The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning 20 June 2009, experienced editors were invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission were also invited to apply for the other. Interested editors must have emailed privileges2009googlemail.com by 1 July 2009, and were sent a questionnaire to complete. The timeline for the process is below.

Those applying for consideration as checkuser and/or oversight candidates should be familiar with the applicable CheckUser and Oversight policies, as well as the WMF Privacy policy. Checkuser candidates are expected to be familiar with basic technological issues and sockpuppetry investigation tools and techniques. Successful candidates will also have good communication skills and demonstrated ability to work collaboratively.

Anyone considering applying should be aware that checkusers and oversighters (and candidates for these permissions) are subject to considerable internal and external scrutiny. This scrutiny can include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities, and can result in revealing personal details of the candidates or contacts with employers, family or others. This risk will continue if the candidate is successful in the election. There is limited ability within Wikipedia to prevent off-wiki “outing” or harassment.

Timeline of election process[edit]

• June 20 – Announcement of upcoming election and invitation to request applications.
• July 1 – Deadline to request applications
• July 3 – Deadline for submission of applications
• June 20 – July 20 – Arbitration Committee review of submissions
• July 21–27 – Preparation for election, including offers of nomination to selected candidates

• Pages will be created for candidates who accept nomination.

• The nominees may post a brief statement as of 0001 UTC on July 25
• The community may begin posing questions of the nominees as of 0001 UTC on July 26

• July 28 – August 10 – voting
• August 11–16 – Arbitration Committee review of results
• August 16 – Announcement of results

bjweeks[edit]

bjweeks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello everybody, I'm Brandon.

I've been an editor since late 2006 and an administrator since June 2008. Currently I'm pursuing a computer science degree so I'm fairly well versed in the technical side of CheckUser. This includes CIDR notation for range blocking and doing collateral damage checks, using whois for looking up the owner of an IP and determining if the IP is static or dynamic, querying geolocation databases to find the general geographic area where an IP or user is editing from and using portscannning tools such as nmap, interpreting the results and manually confirming if a computer is an open proxy.

I'm a member of the OTRS team with full info-en access so I routinely deal with personal information and sensitive situations. Often in dealing with BLP tickets I will find sock farms by editors pushing agendas, I worked with CheckUsers to investigate the sockpuppets. The privacy of editors is very important; I intend to show the same regard for the privacy policy with CheckUser as I have with OTRS. I live on the West Coast and will be available during the day for urgent requests.

There are a great set of candidates running for CU—no matter who gets promoted, the community will definitely benefit. Thank you for your consideration and happy voting. BJ^Talk 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for bjweeks[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

  Without trying to sound like everybody else, I honestly believe all five candidates are qualified for the role of CheckUser. Of course each candidate offers their own set of skills, all of which I feel would be a positive addition to the CheckUser team. While qualifications are very important, this election is mostly about community trust. I think I am both qualified for the position and have earned the trust of the community. BJ^Talk 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]
  1. When there is some indication provided by the account name that the account could be part of a sock farm, obviously abusive accounts should just be blocked. Many accounts with similar names created in a short period of time would be an example.
  2. Tag team inserting/reverting of content with sock puppets doesn't strictly require a CheckUsers but identifying who is who in complex cases can make sense out of a indecipherable mess. CheckUsers can preemptively stop serial vandals with large sock farms, whereas admins can only clean up the mess.
  3. Whenever the user requesting the check has a reasonable case for not wanting to draw attention to the user/articles involved. Sensitive OTRS cases and suatitions that require material be oversighted and it hasn't yet be done are two that I have encountered. BJ^Talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from Tony1: Do you think the current policy on alt accounts is too open? What is your view of the discussion that has been going on at Sock puppetry? Tony (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In a theoretical sense I agree with "one account, one person". One person operating two accounts simultaneously without disclosing the connection causes more harm than it does good. Practically however, I don't see the proposal as feasible. With the current CU system there is no way to check every account with an automated process, nor do I foresee the community supporting such a system. For full disclosure I have one disclosed alternate account I use for editing from public computers: BJ (talk · contribs). BJ^Talk 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In Enigmaman's second RfA Deskana's actions were kind of controversial. (If you are not (already) a bureaucrat, imagine you were one.) Please explain how you would have acted (and why) if you were in Deskana's position.[reply]

  If I had previously seen CU evidence of wrongdoing connected to an account running for adminship, I would not publicly disclose it as Deskana did in that case. However, I feel I would be doing the community a disservice to ignore it. Instead I would contact ArbCom with the information and let them decide how to act on it. I don't think that it is the role of either CheckUsers or bureaucrats to take action on secret data during RfAs, that is in the purview of ArbCom. BJ^Talk 22:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) I weakly support you due to the lack of experience, but I like your statement.--Caspian blue 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from Mike.lifeguard 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Would you please make a (realistic) statement regarding your anticipated availability for handling checkuser matters?[reply]

  For private/urgent requests I will be available via IRC and email during the day when I'm at the computer. During the week I'm at my computer on and off during the day and at night (Mountain Time Zone), weekends vary. BJ^Talk 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC): Bjweeks, you're the only candidate I've heard of as I remember reading on another site how you work as an admin to stop vandalism when stuff is posted on 4chan asking people to vandalize pages. Well anyways, my questions... (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole? (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people? (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?[reply]
  1. I think that more female CheckUsers, or just more female administrators in general would be a Good Thing. I don't see the solution as seeking more females specifically for the roles but instead making the working environment more pleasant for them. Not sure how exactly to do this but clearly something is wrong.
  2. Dealing with impostor accounts isn't strictly a CheckUser function. Where an impostor account is suspected, either a message should be left on their talk page asking them to contact OTRS to confirm the account or in more extreme circumstances the account should be preemptively blocked and referred to OTRS.
  3. The new system is a large improvement over the old one. The community should always have a say in handing out user rights. Overall I'm pleased with the new system, however I would have preferred more transparency in the vetting process. BJ^Talk 04:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of bjweeks[edit]

2. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. JamieS93 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. iMatthew ^talk at 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak support --Caspian blue 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Aqwis (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Mixwell
16. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. ~ Ameliorate! 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Nathan ^T 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. — Σxplicit 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Willking1979 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Tony (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Shimgray | talk | 13:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. LittleMountain5 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. — Athaenara ✉ 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. RP459 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. —MC10|Sign here! 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Recognizance (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Shappy ^talk 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. BrianY (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53.  Cargoking  talk  14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Hell, yes. Pmlineditor 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Res2216firestar 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Alexfusco⁵ 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. --TitanOne (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Joe (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Ysangkok (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Atama^chat 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Crafty (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)(Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 (c|s) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. WJBscribe (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. — madman bum and angel 04:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. PerfectProposal 02:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Martin451 (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. β^_command 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. SBC-YPR (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80.   JJ (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Tiptoety ^talk 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Cynical (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. -- Banjeboi 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. GDonato (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Cailil ^talk 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. hmwitht 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. —Terrence and Phillip 12:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. -- Bishonen | talk 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Xenoarchaeologeest 10:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, voter does not have 150 article space edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Brand[t] 06:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support billinghurst (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Alio The Fool 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. — JamesR (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Lara 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support   --StaniStani  21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to bjweeks[edit]

2. Weak oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Oppose -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

5. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sorry, but I cannot endorse weak BJs, this week.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. FluffyWhiteCat (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold[edit]

Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello, everyone; my name is Hersfold, and it is my honor to stand before you as a candidate for the CheckUser tool.

For those who do not know me, I have been active on Wikipedia for two years and seven months now, and have been an administrator for over a year and four months now. My RfA passed on March 17, 2008 with near unanimous support. I may be somewhat unfamiliar to many of you, as I tend to be a WikiElf rather than an active content editor, working in the background in administrative areas, most notably with CAT:RFU, CAT:CSD, WP:RFPP, and various other areas as the mood takes me. Despite this, I do hold two DYK's, for Carcross Desert and Hood Mockingbird. Most recently, I was named a trainee clerk for the Arbitration Committee in April.

As I mentioned, I work mainly in the backstage of the Wiki, so I regularly come across issues that haven't been given the attention they need. Most common are the regular unblock requests we receive from users who have been caught in a rangeblock. More often than not, these affect relatively new accounts that have not established themselves well enough on the project to be immediately given an IP Block Exemption. The Checkuser tool would allow me to quickly deal with these, rather than trying to find a CU. Of course, the tool is mainly intended to help stop disruptive editing, and there it would be an increased assistance in deletion discussions, incident reports, and in my work with the ArbCom. While I have not been very active at WP:SPI of late, I have checked in on occasion, and plan to become more active there soon regardless of the result of this election.

I'll close out with a short FAQ, since I know there will be many questions asked of me:

• Availability: I check my email frequently, and those who have contacted me that way know they can expect a quick response. I'm also frequently on IRC (and an op in several channels), and respond to talk page messages as soon as they are read.
• Knowledge: I study Computer Science, and therefore have a much better-than-average understanding of the technical matters, and certainly know where to find it in the occasional instance I find myself confused.
• Trust: Due to my position at college, I have access to private information of various natures already, and am well respected by many of the staff there for my discretion and trustworthiness. I would be certain to treat this responsibility with the same degree of professionalism.

Thank you for your consideration. Should you have comments or concerns, I'm always open to constructive criticism, and I hope to be able to alleviate any worries you may have. Best of luck to the other candidates as well! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Hersfold[edit]

Sorry if I'm a bit long-winded... tl;dr versions can be provided on request. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

  Response to Aitias: I feel that the candidates ArbCom have selected for this election are all very good, and would perform admirably in this position. However, I feel as though my history here makes me well qualified to be elected. During my time here, I have established a high level of trust with the community. I mentioned previously I was named as a ArbCom clerk some months ago, currently serve as Betacommand's mentor as he works to regain his own trust with the community, and operate bots here, at Wiktionary, and on Commons. I have been responsible for very few "drama" incidents; a search through ANI and AN will reveal that I comment on those issues frequently, but am rarely the subject of them. Where an issue I am involved in does become controversial, I am not likely to change my mind without significant evidence to the contrary, something which can be a valuable asset for a checkuser. CU's are frequently asked to complete checks that are considered "fishing" or otherwise don't need to be done according to policy. While the CU clerks certainly help deal with many of the on-wiki requests in that regard, the checkuser mailing list and private requests still need to be responded to, and where a user insists that a check still be completed, someone stubborn can help prevent abuse of the tool. I am not overly worried about my personal identity being revealed; I have had my real name on my userpage for some time now, and it's not hard to figure out much of the rest. What needs to be kept private is, and my account is well secured against unauthorized intrusion.

  That said, I don't feel as though the other candidates don't have these qualities, and in fact I have high respect for all of them, and plan to vote in their support. However, I also feel my qualifications, both those stated here and in my statement above, are more than enough to establish me as a worthy candidate. If you need further information, please let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]

1. The Edit (aka Abuse) Filter has several filters in place that are aimed at known modus operandi of some known socking vandals. If a user were to repeatedly trigger one of these filters, the filter may prevent the edit from being made (hence no actual disruption), but would still be logged. Depending on how accurate the filter was and the nature of the vandal, a CU could find an underlying IP address or sleeper accounts and stop the vandal before they get around the filter. Similarly, new user accounts with names similar to that of a recently-blocked sock can be checked to see if they are the blocked user, and a large series of similar improper account names can be CU'd to temporarily block the underlying IP address. The CU policy allows for a check to be run if there is reasonable suspicion of abuse, preferably documentable (i.e., I can point to a diff or log and say "this was a red flag for me). The cases I've covered are likely most of a very few cases in which this could happen without any prior disruption, however.
2. Any sort of widespread attacks using multiple accounts could use Checkuser assistance; the Grawp attacks are evidence of that. In his "prime," Grawp would create (or have created) dozens of sleeper accounts which he would quietly nurse into autoconfirmed status, so he could use them one-by-one to move random articles to vandal titles. Protection and simple blocking proved ineffective, as he'd switch accounts and IPs and carry on. Once a checkuser got involved, they could identify sleeper accounts, block them before they got used, and in some severe cases issue a short-term hard rangeblock to stop the attack while the rest of the accounts were ferreted out. Less severe cases could involve a banned POV pusher who repeatedly attacks a certain set of articles; they may fly under the radar for a time, and it could take a Checkuser to connect the accounts if the banned user is particularly clever.
   That said, a good portion (probably most) of socking issues in mainspace can be handled simply by comparison of edits and other public evidence; CU is simply used in these cases as a verification when it's not 100% certain.
3. Anything involving a long-term editor or administrator should probably go to the checkuser mailing list. Not to say those users have any particularly special status (since they don't), but starting an SPI on them can lead to unsightly amounts of drama which can complicate investigations. By handling it privately, a CU is able to email the user directly saying (more diplomatically) "you got caught, I've blocked your accounts, stop it now, we're keeping an eye on you, if you'd care to explain please do" in low-key cases, or forward the matter to ArbCom for more serious infractions. For administrators, ArbCom involvement is probably necessary anyway due to the "Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner risk being summarily de-sysopped" line in the socking policy.
   Other issues, of course, include cases which could, for one reason or another, potentially harm one or more users through the release of their IP address (since many SPI's are of the form "Are this user and this IP the same?"). The most obvious case I can think of would be dealing with Sensitive IP Addresses (gov't IP addresses and the like); there are certainly others, but I can't think of any that would make particularly good examples. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In Enigmaman's second RfA Deskana's actions were kind of controversial. (If you are not (already) a bureaucrat, imagine you were one.) Please explain how you would have acted (and why) if you were in Deskana's position.[reply]

• That RfA was quite a mess. I can't say that it was entirely anyone's fault, but it probably could have been handled better. Were I the crat there (I should note I am not one), I would have contacted Enigmaman privately as soon as possible, without taking any immediate action on the RfA. He stated within the RFA that had he been contacted, he would have withdrawn. Further, since this did not appear to be an ongoing issue but rather a one-off incident, giving him a chance to step back with the understanding that it was NOT to be done again, and noting that avoiding scrutiny of this manner is against policy and could result in further steps being taken, probably would have been best for everyone. Enigmaman could have claimed some RL issues preventing him from continuing, and the community would not have needed to know unless it happened again. That could have spared everyone the drama resulting from the strange issues with deleting edits and the release of the IP address. If he failed to respond or refused to withdraw, then I would have discussed with other CU's, crat's, and potentially Arbs about what to do; most likely, it would have ended up trying to note that the logged-out editing had taken place in some way while trying to keep the IP itself private (which would have been difficult, as we saw). The unfortunate thing about that RfA is that there really isn't any good way to handle it; this is what I would have done, but it could have spiraled out of control just as easily as it did for Deskana. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How old are you? ÷seresin 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 20. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So that everyone's aware, I'll be away from this Sunday (the 2nd) until the end of elections. If you ask a question during that time here, it may not receive a response, or will receive a rather delayed response. Sorry for the inconvenience, although if you do have any pressing concerns, I would ask that you email me - I'll try to see that those get answered as soon as I can. Thanks to all who have supported so far. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC): (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole? (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people? (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?[reply]

You caught me just in time. :-) These may be the last questions I'll be able to answer due to the awayness mentioned above.

