Can no one be specific? Why can't an 'average ideal' be established? If not, how is anyone to know whether it's sufficient or not, especially just at one point in a year? I'm trying to see whether things could be more fluid, but ultimately, there is a 'guidelines' page, so why can't this be included within it? Is it really so impossible to make concrete such desires? -- Menti fisto 18:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one numerical standard can account for the variety of steward actions. Locking spambots can net hundreds of actions per minute, but makes absolutely no difference because it doesn't prevent any abuse. Responding to complex SRCU requests in languages that you don't speak can take minutes or hours (thankfully usually not hours), but can have a profound impact in identifying long-term abuse and keeping the smaller projects safe. The point isn't to establish a complex standard of x locks, y checkuser actions, z permissions changes, and n posts to the mailing list per month, because engagement with the steward role looks different for everyone. And it is very clear, even without looking at involvement in the list or other private venues, which stewards are actively contributing and which are not doing much. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it clear when everyone has their own personal standards? From your description, would that imply that even ten thousand logged actions can be insufficient? But sure, one can make a detailed post that is more substantive than ten others, though how can that be known without even looking? Is there really nothing objective that can be used as a measure? -- Menti fisto 18:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clear on an individual basis, I guess. The point here is that you are essentially totally disengaged from doing useful steward work. I would welcome that to change. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can try to increase logged activity and monitor the list much more, but I'd welcome a discussion to include something more concrete about this too on Steward handbook, if only for the sake of moving from the individual, to the collectively-agreed, possibly objective basis. An RfC maybe? -- Menti fisto 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need objective criteria in order to be active. You are either you are active or you are not. You are not and are now doing everything you can to put the blame on anyone and anything but yourself. No one has computer problems for years. Every other steward has dealt with essentially the same things you have but have remained much more active than you. As MF-Warburg puts it below, if you put more energy into being a Steward throughout the year than you have for these discussions, then, well, we wouldn't need to have these discussions. Nihlus 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had them for years, no, but in addition to the general chaos of life and the inevitability of efficiency happening to pass me by (as explicated below), the fact is that I ended up with around a hundred and fifty logged actions this year, if this countable measure is what is being discussed here... but as shown, at least on the day you posted this comment, I made nearly a thousand actions, which indeed is absurd when compared to the rest of the year, but not much I can do about something I happened to miss - I am not omniscient, I concede that - but now that I've discovered it there is surely no possibility that, if, again, only countable activity is being thought of, in the future I would be as inactive as to result in merely a hundred and fifty, but I can't reverse time... -- Menti fisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - given the continued inappropriate replies to feedback here, evidence that you are not sufficiently up to speed with appropriate use of the CheckUser tool (inappropriate reasons for checks, checking ranges far larger than necessary to prevent abuse), and the fact that you seem to have forgotten that you are no longer a Meta sysop. I was going to suggest that you expand your activity beyond locking spambots, but at this point I don't trust that you are up to speed on any other aspect of the steward role, and would not trust your opinion in those areas. Take a year off, re-engage with your various local roles, re-learn the policy and apply again next year if you really want to retain your steward access. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ranges aren't necessarily too large, I just made a test today gradually increasing the number and there were more spambots prior in a larger range, so the question then is, do we want to deal with spambots or not? With regards to reasons, it's automated from the template, wouldn't it be more efficient to change the template instead if it's ineffective? And I thought this allowed uncontroversial deletions, or should spambots be locked but their pages not deleted? Can you also be specific as to what is inappropriate in my replies here, or are replies generally? -- Menti fisto 08:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding MSR, yes stewards can perform non-controversial actions related to their steward work, but your use of the deletion tool here goes into the realm of actions that could easily be handled by local admins (like deleting pages per author request). Regarding your replies, you are bludgeoning the discussion, which is disruptive and unbecoming of a steward. Asking some questions or clarifying some points is acceptable; responding to large numbers of comments is not, especially when you are either intentionally or unintentionally ignoring what is being said to you. As an