1. There very probably could and should be more female functionaries (or editors in general), although as you mention I think it's more than likely a result of most people on Wikipedia being men anyway. I believe this is starting to slowly become more evenly balanced, and for the better. (So the short answer is, yes, both)
2. If I should find a case like that, I'd treat it the same way as we would for a potential RL celebrity impersonator. Block them, and refer them to OTRS so they can verify their identity. As a checkuser, I'd offer whatever assistance I could to OTRS, which would likely include making a check, finding a general location for the user with geolocation tools and whois reports, and forwarding what information I'd be able to provide to the OTRS list. After that, it's in OTRS's hands. Checkuser (unfortunately) doesn't allow us to see who's on the other side of the computer screen, so unless I was very lucky I'd be unable to verify the person's identity myself.
   Of course, should I find other vandalism edits coming from the IP and/or similar impersonation nonsense, I may not bother with OTRS and just leave them blocked. There's no sense in wasting everyone's time for something that obviously isn't worth it; even if it is the real person in that case, if they're not here to help, they don't need to be here.
3. I do appreciate having the community provide their input into the selection process. These tools should only be given to those users who can be trusted to deal with them appropriately; being trusted by ArbCom is one thing, but being trusted by several thousand others is quite another. I can think of two main disadvantages, though; elections like this do have the tendency to attract grudge holders who will oppose for no reason other than that the candidate blocked them, argued with them over an article, or some other perceived slight. This has been helped some by placing restrictions on who can vote and disallowing comments to distract from the main purpose. The second disadvantage is that which I just mentioned, the commenting. I understand why ArbCom has asked us not to attach comments to our votes, but at the same time it leaves those among us who are not getting much support wondering why they're being opposed, and what they can do to improve themselves. A few editors have publicly provided their rationales, but it's only a handful. In general, though, I do like the election process as not only does it get the community involved, it helps keep the community aware of who has these tools in the event they require assistance with them.
4. I am ready for IPv6. :-)

I hope this answers your questions; as I said, this will be the last time I'll be online for some time, possibly until the elections have ended. Sorry for the inconvenient timing, but I will try to check in if I can. Best of luck to all of the other candidates! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Hersfold[edit]

1. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. iMatthew ^talk at 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. (X! · talk)  · @060  ·  00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Aqwis (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13.  Chzz  ►  00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Res2216firestar 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Mixwell --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Skinwalker (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. — Σxplicit 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Trust! bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. --Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oniongas (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. -- Mentifisto 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. – B.hotep •talk• 14:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. LittleMountain5 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. JamieS93 18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Ian¹³/t 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. RP459 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. —MC10|Sign here! 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. -Drdisque (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. NW (Talk) 01:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. BrianY (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Bilby (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Chris (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61.  Cargoking  talk  14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Alexfusco⁵ 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. → ROUX ₪ 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Cubs197 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Ineligible voter. Hersfold ^(t/a/c)[reply]

75. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Ysangkok (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Atama^chat 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support ≈ Chamal ^talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Pmlineditor 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. McJEFF ^(talk) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. — madman bum and angel 04:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 07:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. StarM 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Stephen 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. PerfectProposal 02:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Joe (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. yousaf465' 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Martin451 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. β^_command 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Graham87 01:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. Tiptoety ^talk 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Poltair (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. -- Banjeboi 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. GDonato (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. hmwitht 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Use it wisely, or else--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. snigbrook (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     --k33l0r (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible to vote, fewer than 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

112. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. —Terrence and Phillip 12:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. –Megaboz (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. AlexiusHoratius 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Steven Walling (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. -- Bishonen | talk 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
119. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. billinghurst (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Alio The Fool 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. — JamesR (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Otterathome (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. Whitehorse1 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support --StaniStani  22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Hersfold[edit]

2. Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Caspian blue 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

4. -- Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Crafty (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Cynical (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy[edit]

J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hey everyone!

As you may know, most of my work here on Wikipedia involves fighting vandalism in various shapes and forms. As part of this, I frequently deal with sockpuppets and puppeteers. I believe that having access to the CheckUser tool would be a benefit to the project because of my experience with sockpuppeteers, my knowledge of the technical aspects of the tool, and my activity level. I am typically online for several hours most days. For communication, besides my talk page, I can be found in several public IRC channels, and I can be reached via wiki-email if desired. During the fall, my activity will probably be slightly less, as I will have classes etc. to deal with. In the past, while working on my homework, I have idled in IRC, and I checked my watchlist occasionally, so I would still be available a large amount of the time during the school year, even if I am not editing.

Most of my experience with sockpuppet investigations is as an extension of my more general recent changes patrol work. I often uncover (mostly rather inexperienced) sockpuppeteers while patrolling RecentChanges. I have extensive experience combatting several persistent puppeteers, and more recently, I have begun dealing with persistent POV-pushers who create sockpuppets to edit in areas which are related to real-world disputes. As a combined result of my work in these areas, I ask checkusers for help fairly frequently. Based on the fact that nearly all of my requests are accepted (the CU runs a check), I feel that I have a good grasp on when it is appropriate to use the tool. From a technical standpoint, I am comfortable with implementing range blocks, and I have taken several courses at my university that dealt with networking.

In addition to my work on the English Wikipedia, I have a good amount of experience combatting vandalism and spam on many other projects. I monitor an IRC channel which reports suspicious edits from several less-active projects, and I also monitor a channel that reports all account creations from all WMF projects, and flags disruptive names. I am an administrator on Meta, and I hold the global rollback user right. If elected as a checkuser, as part of my work, I would assist stewards in dealing with crosswiki vandals.

Comments and questions for J.delanoy[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
  • I think I should be elected mostly for the reasons I outlined in my statement (sorry it was so late). I am very active on Wikipedia, I have a significant amount of experience dealing with sockpuppeteers, and I understand the technical aspects of the checkuser tool.
  • To answer the second part of your question, I think that all the candidates running for checkuser are probably qualified to use the tool. At least a majority (I assume) of the members of the Arbitration Committee had to agree that the candidates were qualified before they extended a nomination. Considering that most members of the Arbitration Committee have access to the tool themselves, I think that their judgment would be sound. As to whether I am more qualified to use the tool than the others who are running, I am not sure how to answer that. Tiptoety definitely has more experience dealing with sockpuppets than I do. I haven't seen the other candidates enough to be able to make a good judgment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How old are you? ÷seresin 03:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]

1. If I have a reason to believe that an account is related to another disruptive account, I would run a checkuser. For example, suppose that a particular puppeteer creates usernames which follow a definite pattern. I would probably checkuser a newly created account that matched the pattern.
2. If a user has a dynamic IP, he or she could create an account, vandalize an article, and then when blocked, switch to a different IP, create another account and continue. An administrator by themselve probably could not solve sort of thing. The autoblocks being placed by their account blocks would be ineffective, and without knowing the IP range, they would be unable to target a rangeblock. A checkuser would be needed to determine what IP range should be blocked, and if the collateral damage would be too great. Another similar case would be if an administrator is considering hardblocking an IP or range due to repeated disruption. A checkuser could be needed to determine how much collateral damage the block would cause, and by extension, how long the block can be placed for.
3. If there was significant evidence that an established user or an administrator was socking disruptively, I would say that a full SPI case would cause a lot of drama, and even if the checkuser returned negative, the allegations would probably tarnish the user's reputation for quite some time. In that case, I think that quietly running a checkuser and/or contacting the user privately if necessary would be the best way to handle it. I'm sure there are other cases which would be best handled privately, but I can't think of any specific examples. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 15:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In Enigmaman's second RfA Deskana's actions were kind of controversial. (If you are not (already) a bureaucrat, imagine you were one.) Please explain how you would have acted (and why) if you were in Deskana's position.[reply]

• I would contact Enigmaman privately and ask him about the edits. If he agreed to let me reveal the edits/content of the edits, I would make a note on the RfA talk page about what I had found. If he didn't want to let me give out the info, I would probably ask other checkusers and bureaucrats privately what they thought. If it was completely up to me, though, I'm not really sure what I would do. I might have simply posted on the talk page that I had found information about questionable edits made by Enigma while he was logged out, or I might have done the roughly the same thing that Deskana ended up doing. The question of how to give people enough info so that they could make an informed decision on the RfA, while at the same time respecting the privacy policy is not an easy one, and I don't know if there is any good way to do it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) because you have sufficient SPI clerking experience. However, I'm bit surprised to know that you're just over the minimum bar on age.--Caspian blue 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section)A simple "per Durova" isn't really enough. J.delanoy is one of the hardest working Wikipedians I know in the area of vandal-fighting and generally defending the wiki. Firestorm ^Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) I don't want to be on the failbus. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) Yes. Yesyes. Yesyesyes. Need I say more? Just in case... yes. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've trusted him online, met him more than once in person, and he's a great guy. Gave the best lightning talk (on how to use Huggle properly) at this past weekend's conference in New York, and made one of the most righteous blocks in Wikipedia history (see this and then this (which he didn't realize until I made a point of shaking his hand for it). Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) Support Incredibly hardworking. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) Per Durova. NW (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) Also per Durova. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (My oppose rationale.) I know he's dedicated and untiring to what he does but in my personal interactions with him I noticed a pattern of volatility - most of the time he's calm, but underneath seems to be an element of instability, or at least that was my perception of his two outbursts, which were of similar nature, though months apart; and apparently, I "disgust" him for saying this. (If this may seem out of context, basically it seems it's becoming a habit for j to attack me in PM to respond to something onwiki, unprovoked on IRC.) -- Mentifisto 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC):[reply]
  • (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole?
  • (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people?
  • (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?

1. Mostly, I think the reason there are less women in crat, OS, and CU positions is because there are simply not as many women editing as men. Also, from what I have seen, and from what I have gleaned from talking with various people, women are more likely to be trolled, harassed, and/or stalked than men, simply because they are women. Because of this, it would be less likely for a woman to reveal her gender than a man, which could make it appear that there are less women in these positions than there actually are. I don't necessarily think that there should be more or less people of either gender as bureaucrats, checkusers, and/or oversighters. On the other hand, I would vehemently oppose any proposal to set up quotas for how many males and females should be in these positions. If anyone is qualified and trusted for a position, they should be given access regardless of their gender. As far as I know, there are three women currently holding checkuser and/or oversight rights. (In case you didn't know, this issue is being discussed here.)

2. If the "internet-famous" person has a way for me to contact them, I would do so. I don't really see how this applies to checkusers though. No one goes around saying "Oh, this is my IP address". The checkuser tool would be completely and utterly useless for this, as practically everyone, even someone who is seriously famous in real life, would almost certainly be editing from a generic residential IP pool. The only thing it could possibly do would be to give an indication of which continent someone is editing from, (since that is how far I trust geolocation tools) which may or may not be remotely useful.