example, a repeated concern here is that you are inactive between confirmations. Being active during the confirmations is not a way to address that concern. All you can do is say "sorry I'll do better", and the appropriate thing to do would be to say that once, not to everyone in the remove camp individually. These confirmations are a place for the community to give feedback, not for you to argue endlessly about why you should remain a steward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So... this implies I can't reply now? As someone else, said this requires discussion and not a simple voting process, otherwise why not use closed balloting? I also understand the sense of diminishing returns with 'bludgeoning' (which is an essay, not policy), but as mentioned, just as this response is trying, I think replying to some statements to clarify is potentially useful, otherwise discussions will retain misconceptions (like e.g. when the .js pages were linked) and other people will opine according to those... if, on the other hand, they decide to ignore discussions and responses that is also their prerogative, but I favour clarification over not participating in a discussion. Also, I didn't literally respond to every single statement (e.g. those with no rationales, which by default can't be replied to). -- Menti fisto 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove What an embarrassing charade. The inactivity is lasting for years now, as others have demonstrated. If you would take only half of the energy you muster for discussions about why you should stay a steward and put it into doing steward work, nobody would complain. --MF-W 19:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I did do something, just not as much as some desire. What do you think is adequate? -- Menti fisto 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to respond to every remove vote like this? At what point does it become discouraging to voice an opinion? Vermont (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard limits don't make too much sense because different actions are of different "value". It looks like you are only looking for one in order to be able to say "I'm over it, I must keep my rights", to be honest. Also, different people value different things, and it's good that it can all be evaluated in the confirmations. One issue might also be that people are more prone to accept some degree of little activity if it happens once or twice, but not 7 times. --MF-W 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well... hopefully you don't mind a bit of a rehash from below if you already read it, but it does seem it was around seven times due to multilock's existence, which as mentioned I regret missing, but not much I can do about the past (except for utilizing it now, although some still dislike that in itself)... with regards to the former argument, it's not so much as to do enough, but to just have at least a benchmark, otherwise, as mentioned elsewhere, what is enough? A thousand in a day? But people still seem to think it's not enough, although does anyone do three hundred and sixty thousand in a year? One must admit, individuals have a variable desire, an expectation that is ever-changing, and so what ever is truly sufficient? Even if it doesn't concern logged actions, one may expect e.g. at least fifty interactions on a mailing list, another a hundred (but yes, I admit I was terribly deficient with regards to that, although of course, in contrast to logged actions one may not prove any such capability except insofar as the future can prove, i.e. ultimately I can only show through logged actions that I can be active, but I do intend to equal that activity in the future in other spheres, whether #wikimedia-stewards, ##stew, or the list unless unable to remain after this process concludes, but regardless as stated in my rewritten statement I will remain active wherever I could, regardless of the outcome). -- Menti fisto 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Vermont. You are always welcome to run again. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Vermont. While I'm generally tolerant to low activity I feel this has stretched on far too long and the user in question's comments do nothing but reinforce my opinion. Hiàn (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Vermont's concerns, but I think the activity has been sufficient. --AGK ■ 21:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Vermont --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove activity levels are too low to retain in my opinion. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - yet again demonstrates a total unawareness of the full steward responsibilities, lacking involvement and updated knowledge of what is expected from a steward. Sa vh ^ñ 23:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentifisto has performed about 100 steward actions every year since 2016, which isn't much but is indeed something. However, it is not an active involvement and the focus seems to be on being (minimally) active to keep the rights instead of keeping the rights to use them significantly, as can be determined from his comments here. Additionally, all (or most, as far as I checked) the locks performed in 2018 seem to concern spambot accounts blocked by the Meta abusefilter, whose harm is therefore (usually) limited. Locking without checking is easy but quite useless, in fact the abusefilter automatically does most of the job, as this spambot patterns do tend to share IP's but they rarely are active cross-wiki any more. I might - myself - be out of sync on this aspect, as I quit being a steward over a year ago.

The same seems to happen on Simple where one could not really say the user is involved or active even though he formally is. The Simple English Wikipedia requires at least 100 edits & logged actions (combined) in a natural year for administrators to retain their acces. Mentifisto performed, in 2018, 92 edits and 63 logs (155) all but 9 between October and December. In 2017 he had 108 edits and 10 logged actions (118), all but 8 in November and December and 14 of those 118 were on the 31st of December and stopping again immediately after this. In 2016, he performed 6 logged actions and 99 edits (105), of which 12 edits on the 31st of December, followed by edits in november 2017. Now he seems to be lobbying for for such a formal definition here as well, but complying with the minimum simply shouldn't be the mindset to be a steward.

After concerns were raised about his inactivity in his 2015 confirmation, Mentifisto affirmed "I won't just be active in the confirmations... I just upped my levels and will remain consistent in the future..." and performed for the remainder of the year about 400 steward actions. However, over half (+/-250) were in the month following the confirmations. I believe to be rightly concerned that the upped activity we are experiencing now is again temporary.

I would encourage the user to use the time by real involvement by contributing to these projects instead of doing the minimal effort to be formally active and involved in order to retain rights. Sa vh ^ñ 16:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, savh, as I mentioned on IRC I do check them now (and lock only those which follow a certain pattern), now as written elsewhere here before I only had a relatively minimal amount of activity due to missing multilock, which I take responsibility for (although sadly admit my lack of omniscience), but be aware that this was a relative perception when it concerns comparisons, and if logged actions is principally what people want then it's very easy with multilock, isn't it? (cf. my recent usage of it.) With regards to other wikis, though, how are they related when this role explicitly excludes activity on homewikis? If you mean to refer to a sense of general activity, well, I haven't stopped (see logs), but then the argument still is: how much is adequate? Lobbying refers to... a consensus that usually occurs on every wiki for every role? If you think an 'x' amount on 'y' wiki is insufficient, why not open a discussion about it? I really don't mean to do a minimal amount, but as asked elsewhere, is there no reasonable amount? It seems people here may think even a thousand logged actions a day isn't enough... how else, though, could one physically do more, unless time itself is stopped and one is active within that space? At some point there just isn't time, besides the fact everyone has their own lives... and then, aren't wikis supposed to be places where things are done by everyone, but since it's a volunteer project and everyone has differing amounts of time (not to mention timezones), and since no one is paid, everyone sort of nods an acknowledgement of such limitations and differences? -- Menti fisto 03:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop wilfully and repeatedly misinterpreting the feedback on your activity. "Logged actions is principally what people want" cannot be concluded from many comments here which reject the idea of arbitrary log action thresholds, which is in fact an idea you yourself have brought up here. And what it takes to be considered even remotedly involved has been sufficiently answered, even by your fellow stewards here. --Vogone (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly stated myself that it's not all, but that time can only facilitate that, I only just mentioned this above since Savh mentioned these stats specifically, so I replied to such a context. -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is indeed looking for an 'inflated' number of logged actions, no one cares about the numbers if they are not a representation of the activity, people expect stewards to be really active. A single multilock can indeed equal over 100 locks, but that is - as many people have mentioned here before - not an adequate measure of active involvement and one of the reasons why no one (except you) is looking to define activity in a specific number of logged actions. I also checked, partly also to reply to this comment: All but one of the spambots you locked in between confirmations had already been automatically blocked on meta. If you would be actively involved, you would know - without the need to ask for endless discussions (as you do there with regard to the need to lock spambots already blocked, and on multiple threads regarding a definition of minimal activity and also in previous instances) - what is useful and what is not. Performing around 100 barely useful locks of accounts that were all already blocked is definitely not really a contribution. Additionally, your reply in which you indicate "Ranges aren't necessarily too large, I just made a test today gradually increasing the number and there were more spambots prior in a larger range, so the question then is, do we want to deal with spambots or not?" shows that you're currently too uninvolved to know how to properly use the tools. No one expects you to be omniscient either, no one is. However, missing the existence of MultiLock for 6 years yet again shows how disconnected you are from this community, and one wonders how much else you have missed.

The simplewiki example I found pretty illustrative of how you abuse minimums to minimally comply with them, to avoid being stripped of the rights. However, your activity always disappears as soon as it's January, since simple considers a natural year for its inactivity removal. You don't mean to do the minimum, you say, but there you (nearly) do the minimum 3 years straight. Should I assume that was a coincidence?

As we discussed on IRC, locks should only be performed when it is pretty certainly a spambot. It currently seems that you cannot determine that with sufficient certainty, including the lock of RodrigoactBernardino and your lack of experience and knowledge with regards to the checkuser function (as commented by Ajraddatz above). Basically, a username in CamelCase found when checking a very large IP range does not simply mean it is a spambot, but not matching your (ironically erroneous) pattern, without bothering to check properly, does not mean it isn't a spambot. Sa vh ^ñ 20:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think only spambots blocked here are usually locked, I've dealt with ones blocked on other wikis or not blocked at all. With regards to ranges, it is a fact that larger ranges result in more spambots, test it yourself, some result in tens more whereas a check on the original singular IP results in perhaps two, or just the one. How is this about involvement when it's mostly a technical aspect and which networks spambots choose to park on? And when it comes to multilock... it was created two years after my election, at which point I happened to miss the singular notification about it. I'm not trying to justify it, but if it's not negative in itself to not be omniscient why is this specific accident so crucial to being overall involved? I could have, after all, theoretically been much more active using singular locks, but it is admittedly very efficient to use multilock instead. But, ultimately, I can only show what my usage would result in... although, if such activity isn't what anyone is looking for, then how exactly does anyone make an informed decision on general activity? (But yes, as mentioned elsewhere I plan to be active in 'non-countable' areas, including otrs recently as I was already responding to info-en tickets at any rate, nothing crucial, but I plan to monitor it.)