  Of course, if User:Obama is editing from an IP registered to

The Office of the President of the United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

United States of America

  :-)

3. This system is good in that the community at large is able to choose who it wants to have access to these tools. However, having an election process could discourage some qualified people from running simply because they do not want to go through a stressful election procedure. Overall, though, I think that allowing the community to have a voice in this is definitely a good thing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comments moved)
SupportWhat everyone above has said.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of J.delanoy[edit]

2. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Shappy ^talk 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Martin451 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. JamieS93 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. iMatthew ^talk at 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ &spades 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support --Caspian blue 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Durova²⁸⁵ 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. NW (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Acalamari 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Firestorm ^Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. --Aqwis (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Res2216firestar 00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27.  Chzz  ►  01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Indented, user did not have 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15. Risker (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Mixwell --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. ~ Ameliorate! 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. —Animum (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Timmeh 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. --Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Captain panda 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Becksguy (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. — Jake Wartenberg 03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. — Deon^talk 03:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Nathan ^T 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Jehochman ^Talk 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. — Σxplicit 04:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Law _{type! snype?} 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. SoWhy 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. ~fl 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. – B.hotep •talk• 07:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. AdjustShift (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Euryalus (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Theleftorium 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Drew Smith What I've done
61. Willking1979 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. -- BigDunc 11:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Aditya (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Wknight94 ^talk 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. -- Tinu Cherian - 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Strong Support --4wajzkd02 (talk)
75. LittleMountain5 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. JBC3 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Weak support. — Aitias // discussion 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. RP459 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. --KrebMarkt 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. AniMate^draw 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Geoff ^{T C} 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. —MC10|Sign here! 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Recognizance (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Crowsnest (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Irunongames • play 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Priyanath ^talk 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116.   JJ (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Marek.69 ^talk 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Pax85 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. -download ׀ sign! 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     BejinhanTalk 10:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

122. ceranthor 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Chris (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. Matt Zero (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. iridescent 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. Pmlineditor 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. ~ mazca ^talk 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Alexfusco⁵ 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. SBHarris 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. BrianY (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. Arakunem^Talk 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Woody (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. Strong Support--TitanOne (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
143. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 03:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. Cubs197 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Support VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

147. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149.  Cargoking  talk  12:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
153. I'^mperator 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. —df| 19:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
155. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
156. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
157. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
158. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
159. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
160. ummm YA — œ^™ 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
161. Ray^Talk 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
162. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
163. Ysangkok (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
164. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
165. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
166. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
167. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
168. Atama^chat 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
169.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
170. I Feel Tired (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
171. Skier Dude (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
172. Wayiran (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
173. —EncMstr (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
174. ++Lar: t/c 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support ≈ Chamal ^talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
176. Jafeluv (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
177. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
178. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
179. Strongly Support-SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support- Great editor. Airplaneman ^talk 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
181. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
182. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
183. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
184. Malinaccier (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
185. StarM 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
186.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
187. PerfectProposal 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
188. bonadea contributions talk 10:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support Mblumber (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
190. β^_command 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
191. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
192. Stephen 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
193. Graham87 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
194. Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
195. Unschool 05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
196. Tiptoety ^talk 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
197. Computerjoe's talk 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
198. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
200. -- Banjeboi 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
201. GDonato (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
202. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
203. Cailil ^talk 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
204. wadester16 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
205. Support. I can't imagine a better qualified candidate. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
206. Australian Matt (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
207. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
208. SBC-YPR (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
209. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
210. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
211. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
212. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
213. Tiderolls 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
214. Benscripps (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
215. Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
216. hmwitht 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
217. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
218. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
219. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
220. snigbrook (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
221. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
222. —Terrence and Phillip 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
223. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
224. –Megaboz (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
225. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
226. AlexiusHoratius 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
227. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
228. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
229. Steven Walling (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
230. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
231. Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) oops, I voted twice. Sorry.[reply]

232. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
233. 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
234. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
235. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
236. _wjemather^bigissue 08:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
237. billinghurst (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
238. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
239. kollision (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
240. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
241. Alio The Fool 14:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
242. - Ankimai (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
243. --Henry talk 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
244. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
245. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
246. Tckma (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
247. Seduisant (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
248. — JamesR (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
249. Otterathome (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
250. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
251. Fangfufu (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
252. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
253. Lara 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
254. Whitehorse1 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
255. Support --StaniStani  22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
256. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
257. WJBscribe (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to J.delanoy[edit]

Oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Vote changed. — Aitias // discussion 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

1. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

2. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Mentifisto 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election, you do not have sufficient mainspace edits before the cut off.--Tznkai (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Cynical (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Bishonen | talk 06:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Tiptoety[edit]

Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello. For those of you who do not know me, I am Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and have been a member of Wikipedia for 2 years, 2 months, and 23 days making my first edit on the 2nd of May 2007.

I currently serve (and was the founder of) as a clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (I also served as a clerk at its predecessor Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser), where I have assisted with ~423 cases (the majority of which I closed myself). In serving as a clerk, one of my main responsibilities is endorsing or declining a request for CheckUser. In doing so, I have found that there were/are numerous times when I endorsed a case and it was left untouched by a Checkuser for 24 hours or more (my timezone is UTC-8 which is different than the majority of the current Checkusers). By me having access to the CheckUser tool I could assist in ensuring a fast response to request for CheckUser attention, which is important.

As of the 2nd of May 2008 I have served the project as one of its many administrators with approximately 13,000 administrative actions (verify), including over 4,000 blocks with the majority relating to incidents of sockpuppetry. As such, I feel that I am an active administrator whom would strongly benefit from the additional tool. Such instances would involve the blocking of underlying IPs in cases of rampant sockpuppetry, rangeblocks when appropriate, and checks for "sleeper" accounts. I am also a member of Wikimedia's OTRS team (verify) with access to en(f) as well as permissions where sensitive and private information is dealt with often. I feel that it is important to protect others privacy, and ensure that matters are handled with the utmost care. In volunteering at OTRS I have encountered multiple tickets which have required me to contact a CheckUser for assistance, which ultimately results in a slower response time. Should I be granted CheckUser access, it will assist me in my OTRS work and result in better ticket response times.

My philosophy on CheckUser is that it is a tool to be used to protect the project from disruption and to enable the creation of content by removing disruptive users.

As I am sure there will be a question around this, I will address it now. Each editor has their own philosophy on dealing with on-wiki threats of violence (TOV). Per the privacy policy (#6) , it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).

Lastly, I would like to say that I am honored to have been selected by the committee to stand in this election, but note that there are other very qualified candidates standing and wish them the best of luck! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Supervising Arbitrator[edit]

With Tiptoety's permission, I have verified with his employer that, as a police cadet, he is not subject to reporting requirements that full-fledged officers assume when they take their oath. Specifically, they are not required or expected to report information that comes to them incidentally when participating at any level in an external website. Risker (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Tiptoety[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

Hello Aitias, and thank you for the question. The answer to your question is a little harder than "yes" or "no". Every candidate standing in this election has been vetted by ArbCom, is trusted members of the community, and each have their own set of special skills to bring to the table. For me, I feel the skills I bring are my experience at WP:SPI (a process in part I created), and a history of dealing with sock-related issues. Because of this I am very familiar with the a wide range of sockmasters, their editing behavior, and spotting them, as well as how to deal with cases sockpuppetry and when to use the tool and when not to.

That said, do I feel I have more relevant experience? Yes. Am I more qualified? No, like I said before each person has something special to bring to the table. Tiptoety ^talk 02:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from iridescent (added 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): This will get mentioned at some point, so better to clear it up now. When you first joined Wikipedia, you were a police cadet; are you currently employed by (or volunteering for) any investigatory agency (state or private) and if so, do you see any potential conflict of interest and how would would you handle potential legal issues (credible threats, criminal defamation etc) which potentially fell under the jurisdiction of your force/company? – iridescent 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am affilianted with some form of law enforcement agency, though hope that does not sway people to support or oppose as it has very little relevance to my actions on-wiki. I will not mix my real life activities with my on-wiki ones, and will defer to other Checkusers, ArbCom, or the foundation should a potential conflict of interest arise. To answer the second part, no. I will not take any action in a situation where the TOV has taken place within the juristiction of said law enforcement agency (not without being told to do so by the foundation). I hope that clears things up, Tiptoety ^talk 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really don't care for the way you try and tip-toe around this question. The correct answer would be more along the lines of-In the event of a conflict, my duties as a real life law enforcement official take precedence over those as a virtual volunteer for the WMF. If the conflict between the two cannot be satisfactorily resolved, then I would resign my official posts with the WMF, without hesitation. Sorry, but you lost my vote.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment R.D.H, I ask that you take a look at these two comments: [1], [2]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you TT. The first diff does not change my opinion at all, the second only shakes it slightly. Now if you had stated that a lot sooner...maybe...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]

• 1. There are very few situations when CheckUser should be used to prevent disruption that has yet to be caused. Of the situations I can think of, the main one would be Grawp attacks (or similar attacks). Without sticking beans up my nose, there are times when it is more than obvious that an account is Grawp, and it should be blocked and checked right away, regardless of if the account has caused disruption yet.
• 2. Generally speaking, most sock-related issues can be solved without the need for CheckUser (WP:DUCK). I think that the most prevalent situation that only Checkusers could solve would be editors jumping IPs to evade blocks to vandalize articles, continue edit wars, or make other disruptive edits. In such situations, CheckUser would be needed to block the underlying IPs (depending on of they are dynamic or static), perform range blocks (only in severe situations), and/or block any open proxies the editor may be editing from.
• 3. I am of the mind that most situations should be handled on-wiki (for the purpose of transparency), and the Checkusers, administrators, and reporting users should be held accountable by the community for the actions they perform. That said, situations where there is a potential for very high drama (socks of functionaries) should be first dealt with in private (via ArbCom or the foundation), but ultimately should be discussed on-wiki. Also, situations involving potential libel, or real life harm should probably be kept off-wiki. Tiptoety ^talk 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Offliner (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC): What kind of evidence do you think is necessary before using the tool? Can you give an example on what kind of evidence would be enough for you to run a CheckUser without a prior SPI report, and what kind of evidence would not? If someone would approach you with only a personal suspicion (based on his knowledge of the sockmaster's behaviour) that an editor is a sockpuppet, without presenting objective evidence, what would you do? Offliner (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question Offliner, and sorry for the delay in answering it. Generally speaking, the account would need to have made disruptive edits for a check to be ran on it, or a link made via editing patterns between it and other abusive account(s). Such editing patterns might include pushing a specific POV, reverting back to edits of blocked sockpuppets, editing times (which could be compared to other CheckUser evidence should one have been ran before), or distinct spelling/grammar similarities. (For specific examples feel free to look through my edits where I have endorsed or declined requests for CheckUser at WP:SPI). Evidence that would not justify a check being ran would be requests based upon a "general suspicion", or those where the requesting party is clearly using the SPI case to gain the upper hand in a dispute. There are of course of situations where judgment would need to be used. To answer your last question. Should an editor approach me and simply ask me to run a check based upon their knowledge of a certain sockmasters behavior I would not run one without viewing the evidence for myself. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Tony1:
  • (1) Can you provide examples of high-level administrative judgement in your role as an ArbCom clerk that suggest you have the appropriate skill-base for CU?

• Well, for the most part clerks work is simply "janitorial" in nature and commonly consists of enacting motions, opening and closing cases, cross posting notices, and tiding up where needed. But there does become situations where discretion and judgment must come into play, and the clerks as a whole must play referee (even if that means kicking someone off the court on occasion). I think a specific example involves SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs), whom was claimed to have been causing disruption at WP:ARBMAC2. As the clerk for the case, I decided the best approach would be to educate, inform, a gently warn the user instead of kicking him off the court completely (please see here for my message, and here for his response) While this may not be "high-level administrative action, I feel that it is just as much an administrators job to try and resolve disputes without the use of tools as it is to use the tools when necessary. The same would apply for my use of CheckUser.

• • (2) Do you think the current policy on alt accounts is too open? What is your view of the discussion that has been going on at Sock puppetry? Tony (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken note of your questions, and will answer them shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally speaking, yes. I would support curbing the policy to only allow users to use alt. accounts for the use of editing on public computers, or be required to disclose the account to ArbCom. Now that said, that is only my opinion. As a CheckUser my job would be to follow policy, and currently the policy is written in a way which is more lax on the use of alt. accounts. Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 15:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In Enigmaman's second RfA Deskana's actions were kind of controversial. (If you are not (already) a bureaucrat, imagine you were one.) Please explain how you would have acted (and why) if you were in Deskana's position.[reply]

Good question. :-) Take note that prior to this incident, there was little to no community input on how situations like this should be handled (the use of both CheckUser and 'crat powers in a discussion). That said, I probably would have contacted E-man directly (which Deskana did), but would have given him ample time to answer as the RFA was still new and had a while left to go. I would have requested input from other 'crats as well as Checkusers prior to me taking any action on-wiki. Now in retrospect, knowing what we know now I would have never mixed my role as a 'crat and CU and would have deferred to others to help. Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Caspian blue (18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

1. How old are you?

   I am 18 years of age or older. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't want to be rude. But do you intend to give a real answer to this question? You're standing for CU my friend and there are very real-world implications associated with the tool that you are asking for. Giving a cheeky answer that you're over 18 is not sufficient in my opinion. -- Samir 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I apologize. I did not intend for it to come across cheeky at all, nor did I mean any offense. As for my reason for not being more direct, it is for my privacy. I believe user privacy is very important, including my own. I hope that clears things up. Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The community is mindful of Essjay controversy or some former Checkusers' abuses/misuses of the tool because they abused the community trust by lying their identity or blocking their opponents for their POV pushing regardless of the fact that such abuses are unethical and violates COI. Since we do not have any "removing the bit system" except ArbCom, if you as a Checkuser witness such abuses by colleagues, what would you do for that and would you be wiling to publicize such issues to the community?

   Yes. Abusing the communities trust should not be protected, nor should anyone turn a blind eye to it. If I witnessed another functionary abusing his or her rights, I would immediately report their actions to ArbCom, and should it be an Arb I would contact another whom I trusted as well as Jimbo Wales. As an end result the abuse should be publicized to allow the community to review the evidence for themselves and voice their opinions. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) Regardless of whether you have not answered my latest answer, I support you because you have the far most SPI clerking experience among all the candidates. However, well, I can be swayed to abstain or oppose according to your answer later though.--Caspian blue 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) One of the most qualified candidates. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) Candidate is clearly one of the most qualified in the running. His experience as a clerk has been superb, and I can find no reason to oppose. Firestorm ^Talk 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: (1) In determining whether to support someone for promotion to such a trustworthy position, I think age is highly relevant. It is, of course, your choice ultimately, but I believe your candidature would be assisted by candidness in this respect. (2) I wish you were writing to a higher standard, or took more care to edit your posts. I think you would be in a position in which good administrative writing is required. Tony (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you; you have convinced me to support. Legal adulthood should be sufficient - it may not be necessary - and more is none of my business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Tony1's comment #2 (about "good administrative writing "). - Hordaland (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a teenage boy. Who is excessively fond of law enforcement. To the point of posing as a cop on law-enforcement forums. And he does the bidding of certain untrustworthy senior admins. Not only do I feel he is not suitable for CU, I feel he is too inexperienced and erratic to be an admin. --Eric Barbour (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, great. Let's decide CU nominations on the basis of what Wikipedia Review says; especially since the facts here are that in 2007, he was a police cadet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric is misinformed, obviously but not unexpectedly. Tiptoety was a police cadet (note the crucial element of time, here) and is now a cop. And he is anything but erratic. He's also co-creator of the current SPI process and both well informed and active in the areas most relevant for a checkuser election. Nathan ^T 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Color me confused, then. Just below, he states he's on his "summer break", a phrase most often associated with school than with being a serving police officer, and as far as I'm aware, Oregon police departments typically don't employ part time police officers as something to do on their "summer break". I notice that Tiptoety himself hasn't confirmed or denied either way (though whether he should or not is a matter of opinion. Achromatic (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nathan, as much as I appreciate you attempting to clarify the situation, you are wrong. Let me say this for all those on WR, I am not a full time Police Officer. I am affiliated with law enforcement, but like I said before: I do not see it, and will not allow it to conflict with my role as a Checkuser. Tiptoety ^talk 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I wondered about that briefly... Oh well. Trust me to describe someone else as misinformed, and then make an error of fact. But in any case, with respect to his criticism of your conduct and integrity, Eric remains misinformed. Sorry for sowing any additional confusion. Nathan ^T 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Apropos of anything else, Tiptoety, thank you - I appreciate the clarification. I can understand the desire to maintain privacy, but hope that you can also understand why it (ambiguity on the subject) may also be cause for concern.
• Comment: I have serious doubts about this editor being entrusted with more responsibilities. I had an altercation with him when he threatend to ban me over a single revert in a 24 hour period: User_talk:Betty_Logan#Quinten_Hann. The revert in question was in response to ongoing vandalism on the Quinten Hann article where the perpetrator had already been banned once - the vandalism simply involved removing referenced factual material and inserting unsourced fictious material so this was no editorial dispute. When I tried to bring it up with him I was rudely told to sling my hook, and he only admitted his mistake when another admin confronted him over it. I appreciate that sometimes people make mistakes when they are not up to speed in a situation, but he had no intention of addressing his error once I'd briefed him on the problem and I would say the willingness to revisit your decisions if more facts come to light is a requisite for a position which carries this responsibility. Not a suitable candidate I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel you have too many hats, which is why I have opposed. Nothing personal. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from Mike.lifeguard 05:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Would you please make a (realistic) statement regarding your anticipated availability for handling checkuser matters?[reply]

Hi Mike. Thinking back, I probably should have addressed this in my nomination statement, but I guess this works too. Currently, I try my hardest to log on at least once a day to check my watchlist, SPI, and my talk page. Right now, I am only active for a few hours each day because I've been enjoying my summer break (yes, I actually do go outside ;) ). However, I am always available via email if there is an urgent need, as I forward my email to my phone. During other seasons I am far more active, putting in close to 6-9 hours a day, and I plan to continue to do so. I am also available on IRC when I am online.

Should I be gone for any extended period of time, I will make sure to place a message on my userpage so people will know to contact another Checkuser should they need assistance. Tiptoety ^talk 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanation: wanted to explain my opposition. While I think you are an otherwise excellent candidate, I feel that having a law enforcement officer in a position with access to protected data such as check-user is too great of a conflict of interest. Simply put, there is the potential for a situation where, despite your assurances that you would not participate, your superiors in your RL job would demand you use CheckUser to investigate a complaint. The risk of a conflict of interest leading to a privacy policy violation is too great. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is any help I give you my word that such conflicts of interest will not occur. Tiptoety ^talk 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanation II. This is one of those rare occasions in which I agree with Swatjester. I have no problem with you, but you're in a no win situation. If a COI arises and you put the interests of law enforcement over Wikipedia, you're acting inappropriately with regards to Wikipedia. If you put the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation over those of the law enforcement authorities, that's a horribly unbalanced set of priorities (as well as probably violating the "without fear or favor" part of your oath). – iridescent 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that Explanations I and II raise an absolutely fascinating issue, and one where we ought to think carefully, because how we end up voting on this has the potential to set precedent. We had best be careful, I think, in holding real-life jobs against editors when there is no instance of policy violation on site, on the assumption that violation is expected in the future. I can certainly imagine serious concerns about a nation where there are human rights issues about law enforcement, but that's hopefully not the case here. That being the case, there would be little point in law enforcement using CheckUser to obtain inadmissible evidence. Besides, there are plenty of other ways to subvertly track editors without Wikipedia's knowledge or involvement. And on the other side, WP:Checkuser and the meta privacy policy are pretty clear on how the tool can and cannot be used in this regard. So I end up on the side of applying AGF to conclude that we should not presuppose COI in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from SlimVirgin:

• Hi Tiptoety, you said above that you've contacted the authorities in the past when the situation on Wikipedia called for it. Can you give us examples of when you've done that, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlimVirgin. I don't have the diff, as I believe it was oversighted. The gist of the situation was an IP, making a credible suicide threat (time, location, how such act was going to be committed) to which I thought would be a good idea to quickly report, and then have removed. Tiptoety ^talk 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the response. There's likely still some trace of it somewhere. Can you say where and when it was posted (roughly), and also what came of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, its funny. I just spent about an hour searching through archives and came up with nothing. If I remember correctly, it was easily a year ago when the report was made. What I did come up with though, was an example of a time I did not report a "TOV" [3]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Regarding the suicide threat, there must be a trace of it, or a trace of your request to remove it. Perhaps you have an e-mail about it somewhere that would give you the date?

Also, my apologies if you've answered this already somewhere, but can you clarify what your relationship is with the IP address 63.105.27.175 (talk · contribs)? It was yours on February 6, 2007, where a post from that IP shows your e-mail address, [4] and you acknowledged it as yours on March 4, 2008. [5] In between those dates, there were some pretty dodgy edits from it e.g. this one on June 1, 2007, so I feel it's important to get an explanation from you. I wouldn't ask were it not for checkuser being sensitive and some of the edits so inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, that was a shared IP that I used to edit through often, and was used before I ever had an account. After registering an account, I never used the IP and did not notice the abusive edits until I made that logged out edit. After reviewing the contributions I thought something must be up, and found out that others in my household had been using the IP to edit through abusively. As such, I contacted an Arbitrator (FT2 (talk · contribs)) and notified him of the issue (so as to avoid ones like this in the future), as well as had a discussion with the person making the edits. Because of this, the IP was blocked to avoid the other person from using it to edit. Please note, that I am no longer on that IP (as I had it changed). Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC) - Tiptoey, I understand that you do not wish to divulge the exact nature of your involvement with law enforcement for privacy reasons and I will not ask you to, however, assuming your are a police officer, reserve officer, or even a police cadet, I assume that you are bound by professional obligations to report or otherwise act on any criminal activity you may encounter, even when you are off-duty. As a WP admin and editor, you undoubtedly see instances of threats made against persons or property, and suicide threats. It seems to me that you are put in an unresolvable dilemma wherein you are, on the one hand, obligated by professional standards to act on (and pass on) any information you may have access to as an admin and checkuser, and, on the other hand, required to wait until the WMF allows you to forward information to the relevant authorities. Any thoughts on this dilemma?[reply]

Hello. Like I said in the thread above, I am not a full time police officer. That said, I am affiliated with law enforcement in a non-sworn position, and while I am held to a profesional standard there is no "must act" law or requirment surrounding my postion. I have been an administrator here for a little while now, and never once have I felt a COI between my role here and my RL position. I really hope people can take my word that my affiliation with law enforcement will not influence any decisions I would make as a CheckUser, or for that matter an administrator or editor. Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you become a "sworn" member of law enforcement in the future and are therefore subject to those professional standards. Assuming you agree that an unresolvable conflict exists between the professional obligations and you obligations to WP and the WMF, would you resign your checkuser status? I'm assuming that you aspire to become such, so this isn't an entirely hypothetical question. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That all depends upon how the community feels about the issue, and judging by the comments and opposes here it is clear they would not support a sworn LEO having access to the CheckUser tool. I would be willing to announce if/when I become a sworn member, and have an open discussion about if I should retain my access. Tiptoety ^talk 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has obviously caused some concern. Since you feel that the community "would not support a sworn LEO having access to the CheckUser tool", why not simply state now that you would resign as a checkuser in the event that you become a sworn officer? 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It seems reasonable for me to resign should I become sworn, and will do so. Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain - Tiotoety is a diligent, hardworking CU clerk, who has shown himself familiar with the technical and procedural aspects of the CU role, and who has ably assisted me from time to time. Were it not for the law enforcement angle I would be supporting. As it is I certainly have no desire to oppose, so I wanted to make this supportive statement. ++Lar: t/c 07:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• To clarify my Oppose. When I say I am not a fan of people like you, I don't mean it to be a personal attack. What I should've said is, the more power someone like you has, the more authority, the worse it is for everyone; thusly when I say I am "not a fan" you could say it is in fact the inevitable abuse of authority that I am not a fan of.

I dislike editing 'non-article' pages, but in this case I feel I have to go on record and say that allowing someone like User:Tiptoety to run amok on Wikipedia is a terrible idea in the hopes that people will pay attention. That said, it looks like it's a landslide, Tiptoety.

...Oh, look, I do not have the necessary whatevers to oppose this nomination. :) Thudworthy (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC): (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole? (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people? (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why? (4) Oh and to add, Tiptoety, after reading your answer to SlimVirgin's question, well you believe if someone makes an internet threat to become an hero, that they should get the van to come and visit them? Isn't that a bit extreme. Now you said it was a credible threat and well I've seen occasional things on wikipedia where someone makes a threat, it seems fake, the user is blocked, and then there's an ANI thread where someone says they called the police. Still, do you think it's going a bit overboard as it could be completely fake? Or do you think Wikipedia has some legal liability if someone kills themselves after announcing it here and no one calls to get them vanned?[reply]

1) I feel that diversity is important, and that a strong group of both males and females is important as it brings a needed balance. This is more true with Oversight than CheckUser as there are more request for oversight from woman who feel they are being harassed, but still feel it is important to have woman in the roll of CheckUser (which, we do have a few).

2) This question is a bit hard, as decisions would need to be made on a case by case basis. That said, the role of a CheckUser is to read technical evidence and provide an accurate summary of the evidence. If the evidence suggest that the person being impersonated is in fact the sockmaster, than that is what is says. CheckUser is only half of the puzzle, and must not be used solely to decide if a user is socking or not. I feel that in such situations, I would check the behavioral evidence as well as the technical evidence before taking any action. And, if I thought the user was being impersonated, I would try my hardest to protect them.

3) I like the new process, and if I recall correctly supported it being implemented. It is important for the community to have a say in who they elect.

4) I think each situation needs to be evaluated individually, and feel that no one TOV is the same. I agree that most are baseless threats, and do not need to be reported. But also feel that there are some that should be. And no, I do not think the foundation is legally responsible for the actions others take. Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a distressing lack of straightfoward answers and candor. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to do this, but I think the law enforcement position is a COI. :( Atama^chat 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Absent additional information on the issue, the potential for COI is too great. There needs to be checks and balances on how this information is used. I respect your decision not to reveal this information - that decision is just incompatible with being a CU.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• voted as per iridescent et al. In addition you cite privacy reasons for not revealing the nature of your law enforcement work. As a CU you need to be beyond scrutiny, and not give vague answers in situations where a WP:COI could occur. Martin451 (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement by Tiptoety: I'm not sure that everyone has had a chance to read all my comments above, as a fair amount has been buried in large plots of text. Because of this, and the various opposes surrounding my position within the law enforcement community, I would like to clarify a number of points.

• I am not a full time Police Officer, but instead a uniform non-sworn member.
• Where I live (Oregon), there are no "must act" laws that govern my actions, nor are there any policies put in place by the agency I am associated with which require me to report potential criminal activity.
• I have never been in a situation where my actions on-wiki were influenced by my position with the police, and I do not see that changing. I am a bit saddened by the fact that people are passing judgment based upon my real-life situation when there is no instance of policy violation on site (see Tryptofish's comment above), instead of my on-wiki actions. That said, I do understand peoples cause for concern.
• I will agree to resign as a Checkuser, if/when I get hired as a sworn member, and seeing as that will at least be three years I do not see it being an issue within the near future.
• As for the issues of not being more upfront about my RL identity, it is not because I do not trust 99% of the community, or I have something to hide. It is the 1% I do not trust with that information, along with the fact that I am very well aware that the internet is not a safe place for private information. I will be (should I pass, which does not seem likely) identifying with the foundation. I have also provided my RL Police related position to the Arbitration Committee, and to a number of users whom I trust to keep such information private.

I hope the community can trust me here, and take my past service to the project into account. If someone has any specific concerns, my mail box is always open. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved from vote section) not even a good (read 'fair') Arbcom clerk. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't care what Tiptoety does with his off-Wikipedia time or how old he is, and can even buy the argument that he needs to preserve his off-wiki privacy in regards to his evasive answers regarding his off-wiki activities. But per the following, I don't feel this user can be trusted with any higher on-wiki responsibility than he already has. I realize this incident happened two years ago, but the candidate's lack of candor in this matter is still distressing: his evasiveness regarding committing a copyright violation and this disingenuous response to my questioning the copyright issue. (Per my "Oppose" in his 2nd RfA, which is at #4). Though he seems merely power hungry and not likely to cause any real damage, I'd like to see some more maturity in this candidate, especially in the area of taking responsibility for and learning from his mistakes. Katr67 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katr67. I think our antennas got tangled during my second RFA. My response (which can be found here) was not an attempt to take the blame away from myself, or to be evasive. I clearly stated that the content was added by myself (noting that my account was very new when I did so). Understand that I did not add the content with any malicious intent, but was simply unclear about Wikipedia's copyvio polices, and thought that changing the wording would suffice. When you left the comment on the articles talk page, I had no idea it was directed at me (hence my response). I hope you can assume good faith here, and pass off that mistake on my part as the mistake of a noob. Like you said, it has been two years since I made that edit, and I have obviously not made such a mistake since. As for the "power hungry" comment, I'm nor sure I agree. The only reason I want this tools is so that I can better serve the community with my sock related work.