With regards to spambot username patterns, I'm trying to be as cautious as possible... it may seem ironic considering there were two confirmed ones, but generally there aren't many with three capitals, so I err on the side of caution... isn't that what you desire with the initial example? Currently there are quite a few spambots without edits or AF triggers that are locked by everyone, so... should we have a discussion on whether that should happen at all to be as cautious as possible? -- Menti fisto 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I think "only spambots blocked here are usually locked", I said you mostly locked spambots which were already blocked on meta (91 of your 94 locks). I'm not going to waste more of my time by further replying here, since you only selectively reply to tergiversations of the concerns I raise, and I have nothing to add to my comments and the absurd & concerning replies you provide. The only thing the community is discussing here is your confirmation as a steward, repeatedly trying to claim a need for community discussion to validate concerns raised about you is ridiculous and counterproductive. Sa vh ^ñ 23:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before January, yes, but since I found this new tool it is very much easier to expand the variety, and as mentioned I can't at this stage reverse time and alter the past Back to the Future-style (excuse my couple of references already on this page, I'm not sure if some may think these specifically are 'inappropriate', but I'm trying to utilize external culture to induce a little bit of humour if it is at all possible at this stage). Unless, of course, the DB itself is edited, which I noticed is possible on a local installation, it is moot and useless to even attempt to defend myself at this point, I can only do what I showed I could do after the timeline you linked to. And, um, by 'tergiversations' I assume you mean equivocation? I apologise if my replies seem absurd, I am mainly attempting to probe the logic of various arguments, but do you mean none of these discussions so far should have happened and closed balloting used? Or do you mean my reason for "lobbying" for a general consensus is 'ridiculous'? Because I still think, and will probably remain convinced that a more rational approach to reconfirmations can improve the process, since as it is no one deny that 'standards' (which inherently exist in individuals, some explicitly written) vary, not only within each person (as with every other value in the world at large) but, when it comes to yearly reconfirmations, people who opine differ too. So, then, that inevitably includes a smorgasbord of variables, not only of such values, but also individuals wherein some regularly comment annually, some others do not this year or the next, and others who comment for the first time who, for some, have completely different values (some e.g. do not like those who have done this for a long time, others think OC and this role should be separate, both of which are valid concerns to those who so opine)... ultimately, no one can really know what anyone's values are, how they differ, or even who may opine, and so it seems to me it is similar to a dice deciding an outcome sometimes, although of course it then depends on whether those values also resonate with others'. Hopefully, this shines some light on my thought process of why I think this might be a rational way to go about it, but, of course, if there isn't even a consensus on initiating a discussion in the first place about a possible consensus on an average standard, then that is certainly consensus in itself. -- Menti fisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above concerns.--BRP^ever 08:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per their repeated reassurances as to improving activity in the future--which indicates awareness that there is room for improvement--but that never subsequently materialises. This suggests the community's oft-stated concerns are not, perhaps, being taken as seriously as one would hope for in a Steward. ——SerialNumber54129 08:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequently (post-2015) I had the same problem that I had up to recently with regards to multilock as described elsewhere, Serial Number 54129; unfortunate I had only recently discovered it, but is recent activity as a sample adequate if it were extrapolated over the long-term? -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove His lawyer-ing comments over here coupled with a perpetual inactivity. Feel free to re-apply next time; if you exhibit considerable activity for an year or so. I am though willing to change my stance; based on his steward-activities in the next 20 days, since I generally do not held low activity to be a significant constraint.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TonyBallioni. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Thank you for your service! – KPFC 💬 10:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove--Brainswiffer (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that there is still a net gain with keeping his rights. I can't judge Mentifisto's performance by his private actions, so my opinion is only based on what I saw in the logs. Since the last confirmation round until the end of 2018 (therefore, not including the "pre-confirmation" period, where normally stewards tend to increase their activities), Mentifesto made more than 90 steward actions. It is a low level of activity? Yes, but not low enough to remove the rights. Also, I do not remember that his actions have caused harm, and therefore I do not see a strong reason to remove. Érico (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TonyBallioni and Miniapolis. --Garam (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a hard decision. Not because it would be regretful for someone who has been a steward for so long, but because some of the comments show an activity level, though on the lower side, is not enough for an oppose. However, your steward statement is poor (last year's statement was also quite passive and dry), and suggests a lack of interest in the role, sadly. If this was your request for stewardship, such a statement wouldn't pass the test. Leaderboard (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had updated it in response to the context of the comments generally. -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Based on comments here combined with general inactivity. They are either trying to lawyer or genuinely don't understand the feedback being offered. Either way this is not the skills/disposition I would hope a steward to have. This attitude gives little confidence in how well they would perform were they to sustain increased activity. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really wasn't consciously trying to act like a lawyer, I'm trying to reflect my understanding of various comments and reply if clarification could be provided. -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And someone who feels the need to reflect understanding or thinks that clarification is needed on most editors who suggest that you should not be retained as steward is again not the kind of disposition I want from a steward. As a leader of the community a steward should be able to take feedback, positive and negative. As my original comment stated the behavior shown here gives me little confidence in how you would carry out the more sensitive aspects of the position. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But seeking clarification is an effort to understand and implement the feedback. But, also, I think there is a bit of a misconception as to the role... sysops are often called 'janitors'... stewards then merely fill in when sysops and other local users aren't available. I do not think it's a leadership position, really... the community at large, by consensus, decides direction (as indeed happens here), which 'leaders' in the conventional sense usually do. This role isn't an 'executive' per se, but more verification of a community's already established consensus. -- Menti fisto 21:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Absolutely not. Your activity on your home wiki is embarrassing, and the fact that you have sensitive rights is troubling. Users with such rights are expected to have their finger on the pulse of the community, which I don't believe you've been able to say in almost 10 years. That coupled with you doing just enough to retain these rights shows that you shouldn't have them; your comments here only reaffirm that belief. Nihlus 15:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could try to increase activity generally, but what do homewikis have to do with this role where homewikis are explicitly excluded even for non-controversial actions? -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the bland statement and insufficient activity level to warrant keeping the tools. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had updated it in response to the context of the comments generally. -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above Hhkohh (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The number of editions or steward actions that a user performs during a period of time is not a reason to remove, however, I am neutral because of the somewhat "challenging" answers that the user has given to those who oppose to confirmation. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if they might appear that way, I'm trying to inquire for clarifications and provide any information that may missing in specific cases. -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per comments above. The toolkit is expected to be used significantly. Esteban16 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mentifisto's original statement was: "Deal mostly with spambots, check RC for updates, but can't believe another year slipped by..." They replaced it with a statement that seemed to justify 7 years of inactivity with procrastinating to fix an IRC client. Considering their spur of activity after they noticed remove votes coming in, I doubt that. Vermont (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone reading this (although stated elsewhere), no, the client was broken for the last couple of years or so, but I had relative inactivity due to somehow missing multilock, which baffles and annoys even myself, but can't reverse the flow of time and could only begin using it. -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TonyBallioni SQL ^{Query me!} 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have nothing against you personally, but I'm not in favour of performing a few actions to keep the steward tools. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove no opposition to a new application when you will be active again on Wikimedia projects. Linedwell ^[talk] 08:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Concerns with limited activity levels -FASTILY 09:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --cyrfaw (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Widr (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per many of the above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above inactivity concerns. I don't feel a Steward should be outpaced on edits (or actions) by a dedicated IP user. Operator873^talkconnect 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which IP user, exactly...? -- Menti fisto 07:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This IPv6 editor (one example) who consistently and reliably creates and edits geography articles on the Simple English Wikipedia is a good example from my home project. I attribute this activity to the same editor by the same reasoning we attribute abusive IP ranges to LTAs: DUCK. I will point out that you not being familiar with this regular IP editor on a project which you currently hold advanced permissions with only serves to reinforce other editors' concerns voiced here about your detachment from the community and general inactivity or disinterest. Operator873^talkconnect 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what difference does it make whether it's an IP or someone with an account? And how is article creation connected to the meta role here, much less geography? (While on encyclopedias it is desired, yet not central to the maintenance toolset, on meta these kind of articles aren't relevant, really...) -- Menti fisto 05:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should offer my apologies. SEWP sysop =/= Steward and I should not use an IP editor on a small project as comparison to a Steward's role in the community. My initial point, however, stands. I remain a remove vote based on inactivity. Operator873^talkconnect 18:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Dostojewskij (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, became (very) active just before confirmations, should have been little bit more active during the year (and I don't mean only onwiki actions). Not happy to their reactions either. Stryn (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~Cybularny ^Speak? 11:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --M-J (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per concerns about activity raised above. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Krd 08:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather as a last chance. I would accept the explanation of lack of IRC and scripts only if activity increases next year, otherwise my would would switch to Remove next year — NickK (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifisto promised in 2015 that he would resume activity; it lasted for about a month. Vermont (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: I tend to believe the procrastination explanation and that doing steward work without any scripts did not work for him. I would thus support giving another chance to improve activity. The only thing we can lose is trust in Mentifisto's statements as he is definitely qualified, acts in good faith and would not harm our projects. The thing we can win is an active and experienced steward. For me advantages of keeping these rights are stronger than disadvantages — NickK (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could take one about 3 minutes to get on with the Freenode web interface (which he did once remove votes started coming in), or a few more to make an IRCCloud account. I'll also note that someone who procrastinated for multiple years to spend a few minutes to get back onto IRC is not someone I believe should retain steward permissions. I'm not sure what you mean by without any scripts; his scripts, which hasn't been touched in more than 3 years, still work fine. Vermont (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop presuming? When I referred to 'scripts' I meant those for an IRC client, nothing to do with javascript, and I still lack a lot of macros and such. -- Menti fisto 11:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I misconstrued it as being onwiki scripts. Regardless, it's remarkably easy nowadays to get onto IRC, and I see no reason why you wouldn't have been able to get on since March 2017. Even then, you only remained online for about 34 days. Vermont (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a while I thought it would be sufficient to use just the web for this (and as mentioned I had many digital problems in between then and now, hopefully no more), but it's clearly not as even as soon as I hopped on recently I was presented with the exponential potential (per se) of utilizing a medium where bots abound. -- Menti fisto 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove with sadness, but I agree with Vermont, Vogone and Savh above. In addition, no actual involvement with fellow stewards on discussions, Meta, etc. for several years already. Sorry. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Elmie (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They seems to be active now; Activity increased; Giving this year a chance would be good i guess; We need a helping hand. Kind regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 16:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tulsi, let's consider the following. Mentifisto hasn't been particularly active for several years and this is the only burst of activity where I can confidently say he's being active. He promised activity on a prior confirmation and made no real attempt to follow through on that promise and we haven't seen him active on any of his home wikis for 7+ years. There's a stark difference between someone saying they'll help out more and someone who actually does. Wouldn't you agree that we have given him well enough chances after several years? Hiàn (talk)/_{editing on mobile account} 16:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After that time was when I started getting computer problems, so I had to fix them first before anything, also due to that I missed the creation of multilock, which I'm now utilizing. It's quite convenient, so if you think this amount of activity is sufficient, with the aforementioned tool it is even easier to be active than in 2015, so I'd almost certainly (lest computers die constantly one after another in the near future, which is unlikely, and this one seems stable). But... yes, if this activity is sufficient I could certainly continue at this rate. -- Menti fisto 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fair - but your track record has already proven you to be rather unreliable when it comes to promises, eh? I don't see any particular reason why any of us should remotely trust you to keep this activity up. Hiàn (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because multilock is efficient. I'm not entirely sure why and if I've used it before, but I am now, and I could have never done nearly a thousand logged actions as I did today individually. If I used it before then perhaps that single action you see would have been perhaps ten, but really, when it can handle even a hundred at once, it's truly efficient and practically impossible to not be active. I just ask that I'm given a chance because I have somehow suddenly discovered this most efficient technology and it is like transitioning from typing with one finger to touch typing. -- Menti fisto 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you had no clue about 2013-era tools kinda proves how disconnected you are from the group and the role. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I regret the fact, but if one even misses a single notification about new developments then it's missed, and it doesn't help that it's not even an extension in its own right it seems. But, yes, I'm not omniscient, although I strive to improve, and if it's being active that is wanted then this can only help, right? I think it's like wikimarkup, while we may all know a substantial amount there is always something that is learned eventually, and like with any other subject, even extensive knowledge doesn't preclude omissions. -- Menti fisto 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multilock wasn't a single notification, nor is it anything near comparable to an obscure piece of wikimarkup. It's literally one of the most important steward tools which you've been the only person unaware of for nearly six years. Vermont (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there wasn't any fanfare about it, and at any rate let us focus on the present. In years past problems with activity comparisons seemed to stem from relativity due to the exponential nature (it's interesting even for myself to see how exactly I ended up with only ~150 actions in a year when yesterday I did more than double that amount and today about six times, truly efficacious). So, I ask for one last chance, because as demonstrated there is no way I can be inactive now (unless I outright die at which point none of this matters anyway). -- Menti fisto 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I am slowly getting bored by these constant replies of which every single confirms the reason why there are so many people on the remove side here. The issue presented was a lack of involvement and not-so-useful occasional locks of spambots and you are now seriously begging for "one last chance" while promising to do the same just on a bigger scale log-action wise? Please do us a favour and resign immediately instead of continuing this counterproductive "charade" as MF-Warburg rightly called it. --Vogone (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So... I can't reply? I'm trying to be understanding here, what else can I do? Now the question is: is locking spambots not useful? It's debatable, but as it is everyone does it, so what exactly is wrong about it? If I increase my activity in this context how can I not be involved? I can't reverse time, but I can fix the issues raised. -- Menti fisto 23:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying but aren't really saying much. The point many of us are making is that there is nothing you can do, as you've clearly talked you way through the last couple of confirmations by essentially lying to the community about your planned activity levels. It appears the community has finally caught on. Nihlus 00:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to explain what has happened, I would have lied if I did nothing at all in the past year, not a single action, did I? No, what my replies indicated is that relativity in comparisons is what is perceived. Are you saying I was inactive today, yesterday? I've done nearly two thousand logged actions since February, and unless they're abusive (in which case feel free to revert them), how do they say I'm inactive? Unless we have different definitions of activity, and with regards to the long-term I explained how I'd be active. See, with such levels of recent activity (as long as we agree on that statement) it would be patently absurd to just suddenly stop, so if I go from about 2000 in two weeks to, let's say, not even a thousand a month (or you name the amount) then I'll admit I'm not active and you have every right to your accusation, but with multilock it's more than possible; how could I lie about this when my actions show it? -- Menti fisto 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because you a clearly aware that your status as steward is in jeopardy. That is really the only reason. We're looking at the big picture and not just the last three weeks. Nihlus 01:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason is multilock, do you think I could have done a thousand in a day individually? There wouldn't be enough seconds in the day. It's not just the last three weeks, but if I can do so much with multilock in three weeks then if I do, say, a thousand a week (today was like a test to see how much I could do if I spent most of the day, but clearly not sustainable for over three hundred days, I'd admit that), extrapolated I can theoretically do 52000 a year. Sure, it'll be variable (realistically less, but even twenty thousand would be adequate, no?), but it's entirely possible with the efficacy of multilock. -- Menti fisto 01:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