I hope this helps clear things up, Tiptoety ^talk 23:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. I don't care about the copyright violation. I didn't even mention the copyright violation on the article's talk page, SGGH did. You were the only editor who added substantive content to the article between when you created it on May 9, 2007 and May 30, when SGGH started removing the copyright violation (I did some clean up during that time frame), and then on May 30 you said the person who added the copyrighted content should be more careful. Shortly thereafter, SGGH pointed out that you are the one who added the copyrighted material. All this leads me to one or more of the following conclusions: You have a frightfully bad memory--in other words, you copied and pasted the content into the article from the agency's website and then forgot you did it (less than a month afterward), you are unable to check an article's edit history to see who might have added the copyrighted content, and/or you were trying to pretend it wasn't you who committed the copyright violation ("the person who is directly copying from the source needs to be more carefull [sic]"). Also, since this article is very important to you, I assume you would have added it to your watchlist, and you would have known who else worked on it. (Though perhaps you were new and did not know about watchlists.)

Again, lots of people make the mistake of copying and pasting content when they are new editors, that is not what the issue is here. As for your comments today, I can only conclude that: you are frightfully bad at following a talk page thread, you are continuing to evade the issue, compounding your original dishonesty, I am having trouble expressing myself, and/or you have some sort of cognitive disability. The last conclusion is not meant to be be disrespectful. I have AD/HD, and sometimes I make errors in cognition myself. In any case (inability to follow a thread, dishonesty, or issues of memory or cognition that aren't being managed), these are all concerning in someone who wishes to be a CheckUser. Let me put it plainly as I can. The answer I was looking for is either, "Yes, I lied and tried to make it look like it wasn't me who copied and pasted material into that article. I know better now and here is proof my increased honesty and maturity...<example given>." or "Wow, I am such a space cadet, I didn't even realize it was me who copied and pasted that material into the article. I can see how you could conclude I was being evasive, but here is an example of my honesty and integrity...<example given>." (Note that being a space cadet myself, no slur is implied in that statement.)

Perhaps I am not being clear enough. I'd invite other editors to help me get my point across more clearly or tell me I am being entirely unfair. Katr67 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my vote of Weak oppose - I feel that there is the possibility of a COI as you have affiliations with law enforcement - as someone mentioned above, if you put WMF first, you are neglecting your responsibilities with regard to law enforcement; if you put law enforcement first, you are neglecting your responsibilities to WMF. So I am unable to vote in your favour, even though I feel you would do a good job in the cases with no COI involvement. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to understand

I am not directing this at anyone person in particular but want to say that I fail to understand the amount of fear of the police on here. It is the local police, not an intelligence agency. Wikipedia is not a place for drug trafficking or racketeering so the police have no interest. Furthermore I think that a lot of people here are computer illiterate. An ip check does NOT give name and address or anything of the sort. It ONLY gives an approximate location (which is often wrong as internet companies often use proxies for customers) and thus there are no privacy concerns and this police issue is a red herring. The only people who can track person is the ISP, which in most if not all Western Countries requires a Court Order. Also common sense I feel would dictate that if someone was on here to "feed ip" info out for sinister reasons to say the police or have a sinister agenda, they are not going to announce their affiliations on their talk page. Sadly however, I think that this is a successful effort by a bunch of banned users who congregate on the likes of wikipedia review to get even with a check-user who has served the wikipedia community well and helped myself out speedily and efficiently when dealing with abusive sockpuppets.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses can serve as a powerful investigative tool. While one may not be able to determine a location for a particular user, they can tangibly link people together (same IP may indicate a relationship between two people) or link multiple internet sessions together (same IP may indicate same person). I don't fear the police. In fact, most of the time they do a fantastic job. I do desire some sort of checks an balances when it comes to private user information (including a user's IP address). If a police department wants the information, they should ask for it and justify the request.

It is not inconceivable that Tiptoey may come across a situation where using CheckUser may provide a useful lead in a case s/he's associated with. There may even be a time/life sensitivity where accessing CheckUser is nearly irresistable (i.e. child abduction, dangerous felon, etc). It would be difficult to determine whether Tiptoey (or anyone else) is using the information for this purpose or not.

I just think it is good policy from a Wikipedia Foundation standpoint, not to give police employees direct access to personal information such as IP addresses. That does not lessen Tiptoey's contributions to the project in any way.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But only a powerful investigation tool if an ISP is court ordered to release info! Linking together two people as one is what a sock investigation does, as you admit it does not reveal any personal info which only the ISP can release via a court order. You gave an extremely unlikely scenario of a dangerous felon and child abduction on wikipedia (which would still require a court order to the ISP to release info) to support opposing tiptoey. Also why would you oppose the police becoming involved in a child abduction case or a dangerous felon (which would still require a court order to release personal info from ISP for an ip)? So basically what we have here is a long list of opposing votes by people who were computer illiterate who freaked out thinking that an ip address can "track them down" propagated by banned users on wiki review website. This is the sense that I am getting. Can anyone give a valid basis for this opposition to tiptoey based on being affiliated loosely to the police?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Tiptoety[edit]

1. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Shappy ^talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. JamieS93 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolute yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Caspian blue 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strongly. iMatthew ^talk at 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. NW (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Majorly talk 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Firestorm ^Talk 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18.  Chzz  ►  01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Triplestop x3 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. —Animum (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Noroton (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. — Jake Wartenberg 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Nathan ^T 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Timmeh 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Jehochman ^Talk 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Nevard (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. — Σxplicit 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Law _{type! snype?} 06:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Offliner (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. SoWhy 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. --Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. LittleMountain5 15:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. MuZemike 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Regretfully changing to oppose per discussion above — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

49. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Strong support. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. — Ched :  ?  21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Crowsnest (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Priyanath ^talk 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. BrianY (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Pax85 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Becksguy (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. ceranthor 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Pmlineditor 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Res2216firestar 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Alexfusco⁵ 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81.  Cargoking  talk  12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Definately — œ^™ 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Justin talk 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. Ysangkok (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. —EncMstr (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. --Versageek 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Strong support--Giants27 (c|s) 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Strong support - Dreadstar † 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Malinaccier (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Stephen 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. PerfectProposal 02:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. Killiondude (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. GDonato (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112.  – iridescent 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Support (and oppose struck) on the proviso he resigns if he becomes a sworn officer of any kind.[reply]
113. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Gökhan 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. hmwitht 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. —Terrence and Phillip 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. –Megaboz (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. AlexiusHoratius 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. Steven Walling (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Strong support. Bms4880 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Biophys (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Weak support. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. Strong support. Igny (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. 2help (message me) 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Strong support. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Strong support. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. Lara 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) vote changed following assurances that he would resign if he becomes a sworn officer of any kind.[reply]
138. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support --StaniStani  22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Tiptoety[edit]

2. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. JayHenry (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Skinwalker (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kingturtle (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Javert^talk 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. AdjustShift (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tony (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

13. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Drew Smith What I've done
16. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. *** Crotalus *** 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. SBHarris 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Achromatic (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Thekohser 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     – iridescent 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Struck on the proviso he resigns if he becomes a sworn officer of any kind.[reply]

27. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Skinny87 (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Star Garnet (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Friday (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Atama^chat 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Unitanode 00:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Prodego ^talk 06:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. ThuranX (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Crafty (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thudworthy (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, you are ineligible to vote in this election. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

37. Mike R (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. WJBscribe (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Synchronism (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Sorry. McJEFF ^(talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Enigma^msg 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Struck on the proviso he resigns if he becomes a full-time officer.[reply]

42. Cxz111 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. --Calwatch (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. miranda 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MurfleMan (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC) - Voted indented - I have insufficient edits to vote. Still a moral oppose, though. MurfleMan (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

47. Joe (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. -- Martin451 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Poltair (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Cynical (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Boud (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protonk (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

57. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. See above comment--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. snigbrook (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Katr67 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Alio The Fool 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Vote changed following more consideration -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67. Whitehorse1 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (changed from support)[reply]

VirtualSteve[edit]

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Thank you to the Arbitration Committee for nominating me for this election. I also extend that gratitude to everyone who comes here to read and comment on my candidature.

For those that do not know me I have held an account on en.wiki for over 3 years 8 months and have held the administrator bit for over 2 years. I have never edited as an IP (except once or twice in the early days when I forgot to login) so my first edit was after I created my account. For the first couple of years or so here I edited various articles, assisted in a few GA's, DYK's etc and created a few new pages (about 320 or so). I also have accounts at a number of other wiki projects but most specifically at commons, where I have uploaded over 380 images. I still start the occasional new page, do some copy editing and certainly continue to upload images, however since becoming an Admin I have predominantly shifted my time to administrator tasks. I have done this because I consider the task of being a "professional" administrator to be an important function. I have found that the time difference living in Australia has been an asset to the project especially when editors are looking for more personal assistance - and my talk page and archives abound with calls from fellow editors for such help. I have travelled widely overseas, have no bias towards any country, religion or view-point, and I hope that people will agree that I am trustworthy, approachable and keen to assist. I tend to refrain from drama and prefer to provide relatively quiet support wherever and from whomever that request comes. When I don't know/can't find an answer I ask the advice of another editor.

I maintain two websites as a part of my real life work and the various related email accounts of my real life and my wiki email account are all pushed. As a result I am almost always available to address requests within a short time frame. As my record will attest I have edited continuously since my account was created and it is rare (unless I am travelling) that I do not log in to my wiki account continuously throughout the day - 7 days a week.

I understand the checkuser tool is a technical tool that can assist in curtailing disruption. Of course the result the tool provides will require technical and contextual interpretation and I promise at all times to do so to the best of my ability, whilst maintaining as much privacy for editors’ anonymity as possible. If the community and then the Arbitration Committee find that I am suitable for this task I will be honoured to assist - but at the same time I will understand if others here are considered before me. My best wishes then to all others in this election and once again thank you for coming here to provide your input.--VS ^talk 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for VirtualSteve[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

• Thanks for your question Aitias. I don't see this as a competition in terms of I'm better than this or that other candidate. I know the other candidates from their work on wiki and I admire them all. As a part of the natural order of life we all have different skills, qualifications, qualities and behavioural characteristics however I am of the belief that each of us has one similar trait; being that we wish to serve the wikipedia community in at least this one extra way. Skills and therefore qualifications to do the task of checkuser already gained will be further learned along the way - qualities and behaviour on the other hand are items already shown to the community over our existing period of service. I do not know if my qualities and behaviour are "better" or otherwise to the other candidates but I do know that I have displayed helpful, kind, and worthwhile qualities and behaviour at this project and I hope you and others will judge me worthy of a support comment based on my previous work and actions here.--VS ^talk 01:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]

• Thanks SilkTork - I appreciate your stopping by with these three. I'll put my hand up for a first try at providing you with answers;

1. I'd be looking for reasonable plausibility. For example User:ImTrouble causes disruption and is blocked. I come across another user account named User:NOImTrouble who either actually hasn't edited or hasn't been disruptive as yet - would I suspect a link and check IP's - Yes. Another example; IP:98 765 432 1, IP:98 765 432 2, and IP:98 765 432 3 all provide seriously disruptive attack edits against our WP:BLP policy across a number of pages and which sees them all temporarily blocked. On the same article or articles I note a new account spring up reasonably soon after the blocking of the IP's and that account show some affinity with the attack edits (but of course does not attack or act disruptively else they would just be blocked) - would I suspect a link and check - Yes. I'd say there are probably many more examples that would see me acting with the checkuser tool so as to limit potential disruption but these are two that spring to mind.
2. Clever multiple account holders can disrupt mainspace (that is, content on the encyclopedia) including article talk pages by for example (inter alia);

   (a) carefully manipulating content by multiple slightly dissimilar and seemingly legitimate editing so that an article, for at least some time, reaches a verified/verifiable standard but one that is UNDUE or POV etc;

   (b) Use the same multiple account holder method for "reaching a biased level of consensus" at the article talk page, (this same process can spill into any attempts at mediation);

   (c) Use a "tag-team" approach similar to "bad cop - good cop" so that one editor seemingly is making legitimate (but POV) edits and the other is making extremely disruptive edits - which if timed correctly (and via careful use of RFPP) could lead to an article being fully protected at the POV "good cop" stage for long enough to cause damage to wikipedia;

   (d) Using a multiple account holder method to create and defend articles that slightly offend WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLP1E

   (e) Using a multiple account holder method to enter and defend SPAM links in articles etc

   Whilst a reasonable suspicion of sock-puppetry is always required only a checkuser action could more easily determine that these multiple accounts were held by the same IP address/es.

3. I cannot control what others place at SPI and then request a checkuser for. I can however control my activity as a checkuser as follows. I would not deal publicly with checkuser requests relating to suicide or threats of harm edits through the SPI process. In most cases and so that I could initially deal with potential disruption by a "stop it or else" method I would not deal publicly with new SPA edits through a request at SPI but rather I would initially attempt to deal with these privately especially where the sock master account indicated to me that it was linked to an otherwise reputable account holder. I would not publicly deal with requests that attempt to link a named account or accounts to edits that came from the publicised list of sensitive IP addresses or other IP addresses of a similarly sensitive nature.

If you need more information please let me know. Best wishes --VS ^talk 12:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Aitias (added 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In Enigmaman's second RfA Deskana's actions were kind of controversial. (If you are not (already) a bureaucrat, imagine you were one.) Please explain how you would have acted (and why) if you were in Deskana's position.[reply]

• Good morning Aitias. I am not a bureaucrat however if I was placed in a position similar to Deskana I would have taken a different first step by initially contacting Enigmaman privately. In that conversation I would have outlined to him that I was certain that someone had made edits from his computer (remember that initially we do not know that it is in fact Enigmaman who is making the edits). I would tell him that I had analysed the edits made by an IP from that computer and whilst they were not particularly controversial edits, it was my duty to disclose this fact; initially to him (because I wanted the project to retain him as an editor) but if necessary to disclose it to the wider community. I would ask Enigmaman how he would prefer to have the matter handled. Deskana gave 2 options at the time (but he had not contacted Enigmaman before posting those options on the talk page). Both of Deskana's options in general were valid but I would have provided a third option (if necessary suggesting all three for Engimaman to choose from - and including others that Engimaman might have come up with himself). My third option would be that he voluntarily withdrew the current RfA citing personal reasons (thus keeping the situation between him and I) with the intention of waiting a month or three before resubmitting a request. In the case of this option being chosen/accepted I would have used a polite form of the "stop it or else" method I detail above in my answer to SilkTork - indicating that I would at the next occasion of his accepting/submitting a RfA do another check and that I expected not to see any similar drive by IP edits. If Engimaman refuted that he was the owner of the edits - given that I knew the content of the edits and could reasonably determine that they came from him; or if he refused to cooperate - including choosing my option three, I would take the first option already suggested by Deskana being (1) restart the RfA with a note about the IP edits. If Enigmaman agreed that they were his edits but did not want to restart the RfA I would take a slightly different approach to the second option suggested by Deskana being (2)disclose the edits made by Enigmaman and allow others to consider them in relation to this RfA (I say slightly different because Deskana says he would disclose the IP, which I am taking literally, - which of course what would be done by referring to the edits but I would not in effect make the IP so public as to put it on the RfA talk page as a set of numbers).

• --VS ^talk 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Follow-up question from Aitias (added 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Many thanks for your detailed reply, VirtualSteve. In your response you have stated that your “third option would be that he voluntarily withdrew the current RfA citing personal reasons (thus keeping the situation between him and I) with the intention of waiting a month or three before resubmitting a request.” On second thought, can you see any possible problems with this option, e. g., could it be considered insincere towards the community or do you feel that this option is completely unproblematic?[reply]

• A fair follow up question Aitias. My perspective is to step back initially from the situation of it being an RfA - so if in the case of me finding out that any good editor had momentarily lost perspective and edited inappropriately from their IP would I punitively deal with those actions? Of course the answer is no - blocking policy prevents punitive action and going public with the detail before discussing with Enigmaman was (probably inadvertently) a punitive action. Rather preventative action is required. In this case Engimaman had edited some time ago - long after preventative action was required - but in Deskana's view not long enough between that action and the RfA. Returning to the RfA then we add the importance of the sincerity and credibility of the editor applying for RfA. If an action that could normally result in a block (such as socking) or indeed a block itself meant the absolute death of any future possibility of holding adminiship then a number of current administrators and editors could never pass that hurdle or retain the bit. Enigmaman had edited briefly by posting "drive by" somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments which Deskana stated weren't actually that bad. In the current case Deskana appeared to come to the conclusion that there was not enough gap between the IP edits and the RfA to ignore those edits. If I was placed in the same situation the third option then reduces the risk of losing an extraordinarily good editor; passes my concern that Enigmaman understands the importance of returning to appropriate editing; and maintains the privacy of the editor (a first checkuser "rule"). Would this be unproblematic? Not from the perspective of it meeting the opinions of all other editors, but should the editor return to IP editing from the point of my conversation with him to his next RfA then I am only faced with the problem of taking steps to block the editor. Finally if in the future (and I add this only to cover all bases) should the editor pass RfA and edit via an IP or sock - well that has happened already with others; has been dealt with and wikipedia still stands strong - so no real problems in the long run.

--VS ^talk 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Caspian blue (17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)) [reply]

1. How old are you?
2. Have you ever done assisting, clerking or filing sockpuppetry cases? If you didn't have any experience or only had several ones, why do you believe that the community would vote for you and trust you sudden determination to be a Checkuser?

• Good morning to you too Caspian Blue. Thank you for your questions which I answer as follows;

(1) I am well over the age of majority in Australia - that is well over 18. You refer in your question above to the sudden determination to be a Checkuser so I also add, if you were not aware, that the process of gaining a nomination by ArbCom for these elections can take some months. In my own case it has taken since January this year (when I first indicated that I was interested in helping). Arbcom prior to nominating editors for the position of checkuser elections seeks clarification as to age (and being over the age of majority). Our real name and details are then further checked and confirmed absolutely,once/if we pass the scrutiny of the community. So yes I am well over 18 even though at times my mind tries to tell my body that that is not so. :)

(2) Yes I have assisted in numerous sockpuppetry cases. Predominantly in this area my work as an administrator completes such work through WP:Duck methods long before they are filed at SPI, however recent cases where duck style work also went to SPI include here, and here. Cases where I have just been involved in the usual SPI work include here and here. I do not "hang around" SPI on a day to day basis but I do deal with sock puppetry cases on a frequent and at times day to day basis via direct calls to my talk page and via private emails from editors expressing such concerns over multiple account holders.

--VS ^talk 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent user and administrator, but I've just not seen enough experience around areas that involve checkuser. Not a huge deal, but this makes me a bit wary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my mind. Candidate is trustworthy, and that's all that should matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Steve has my full and complete trust and I have no hesitation in trusting him with the CU tools. Sarah 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• VS is a trustworthy candidate, and I tend to trust Australians. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I disabuse you now of your trust in anyone on the basis of their nationality? Please take it up on my talk page if you want more information. Tony (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent user, not apolitical power-grabber, not a PR stuntman who only goes to high-profile places where the adulatory crowds are YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony1, I was joking; I don't judge people on the basis of their nationality, I judge people on the basis of merit. In VirtualSteve's case, he seems to have internationalist views. I believe that he is a right man for CUship because he seems to have no bias towards people of any country. AdjustShift (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pleased to hear it, Adjust: I'm taking myself too seriously, it seems. Tony (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC): (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole? (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people? (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?[reply]

An interesting set of 3 later multi-questions IPv6. I have provided brief(ish) answers, numbered in the order you provided them as follows:

1. I honestly don't know the percentage of women versus men across the range of editor accounts on Wikipedia but I do know that the process of being nominated for election requires an expression of interest through ArbCom. I'd welcome more women (and indeed more of any wiki-minority group) to any position such as administrator, checkuser, oversight etc because I have a view that diversity creates and supports strength. From that perspective we may in fact just need more women to understand that they can nominate for these types of positions and then allow the community to consider their nomination - not on the basis of their social; gender; ethnic etc classification but on whether the meet the trust/skills/behaviour requirements for the position being sought.
2. If I am supported for the position of checkuser I will generally deal with all requests firstly by determining if the requests meets the pemission requirements to examine user IP information and other server log data under certain circumstances, for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against actual and potential disruption and abuse. In other words whether the request relates to a "famous" person or not the first question is whether named and IP accounts are disrupting and abusing wikipedia - if yes then the tool provides assistance in determining if two or more editors are editing from the same computer or IP range etc. Of course it is possible to make a mistake in linking two editors but there are plenty of actions available to review each and every action by a checkuser and the subsequent actions taken by fellow administrators.
3. I don't have a particular view either way as to how checkusers should be chosen. I've always been a team player and so the current process, which has been discussed and agreed to is the relevant current process at this time. Like many other processes that seek support and oppose comments from the community the current process has its benefits and problems but I respect the right of editors to post their !vote - and whilst personally I sometimes see votes in one or the other column that on face value appear perplexing - I work overall from the perspective that my fellow nominees and I can only put our hand up and offer to support the community. I've done that and as I deal with checkuser type functions daily in the two real-life web-sites that I monitor - to my mind now the major question should be is VirtualSteve trusted enough by the community to be given this tool? I think I am but heck the world is full of people with different views and that's fine with me, and if this is the process chosen to determine those views then that's fine with me too. Thanks again.

--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of VirtualSteve[edit]

2. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Aqwis (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. - Kevin (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sarah 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. AdjustShift (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Euryalus (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

12. LittleMountain5 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. — Athaenara ✉ 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. RP459 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. BrianY (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Enigma^msg 06:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Orderinchaos 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Bilby (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Bduke 08:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Ysangkok (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Atama^chat 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. ++Lar: t/c 07:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Icewedge (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. WJBscribe (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Stephen 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Calwatch (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. bonadea contributions talk 10:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Tiptoety ^talk 05:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Saravask (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. snigbrook (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. --L I C 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Hesperian 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Moral support. —Terrence and Phillip 12:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. –Moondyne 05:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Alio The Fool 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
62. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Lara 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Whitehorse1 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support --StaniStani  22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to VirtualSteve[edit]

2. JamieS93 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. iMatthew ^talk at 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose--Caspian blue 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Triplestop x3 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. ~ Ameliorate! 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. — Σxplicit 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Tony (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. MuZemike 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election, you do not have sufficient mainspace edits before the cut off.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Shappy ^talk 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Regretfully, Pmlineditor 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
21. NW (Talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Alexfusco⁵ 19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Res2216firestar 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Star Garnet (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. PerfectProposal 02:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Joe (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Cynical (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Steven Walling (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. 2help (message me) 04:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham[edit]

Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am standing in this election for oversight, as I can attest from personal experience that there is a need for more people with the tool. As someone who has been dealing with oversight, and oversighters, for a long time, I am volunteering to assume that workload as well. As someone who can monitor e-mail for the majority of the day, I can respond quickly to new requests, helping to lower the response time. Moreover, it is extremely complementary to the maintenance work I already do.

• As a checkuser, there have been numerous times when I have uncovered completely disgusting usernames, or usernames that "out" individuals real names, telephone numbers, addresses, and the like. Often, these usernames will edit with said personal information in the edit summary or the edit itself. As quickly removing these names, edits, and summaries from circulation is critical to protect the project, having the oversight tool would obviate the need for me, or other checkusers, from having to hunt down oversighters via list, e-mail, or IRC, or, in times of desperation, flagging a steward.
• As an OTRS volunteer, I have worked with multiple individuals seeking to remove personal information-revealing edits performed by others. There have been times in the past where the removal of the edit has taken days, with multiple prodding to the list. The response time has been better over the past year, but it still can, and should, improve.
• As a bureaucrat and OTRS volunteer, I have dealt with multiple anonymization requests over OTRS and WP:CHU. The hideuser tool would complement the rename tool in that users who need anonymization (often usernames created by others to disparage the individual) who have no GFDL/CC-BY-SA edits requiring attribution should preferably be hidden as opposed to renamed.

In recap, as someone to whom protecting the privacy of our editors is important, who has been dealing with these issues in various capacities for years, and whose volunteer work now requires access to oversight and oversighters on a very frequent basis, having the tool would allow the maintenance work I do to be completed more efficiently and in a more timely manner. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Avraham[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
  • I think I would serve the project well as someone who has access to the oversight tool as it fits very well with the maintenance work I already do. I am online for most of the day and can respond quickly and efficiently to the requests. In my other volunteer activities as a checkuser, OTRS respondent, and a bureaucrat, I am very often involved in situations that require oversight. I am one of the more active checkusers which means that I come across names, edits, and edit summaries requiring the various levels of suppression more often than most other people, and it enhances the safety and privacy of our editors if I were to be able to hide the offending edits as soon as I find them. I have been involved in many requests for oversight as the requester, and so I am comfortable offering to help EnWiki by standing to become the requested. Whether I am better qualified than other candidates is up to you to decide, but through my long term volunteer activities as a sysop with a sensitivity to privacy protection, an OTRS volunteer, and a checkuser, I feel that I am sufficiently qualified to be worthy of consideration. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Offliner (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC): Could you give some numbers about how extensive your experience with the tasks and positions you mentioned above is, if this is not too much to ask? Offliner (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding checkuser, you can see the basic statistics at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics#CheckUser Statistics (April 2009) and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics#CheckUser Statistics for May 2009. Regarding OTRS, I am not certain if they keep statistics, but I would estimate the number of specific anonymization/oversight requests that I dealt with through OTRS to be between a half dozen and a dozen and a half. I do not have a record of the number of times I've contacted RfO due to monitoring WP:AN/WP:ANI, sorry, but that was more frequent than OS. As a biased low estimate, there remain about two-dozen or so "poor-admin's oversight" entries in my logs. As the enhancement that allows the edit to remain but details to be removed is relatively recent, an oversighting prior to that would no longer be in the logs, so the number is definitely higher. As for renames, I do a decent amount of them (see here). We've only had one incident, so far, in my tenure as a bureaucrat in which we had a rename that should not have been handled as a rename but as a hiduser, and it was handled as hideuser through my tracking down an oversighter; but the account was renamed anyway (mix-up in the OTRS system - I was not handling the ticket myself, I was responding to a request for help from another volunteer, and a third volunteer posted the account on CHU, etc.) and so I had to scramble to run down an OSer quickly to hide the rename logs etc. Does that help you? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
  • This question may be better addressed if there was a specific example as it is hard to make a definitive statement in a vacuum. The response to a request should depend on the edit made, the information it contains, how that information would be considered a privacy release vis-a-vis readily available information about that user, the user's previous release of personal information, etc. For example, for someone with their real name on their user page, being called by that name and not their wiki ID is not a privacy violation; whereas, for someone who has no easily accessible link between their wiki ID and their real name, being called by that name on-wiki by someone who knows it is a different story. In general, I believe that wikilawyering and elastic interpretation of standing policy and guidelines is detrimental to the wiki, and that our policies and guidelines have spirits as well as letters (of the law). We are not supposed to become a group of static, stolid, individuals, but there is a difference between a grass-roots consensus movement for change and one or two individuals trying to "transgress the boundaries" of CU/OS. Requests for suppression that are not appropriate under the policies/guidelines will be refused. There is always "poor-admins-oversight", now known as revision delete that is admin-viewable, that can be used with fewer (but not no) restrictions. -- Avi (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Kauffner (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC): I notice you don't edit on the Sabbath. Are you Lubavitcher?[reply]
  • No, but what does that have to do with oversight? Do you make your decisions based on people's race, color, gender, or creed? -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Avraham[edit]

2. Shappy ^talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. JamieS93 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. No question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. iMatthew ^talk at 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yep. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Majorly talk 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Caspian blue 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. NW (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. John Carter (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. --Aqwis (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Pzrmd (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24.  Chzz  ►  01:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. —Animum (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. ThemFromSpace 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Captain panda 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Noroton (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Kingturtle (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Nathan ^T 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Jehochman ^Talk 03:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. — Σxplicit 05:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Pedro :  Chat  06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Without hesitation. Jakew (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Offliner (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. AdjustShift (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Willking1979 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Aditya (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. LittleMountain5 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Pectore^talk 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. — Athaenara ✉ 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Ian¹³/t 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. RP459 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Woody (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. — Ched :  ?  21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. —MC10|Sign here! 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Basket of Puppies 22:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Recognizance (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. chaser (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Priyanath ^talk 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Samir 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. BrianY (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. --Conti|✉ 09:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BejinhanTalk 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

85. Kusma (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. ceranthor 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Rigaudon (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Pmlineditor 17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. SupportThingg^⊕⊗ 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Alexfusco⁵ 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. --SPhilbrickT 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. IronDuke 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Res2216firestar 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. Enigma^msg 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Timmeh 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. Ray^Talk 07:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Ysangkok (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Atama^chat 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. ++Lar: t/c 07:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. Synchronism (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Fedayee (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Absolutely. --Jayron32 03:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 06:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Sure. Sarah 13:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Malinaccier (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. Acalamari 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. yes please -- Y not? 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. PerfectProposal 02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Joe (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. Cailil ^talk 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. Grandmaster 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. GDonato (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Tiderolls 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
143. snigbrook (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. AlexiusHoratius 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. Weakly. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146. Steven Walling (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
147. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support —Terrence and Phillip 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support NSH001 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. Promking
153. Strong Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. Lara 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
155. hmwitht 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
156. Whitehorse1 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support --StaniStani  22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
158. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
159. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Avraham[edit]

2. JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

3. *** Crotalus *** 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cxz111 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Privacy is important, but so is accountability. Too often in the past the former has been used as an excuse to subvert the latter. We need a better balance between the two, sorry Avi, but I don't think you are the one to find this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Severino (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller[edit]

Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm Dweller.