You don't spring from one spambot lock every few days to thousands a month because of finding a years-old steward tool you've been too uninvolved to know about. You made the same promise in 2015, and I see no reason why we should trust you this time. I also find it unlikely you "discovered" MultiLock immediately after remove votes became rolling in. Vermont (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note you've currently proposed the following reasons as to why you've been inactive: broken computer, lost IRC client configuration files, not knowing about Special:MultiLock, lost interest in Wikimedia, and that you haven't been inactive. They're all mutually exclusive. Vermont (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew about it before why wouldn't I have used it? I seriously did the previous locks all individually (see timestamps), why otherwise would I be so intentionally inefficient? Also, was I uninvolved or did I unlikely discover it (kind of mutually exclusive)? In 2015 I genuinely wasn't aware of such technological efficacy, which I regret, but as mentioned one can't go back in time. I can only exist in the present, and recently I've demonstrated that this tool can make me far more efficient than before, but of course this depends on if my definition of 'activity' is the same as that which others think of, which is logged actions. With regards to involvement in other affairs I can only continue on a linear timeline and and use IRC and notifications for mailing lists.

And, I'm not sure how broken computers are incompatible with broken IRC clients, one depends on the other, lost interest insofar as individual locks seemed monotonous, which was rectified by multilock; I've also mentioned I thought I wasn't inactive until I realized it was due to relativity (you mentioned a year which coincides with multilock's creation, which is why I had this recent realization especially after using it quite a bit in the last few days). -- Menti fisto 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your response attempts to completely walk around the argument I said above. I will summarize it plainly: your claims are hypocritical. You've been inactive and disconnected for years and are attempting to play that off as normal; for 5 years there's been votes in your SE confirmations complaining of a lack of activity. Vermont (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's exactly what I referred to, the same amount of years since multilock's creation, I'm annoyed I missed it but, unless 'activity' refers to not necessarily countable actions (which I'll still stay afloat by remaining on IRC), with it I'm sure I'll rectify all the concerns (I'll maintain my current activity). -- Menti fisto 04:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Most of us keep our comments to one, and with our direct (dis)confirmation, and I would appreciate it if you could do the same. I think that you are overly investing in this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. If the Stewards feel this has been excessive, then they are more than capable of saying so themselves. However, a situation like this requires more nuance and discussion than a simple reasonless "Keep" vote will provide. Nihlus 10:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Richardkiwi (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am satisfied at the recent levels and wish to echo NickK. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per Vermont, Vogone and Savh and some other above. --Kusurija (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ~~Did some anti-Chinese comments on SRM, which is clearly by-ethnic inappropriate.~~ Very very low activity. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty strong comment to be making without a diff. Please have the courtesy to produce evidence or else withdraw this allegation. I cannot find any edit of Mentifisto during 2017, 2018 or what we've lived in 2019 in SRM. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifisto has not edited SRM since 2010. Are you thinking of another person? Vermont (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Vermont, Savh, Rschen7754 and others. Doing just enough to keep your tools in many projects and then not understanding people's concerns, and instead wanting to know how many actions is enough to keep your biggest tools, is, well, concerning. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But if there is no 'enough', then how can I do enough? I merely thought I was active but since I can not know what each individual has as an adequate 'standard' (which everyone still has, regardless of a consensus on such an average that usually is the result on most other wikis after discussions). How specifically have I not understood concerns? I hope I'm at least trying... -- Menti fisto 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Eurodyne (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Klaas `Z4␟` V: 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, primarily per Rschen7754, Vermont & Nihlus. This is an extremely high level of privilege, status, and authority (however informal). Stewards need to be highly committed and engaged, and their status needs to be earned on an ongoing basis. It's not a status symbol or an entitlement. Per Rschen, the user does not have a strong interest in the work, which suggests that they are not a Steward for the right reasons. Additionally, the replies to the concerns come across as out of touch and bizarre. The lame excuses and the supposed inability to comprehend the straightforward concerns, it's just not believable, and it's just not a convincing argument compared to those advocating for removal. Swarm (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly implies I don't have interest? You refer to many arguments, but none specifically... so, I hope you don't mind me asking, but... how specifically am I out of touch that my replies reflect? And how are they bizarre? While missing a crucial toolkit such as multilock is indeed 'lame', I certainly am not justifying any positivity in such an oblivious outcome, and can only apologize for my oversight, but what else can I practically do?