I've been editing since 2005, an admin since 2007 and a Bureaucrat for just coming up to a year now.

My statemement really boils down to three things:

1. Alongside my content work, I like helping people
2. This tool would help me help people, especially when using my Crat tools
3. I am trustworthy and can keep confidence with privacy (etc) issues

Fleshing that out a little, since becoming a Crat I have become involved in complex right to vanish issues. Unless my memory is playing tricks, these have become more frequent in recent months than they were. Sadly, it seems that stalking is an increasing problem and abuse of the username policy has also increased. Currently, I need to pass work to others who have OS to appropriately suppress log entries - I would like to be able to handle this myself.

And I just generally like helping people, so I'd like to be one of those who is available for helping with all OS cases, not just the username-related ones. As I've worked on a fair number of biographies, I've hit on a lot of privacy/BLP problems, which will be useful background for an Oversighter.

Whenever I've made a request in the past for OS, I've been impressed with the speed of response and I'm available by email and generally active most of the "working week". However, I've noticed that I edit most heavily while America is asleep. The manually-updated list of OSers is somewhat less developed than its Crat equivalent - inclusion of time zones might be useful for users - it's hard for me to tell whether my edit pattern would complement the existing OS group, but I suspect it would.

Finally, a word about trust. This is a tool that should be used selectively and with judgement. I am a very careful tool user, as my record as an admin and bureaucrat will attest. I can assure the community that if I'm granted this tool, I'll use it appropriately.

[Incidentally, the unpleasant RL issues that forced me to withdraw from the February election are, thank goodness, now all resolved. I still feel bad about the waste of people's time that occurred when the elections went live without my statement, and I take this opportunity to apologise again.]

Comments and questions for Dweller[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

Response to Aitias
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, I'd respond by saying that I'm not sure I'll be elected, although I say so reluctantly - lack of bullish certainty of election cost me at least one oppose at my RfB! I nominated myself because I like helping people and find doing so a refreshing complement to my content work. I've also been a little frustrated at not being able to handle some username change work myself (see my statement, above). It's hard for me to say that I'm better qualified than anyone else, whether standing or not. But I would hope that the community has seen enough of my work to know that they can trust me to apply policy properly and use a sensitive tool with care and consideration. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions from Tony1: For such a reliable, trustworthy and thoroughly appropriate candidate, I was hoping for a more solid answer to that question. Perhaps more specific questions will bring out your qualities more:
  • (1) What do you think will be among the more challenging aspects of being an OS (more specific examples, even hypothetical, than you provide in your statement)?
  • (2) Can you provide examples of high-level administrative judgement in your role as a crat, or perhaps as an admin before that, which suggest you have the appropriate skill-base for OS?
  • (3) Do you think the current policy on alt accounts is too open? What is your view of the discussion that has been going on at Sock puppetry? Do OS have a potential role to play in developing a better system (sorry, it's such a loaded question: I'm more interested in your thinking abilities than the stance you take on this one). Tony (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tony1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Tony1, thanks for the compliments - and criticism! I must say I found Aitias' question awkward, as I felt it presupposed things that are not the case, which left the entire structure somewhat shaky. Thanks also for the questions. I was hoping not to put off readers with masses of text, but now I'm boxed in! OK, I'll take your questions in turn: 1 There will be lots - I'm not signing up for an easy task. As usual with policy, difficulty will arise where individual circumstances can push the boundaries. But even more tricky is where a quick look makes a case look simple, when deeper consideration would be valuable. For example, if a user inadvertently gave away personal information that would be considered by most to be of a trivial nature. Hypothetically, and deliberately using an extreme example, if user Z's cat's name were revealed in a way that would remain in a log that normal deletion could not address. This is not something mentioned in #1 of the policy, nor is it something that seems to be in the spirit of that policy. It would be all too easy to deny the request. However, there may be extenuating circumstances, and I'd be prepared to listen to the user's request sympathetically. Although I'd be looking for an exceptionally strong rationale, it is possible that there may be good reasons to suppress it - hypothetically again, a highly unusual pet's name combined with a Google-able news story linking editor/owner's RL identity with the animal's. The challenge here is to ensure that the request is heard sympathetically, to ensure that any extenuating circumstances are heard before a decision is made. Another example from the world of name suppression, which as a Crat, I'm very interested in. A user pleads a change with suppression, citing wikistalking, but no evidence of such stalking is clear. "Stalking" is sometimes very much in the eye of the beholder. In such borderline cases, I'd use all my experience of talking with editors to work out the fine points of detail on which such things frequently depend. And I wouldn't be too proud to ask for advice from others - second opinions are often crucial. I did this recently for a request that came to me via email for help with an RTV issue - I was uncomfortable with making a call and received permission from the requester to discuss it confidentially with another Crat. More answers to follow - I currently have a world-class headache. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 2. This is hard to answer. The best examples are unrepeatable because of combinations of BEANS and privacy issues. Perhaps this one will suffice. A former admin contacted me offwiki and asked me to restore their admin privileges for a brief period so that they could fish stuff out of their old userspace, now deleted. They claimed to have resigned in good standing. I looked into the detail behind their account and was uncomfortable - it did not seem clear to me that they restored in good standing. This, combined with their desire to keep everything off the record was a bad combination. I felt I had to decline the request. However, I dislike being unhelpful, so I offered to dig out the versions they wanted and paste them somewhere including an email. I also suggested that I tend to be one of the more conservative crats, so told the user I'd be fine with them "forum shopping" asking a different crat. Both offers were turned down. I hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 3. I have complex views and think that the discussion at Sock puppets may not be considering all the angles, which is fine, as it's in its early days. I for one can think of at least one circumstance where it may be appropriate for a user to have more than one account and am happy to discuss that elsewhere. I am also unconvinced that policy needs to change - the abusive sockers won't care a jot what policy says and the unabusive ones presumably are not harming the project, so why fix it? I'm not sure why people are suggesting Oversighters might be useful for giving green light for breaches - CU maybe and CU+OS yeeessss, but OS alone? Can't see the value, but perhaps that's a conversation for elsewhere and perhaps my creative thought is being blocked by this infernal headache. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Post headache thought - of course, the logical step missing in the third sentence ("I am also unconvinced...") is that abusive socking is already prohibited by policy. If that wasn't clear before, it is now, hopefully... --Dweller (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]

Response to Mailer Diablo
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Mailer Diablo. What a thought-provoking question. It can be hard to spot people gaming the system - it's often highly subjective, as a trawl through any ANI archive will quickly reveal. I suppose it depends. A polite and explanatory decline is usually all that's needed, but those who are being thoroughly disruptive would need stronger action. This may be a block or even, following the appropriate channels, a ban, or possibly it may need collaboration with a CU or other OSers to see if something more deeply nefarious is going on - or to double-check that others concur, in borderline cases. One thing that is intolerable is if material is Oversighted and another user is clearly hell-bent on disruptively reposting that information. That might require intervention that is swift, as well as strong. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mike.lifeguard 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Can I ask you to mention briefly the main purpose of oversight privileges from your point of view? You already mentioned one area relating to renames - is that the main purpose you would fulfill with these tools?[reply]

Belated response to Mike.lifeguard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, sorry you've had to wait for an answer to this. I think what you're asking is the main thing I'd do with Oversight, rather than what I think Oversight is for...? Yes, I'd be using it with sensitive renames, but that's more the driver that brought me here, not what I'd expect to do with the tool. Such renames are still, thankfully, relatively uncommon, as far as I know (Crats with OS may well receive and deal with requests I'm unaware of). I'm intending to use the tool on a more usual basis in response to regular privacy of editor and gross BLP issue requests. As stated above, I believe I'm in a slightly unusual time zone compared to other users with the tool, so I'd be looking to respond quickly during my hours of activity to these general requests.

• Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of work and never gets tired, eg helping to copyedit my stuff. While some people apply for jobs and committees to collect more hats than North Korean generals plastering their torso full of medals, this candidate actually does the work and isn't like a politician who signs up to be the patron of 100s of clubs to get votes and only turns up once a year for a dinner and photo opportunity. A very apolitical gentlemen, will never do anything questionable YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Dweller[edit]

2. Shappy ^talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. iMatthew ^talk at 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Aqwis (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kingturtle (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support' -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. — Σxplicit 06:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. – B.hotep •talk• 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Tony (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. LittleMountain5 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. — Ched :  ?  21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. chaser (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Priyanath ^talk 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Samir 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Calabraxthis ^(talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. A helpful user and bureaucrat. ceranthor 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. iridescent 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Caspian blue 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. —Animum (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Pmlineditor 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Jpeeling (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Woody (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. — Kralizec! (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. ϢereSpielChequers 12:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Ysangkok (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. miranda 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. -- Banjeboi 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. snigbrook (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. –Megaboz (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. AlexiusHoratius 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Steven Walling (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. –Moondyne 05:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. – Johnlp (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. —Terrence and Phillip 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. - Ankimai (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. hmwitht 18:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Whitehorse1 21:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support --StaniStani  22:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Dweller[edit]

2. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pzrmd (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

5. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. BrianY (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Alexfusco⁵ 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-melon[edit]

Happy-melon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

My background on Wikimedia is fairly unexciting, and can be found in a not-wordcount-limited form on my user page. I first started editing in February 2006; became a bot operator in December 2007, and an admin in February 2008. Recently I have developed an interest in the MediaWiki software itself; I have been involved with numerous discussions on bugzilla about the RevDeleted and Oversight functionality, and I have applied for SVN commit access, which will allow me to commit changes to MediaWiki directly. I am an administrator at mediawiki.org, the software's documentation site, and I have a few minor rights across a number of projects.

I see Oversight as a unique tool, and set of responsibilities, within Wikimedia. From my technical background, I probably have as much knowledge of how 'the system' works as any non-Oversighter: the interface itself is technically very simple and its principles remarkably clear. Unlike CheckUser, which is a mixture of forensic accountancy, fox-hunting and voodoo magic, Oversight does not require any specialist skillset, beyond the ability to implement Wikimedia policy with the judgement and common sense that is the mark of any good admin. What the project does require, however, is Oversighters in whose integrity they can have complete trust; users who can be impartial and discreet, and who can respond quickly, politely and sympathetically over as wide a time as possible. It is not for me to say, of course, whether I qualify as "impartial" or "discrete"; although the length of time that the 'about me' section on my userpage has been filled with lorem ipsum may testify to my discretion :D. Certainly the nature of my Real Life^TM means that I am available at short notice throughout the British daytime. And it has been a very long time indeed since I have been publicly angry at anyone in this community. As for integrity, well, again that's not mine to define. But I have only, to my recollection, lied outright once in my editing career – this is complete crap: they were sitting next to me as I wrote it, although I had no prior idea that they would vote for me and did not solicit it. My 'stats' in the usual places (ANI, RfArb, miscellaneous people's 'shit lists') may speak for themselves, but that, I think, is important. I don't believe that I have any skeletons hidden in my contributions, and while there are certainly some of which I am not proud, I can't remember any that I am scared of.

I am familiar with the Privacy and ANPD policies, with WP:BLP and WP:OS. I would not describe myself as a 'specialist' in BLP, but I see that as a strength, not a weakness. I am sure that the requests for Oversight will be wide-ranging and varied, and responses must be guided by the Oversight Policy rather than anything candidates may already be versed in; having the widest possible range of aims and interests within the Oversight body can only be a Good Thing. I am honoured to accept the Committee's nomination to take up the task of Oversight here, and add my skills to that pot.

For your consideration, Happy‑melon 12:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Happy-melon[edit]

Answered questions

Q: Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates? Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A: I don't see this as a competition in any way. The role is a responsibility, not a perk. There are a number of editors here who have a "realistic chance of being elected", as you put it; some of those have stood for the role this time around and some of them have not. But I see this process as an evaluation in absolute terms, not relative; the issue is not whether X is better than Y, but whether X is good enough, full stop.