And, I also do understand concerns... I can see how e.g. since my election I had, in total, about 10,000 actions or thereabouts (if, yet again, we're talking solely about countable actions, which currently is mostly the only way to objectively analyze someone's activity)... since discovering multilock I made nearly, about 3000... that is in the last two weeks, which is totally "bizarre", I do admit. But, as "lame" as it may have been to miss multilock (created two years after my election, which I think contributed to my missing it... by nature, the mind is more open initially to everything, when it comes to any novel activities, and intrinsically learns more about an environment and, in this case, technological context, than if two years or so had passed... e.g. anyone can see that I used to handle AIV on enwp much, much more early on, did about 7000 blocks in about a year or so... but, neurochemically speaking, dopamine decreases in response to repeated activities... now, though, I've started again after many years and there certainly does seem to be more interest than, say, two years after my enwp RfA... this is mostly basic biology that, I think, affects everyone). Does this logic not make it believable? -- Menti fisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More questions. "How?" "What?" You've asked "how?" in response to questions no less than 19 times. You've asked "what?" in response to questions no less than 14 times. I'm sorry, that's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it from a candidate undergoing a vetting process, from assessing low-level permission grants, to RfAs, and this is a Steward confirmation. It comes across as a bit manipulative if intentional, unglued if unintentional. I literally endorsed three specific rationales for opposing, and you're telling me I haven't referred to any specific arguments. Swarm (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactivity has been far to high for such an important position. And it isn't a new concern it has been ongoing for quite awhile. I am pretty sure I had this same comment in 2015. And would have in the ones since but always seem to forget to come here during the confirmation period. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned, it's due to missing multilock, which is the reason of my recent 'bursts' (as others have noticed); either way, I certainly hope if no one minds if I'm truly active in the future on all the wikis I was active on in the past (IRC makes it so easy). -- Menti fisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "The more sensitive the permission, the more active someone needs to be, simply because the harm that can be done due to not keeping up with policy/tools is higher (and also that of someone compromising the account). Since Steward is the most sensitive permission of all, people should remain reasonably active." was about what I was going to comment a week ago but didn't get around to. Now, the inappropriate use of the CU tool as commented by Ajraddatz above and incorrect locking clearly demonstrate the harm of not keeping up with policy and tools, and so it is very clear they should not continue as Steward. Galobtter (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'd still argue that /16 results in more spambots (although I am recently starting with /20 since at times the other results in such a long list that is just inefficient to go through), unless it is decided in the future that spambots are useless to be locked (which can be a valid point considering they mostly only edit once), and which specific incorrect locking? My recent 2000+ locks are all incorrect? I invite you to specify, as I do very much try to be as cautious as possible (as mentioned above) and at best my couple of unlocks (with no edits and still matching the typical username patterns) were due to uncertainty, but I never locked any legitimate editor that later emailed the mailing list to be unlocked or such. I do spend quite a lot of time to verify that spambots match this pattern, and if by consensus it is decided that, on average, it's best to only lock those absolutely registered on the same IP then, being the safest option, I wouldn't mind confining all locks to that, but currently every other steward locks potential spambots from ranges, so I ask for consistency. -- Menti fisto 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long trusted user willing to continue to contribute in a leadership role to the best of his availability. --Jacob (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Activity concerns have been raised each confirmation. It doesn't really matter if we don't have a minimum number for defining activity criteria. If community tells you that they are unhappy with your activity, keep performing the same level of activity won't change their mind. I also don't like to see an increase of participation when getting close to the elections in a way that makes it appear that the steward is more active than actually is. It makes the process less transparent. However, I trust Mentifisto on dealing with the tools. If it weren't for the activity issue, he would still be completely able to do the job.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 21:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove after consideration of the above. --LilHelpa (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - every meaningful action is a useful action, that is more important than frequency (pardon my English, I am not trained) Bluemel1 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- Enfcer (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Mirer (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Darkhan 20:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Melos (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matanya (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Vermont --DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recent activity is more relevant than the older one, my request on IRC for Glock Crosswiki spam was solved by Menti.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 06:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He wasn't as active as before but he is still around helps in time of need, I don't see any harms in him having his access Mardetanha ^talk 07:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NahidSultan

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

<2019 (translate this) not available, displaying English (help us translate!).>

English:

Languages: bn-N, en-3, bpy-1, as-1
Personal info: Hey folks, I have been a steward for the past 3 years now and this is my 3rd confirmation. Over the year, I was mainly active in handling anti-vandalism, spams and LTAs including some rename requests. You can also check my CheckUser statistics on loginwiki. I've to admit though, I was not active handling requests at SRP in 2018 which I hope to increase this year. If confirmed I would like to continue helping the community as a steward. Thank you for your feedback.

Comments about NahidSultan

Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Active enough and actions were reasonable. --Rs chen 7754 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepYes, although less active, but activity level is still good. In addition, language skills are a plus.--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ghilt (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Vermont/SE/2019#NahidSultan Vermont (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirm and special thanks to this user. Blue Rasberry (talk)

iBetuBet.com - Apostando apenas na Vitórias!