In 'absolute' terms, then, I believe that I have a lot to offer the Oversight community based on my background and situation. In addition to the points I made in my statement above (thanks for giving me this opportunity to circumvent the word limit :D), I believe that a combination of my MediaWiki development focus with Oversight would be a strong vector to improve the functionality and accuracy of the Oversight system. For instance, as I mentioned in my SVN commit access request, I have been intermittently working on an improvement to the Oversight extension that will allow old Oversighted revisions to be restored in the new RevDeleted format, which will significantly improve the transparency of the process. It would be wrong to use something like that as a threat/bribe – "elect me or I won't do the patch" – and I have no intention of acting that way. But at the moment my efforts are focused elsewhere (I'm currently working on an overhaul of DeleteQueue, that has crossover into normal admin work); I think it's axiomatic to say that I would be more likely to focus on that sort of work if I was involved with the group that would be using it. That's just one example of how my technical background could be useful in an Oversight role. Happy‑melon 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: I was impressed with the way you handled a tricky task that involved privacy at the ArbCom page a little while ago. Can you provide a few examples of awkward situations in which you've had to exercise very careful administrative judgement about personal matters? Tony (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: For the benefit of those who didn't see the issue that Tony is referring to, it was this. Essentially, Tony obtained information in confidence that pointed to a lack of transparency in some of the votes in the Date Delinking case. I agreed to handle the data, confirmed its legitimacy, and resolved the situation with the Arbitrator in question. In my opinion, it was resolved with the minimum possible amount of drama.

I have had other instances where confidential information entered the fray. This discussion kicked off when an image I'd cropped jumped onto my watchlist after 18 months; I had a confidential discussion with the uploader about the identity of both the subject and the OP. Again, my priority was minimising drama: the situation that is quietly resolved is the situation where things are least likely to spiral out of control. Similarly here: it looked like common newbie editing/disruption, but I ended up talking to the subject by e-mail and doing a courteousy blank for a time (the timeframe requested was two weeks IIRC; they stopped responding to my e-mails so I eventually put it back up after a month, when I was sure it would be OK assuming what they'd told me was accurate). I'm not too keen to give more recent examples, obviously. Happy‑melon 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression? Mailer Diablo 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: The authoritative part of the meta:Hiding revisions#Policy is actually one of the hardest policies to game, because it is both crystal clear, and normative: it covers the entirety of cases where Oversight or Suppression may be performed. As such, it's pretty tricky for people to game it. And with the new RevDeleted functionality in place, the benefits of gaming the system are reduced even further, as there is little loss of transparency.

When dealing with Oversight requests, the motivation behind the request, and behind the edit itself, should be largely discounted, and the issue treated solely on its own merits. Either the edit contains information which should be Oversighted, or it does not. That said, it is important to take some account of past history if the edit is part of a wider problem; and I would be careful to use the institutional memory of the more experienced Oversighters in determining whether that was the case. I think the most likely way for someone to try to game the system in this area would be to make a number of edits which, in isolation, would not be elegible for Oversight, but which in conjunction form a legitimate violation. In that situation it would be important to take a more holistic approach to the problem. But I think that, once you have identified the scope of the problem, determining whether the issue is best resolved by Oversight is a fairly objective process; although still one that requires good judgement. Happy‑melon 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions

Comments

• (comments moved from voting section) My only hesitation in supporting is that H-M does so much good in other areas, and the extra work may take him away from it. I have always found H-M's communication very clear and effective, and I have a great deal of trust in him. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from voting section) Upon review of the statement I am encouraged by Happy-melon's good attitude. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from voting section) I've always been confident in Happy-melon's abilities. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely reliable and principled user that would handle the tool properly. I can't figure out the merits of any opposition. - Taxman ^Talk 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Happy-melon[edit]

2. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Aqwis (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. JayHenry (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Tony (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. LittleMountain5 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. — Athaenara ✉ 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Mentifisto 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Shappy ^talk 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. BrianY (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Taxman ^Talk 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Ozob (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. ~ mazca ^talk 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Rettetast (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. —--SPhilbrickT 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Orderinchaos 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Ysangkok (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. WOSlinker (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. —EncMstr (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Ruslik_Zero 12:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Cxz111 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Graham87 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Emw2012 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. GDonato (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. snigbrook (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. –Megaboz (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Steven Walling (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. —Terrence and Phillip 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Strong Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. hmwitht 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support --StaniStani  22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Happy-melon[edit]

2. Weak oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prodego ^talk 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

6. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. iMatthew ^talk at 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Caspian blue 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Very weak oppose. Pmlineditor 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Alexfusco⁵ 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Star Garnet (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. --Charitwo ^(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmwith[edit]

hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Ahoy-hoy! In case you've never seen my signature around these parts, I'm hmwith. My real name is Hayley, and I am in my early twenties. I have seen users seeking someone with oversight lately, and, after the encouragement of a few other editors, I feel that I could help fill the void.

Let's get started with the fun stuff. I have been active on Wikipedia for 17 years, 1 month, & 1 day, and I have been a sysop for 16 years, 6 months, & 23 days. I have also been an OTRS volunteer since early April, and I am currently a trainee clerk for the Arbitration Committee.

I live in the Eastern Time Zone, and I am usually around/on my computer most of the day. It is very easy to reach me, as I am able to be contacted through either WP, email, or IRC. As a college student, I am available when many other editors are at work, school, or otherwise unable to be reached, and I think that I could really help out.

Well versed in oversight policy, I have kept up-to-date with RevisionDelete feature, and have had these functions performed per my request in the past. I am always civil and friendly, but I'm also able to say "no" when needed. I understand the privacy concerns, and I can assure that I am trustworthy.

If you'd like to further inquire about my history, check out my contributions or feel free to ask me any questions, whether here, on my talk page, or through either email or IRC. Thank you for your consideration, and best of luck to everyone else running. It's an honor to be considered with such esteemed fellow editors.

P.S. Forgive my delay in posting my statement, as I just returned from a vacation without any access to the Internet. hmwithτ 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for hmwith[edit]

Questions

1. Question from Aitias (added 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

   Thanks for your question, Aitias. I see the names on this page, and, as I said above, it truly is an honor to be considered with such esteemed fellow editors. I feel that we are all quite qualified, and I know that any of us would do a fine job. I wish the best of luck to everyone running.

   However, I hope that the community knows that I can be trusted, fair, and put in my all to help out as much as possible. hmwithτ 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]

   Whether an edit should or should not be suppressed, the same action should be taken regardless of circumstances. I would look at the edit standing by itself: is this removable per the oversight policy? The situation may change if the edit is part of a series of edits that are a problem as a whole. I would also consider just using RevisionDelete for less offending circumstances. If I couldn't reach a decision regarding the matter, I would not hesitate to ask advice from fellow oversighters.

   However, if it's just a vandal constantly requesting that random things be suppressed, he/she should be warned and blocked appropriately. hmwithτ 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Question from — Kralizec! (talk) (added 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)): While I am a big advocate of giving tools to the people who need them, I also strongly feel that those possessing tools need to use them for the betterment of the project. As such, in reviewing your edit history I am troubled by the fact that from June to mid-December 2008, you made just 365 edits in 200-odd days, and of those 365 edits, approximately 22% were to your own user space. Likewise, during this six-and-a-half month period, you only performed 15 actions using your administrative tools, and 13% of those were to your own user space. Personally, I think you are a great editor, and I have very much enjoyed working with you in building content on Toledo-area articles. However given your long periods of relative inactivity and the associated very low usage of your administrator tools, do you feel that you have a more demonstrable need for the oversight tool than other candidates? Similarly, can you tell us why we should vote for you rather than other candidates who have been active every month and consistently used their existing tools?[reply]

   I had very serious real life issues during that time, regarding my real life health and safety. During this time, I physically had no computer access, other than maybe checking things on another's computer, where I'd just quickly check on my messages and inactivity notices. I would prefer not to divulge any further details regarding this situation on-wiki, but I can perhaps provide some general information to you off-wiki if you'd like. hmwithτ 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Question from miranda (added 20:25, 30 July 2009): Do you think you will have the time commitment to be an oversighter, since I presume that school/college/etc. is going to start in the next month? Oversighters generally have to respond to the queue on a daily basis. Thanks.

   Absolutely. Fall quarter starts in about 2 months, but I normally schedule all of my classes on just two days of the week, and I'm able to get online in the library between classes. In fact, my schedule makes me much more available than those in high school or those with 9-5 jobs. hmwithτ 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Question from TharsHammar (added 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) My one experience with you has been in relation to an article that has since been deleted, see [6] where I posted to your talk page. In that instance you were fooled by a Weekly World News article and kept reinserting the material. Why should I believe that you will not be as easily fooled in the future when dealing with more complex issue?[reply]

   I wasn't familiar with the website, and I only payed attention to the article without looking at the header or the rest of the page. At first glance, it looked fine. I made a mistake, which I can't promise that I won't ever do in the future. However, that certainly taught me to be more careful when quickly editing and to take breaks after sitting at the computer for an extended period of time to clear my head and thought-process. I also realize that with extra tools comes extra responsibility, and I won't misuse oversight. I understand the policies, and I know when something would need to be suppressed. If I am for any reason confused about situation, I would ask for a second OS opinion, as I mentioned in my answer to Mailer Diablo's question above. hmwithτ 05:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment: Never heard of the candidate before, but I take the argument on gender on the election talk page into account for reflecting issues related gender.--Caspian blue 17:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy link for reference: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009#Number of new oversighters / checkusers. hmwithτ 14:20, July 31, 2009
• Comment (moved from vote section): Will be excellent in the job. --Jayron32 03:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC
• Comment (moved from vote section): Easily the most trustworthy person I know on this website, brilliant. ceranthor 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of hmwith[edit]

2. Shappy ^talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. iMatthew ^talk at 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Acalamari 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. JayHenry (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. —Animum (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Law _{type! snype?} 06:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Barras (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, per my talk page, I am ineligible to vote in this elections. --Barras (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Definitely. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. LittleMountain5 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. JamieS93 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. chaser (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Samir 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. BrianY (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. ceranthor 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Caspian blue 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Pmlineditor 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. ~ mazca ^talk 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Alexfusco⁵ 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Bullzeye ^contribs 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Recognizance (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. --SPhilbrickT 23:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Ysangkok (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. --Jayron32 03:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. GDonato (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. –Megaboz (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. AlexiusHoratius 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Steven Walling (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. —Terrence and Phillip 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Lara 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Whitehorse1 21:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support --StaniStani  22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. BJ^Talk 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to hmwith[edit]

2. Prodego ^talk 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pzrmd (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

4. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. WJBscribe (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. miranda 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. With regret. Joe (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. -Drdisque (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. fish&karate 11:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng[edit]

Howcheng (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am Howard Cheng, administrator since December 2005 and Commons administrator as well. I am also a member of the OTRS team, where I deal mostly in permissions and copyrights. I am available to work in the Pacific Time Zone (UTC -7/-8), available during business hours (9 to 5 -- I am employed as a programmer and have unfettered Internet access) and nights (after 8:30 PM) as well (16:00 to 0:00 and 3:30 to 6:00 UTC).

Some of you may be unfamiliar with my name or my work here, as I do not often poke my head in at ANI, instead preferring to concentrate on specialties. I believe this actually is a benefit, as I prefer to stay clear of any site politics and am thus able to remain more neutral in any contentious topics. Furthermore, it is my contention that any such access should spread among multiple users in order to assure that no one person accumulates too much power (with the notable exception of Jimbo, of course).

I believe I have a good understanding of when oversight should or should not be applied; I have asked for oversight on several occasions and all of my requests have been fulfilled. Before the oversight function was enabled, I even fulfilled a similar request for the subject of an article whose real name (he was an author on neo-Nazi groups and wrote under a pseudonym) had been revealed in an article by deleting the appropriate revisions.

In conclusion, I offer my services to the community in this capacity because I think I can do the job and I can be trusted not to abuse my position.

Comments and questions for Howcheng[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

I was told that oversight users were required in my time zone and not having been involved this aspect of the site before, thought it would be interesting. All the candidates here appear, to my knowledge and personal experience, to be well-respected users and would all do well in the oversight capacity. I don't think I can necessarily do the job better than anyone else here; all I can do is offer my assurances that I can be trusted to do it right. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) Has run Picture of the Day to perfection for years, and shown excellent discretion and tact when delicate issues arise there (which happens periodically). The sort of contributor whose steady hard work may go unnoticed simply because he does it so well and uncontroversially. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]

It depends on the attempt, I suppose. It's possible there may be situations that aren't covered fully by the existing policy, but where oversight really is the best response, in which case I would honor those requests. On the other hand, if it's someone trying to rewrite the rules in order to get oversight on edits that don't really deserve it, then I would politely but firmly deny that. For borderline cases, I would not hesitate to consult with other oversighters in order to reach a group consensus. howcheng {chat} 05:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Offliner (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC): You are obviously a veteran user, but I'm not sure in which way you have demonstrated to the community that you can be trusted enough to be given the tool. Could explain a bit more why you think you have earned the trust? Offliner (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA passed with unanimous support, and I would venture to suggest that the Foundation trusts me enough to keep sensitive information private, seeing as I have access to the info-en queues in OTRS, and that I am entrusted to deal with these tickets. I can also point out that you don't see me named as a party in any arbitration case, nor am I subject to discussion threads on WR, and there aren't any complaints about me at AN/ANI. I hope that answers your question. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of work and never gets tired, eg, his endless work at DYK processing all the entires. While some people apply for jobs and committees to collect more hats than North Korean generals plastering their torso full of medals, this candidate actually does the work and isn't like a politician who signs up to be the patron of 100s of clubs to get votes and only turns up once a year for a dinner and photo opportunity. People can be confident that Howcheng will be active and untiring. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Howcheng[edit]

2. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. JamieS93 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. iMatthew ^talk at 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Prodego ^talk 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. NW (Talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong support. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. (X! · talk)  · @065  ·  00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Aqwis (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support --B (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16.  Chzz  ►  01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Vote indented as user is not eligible to vote this time. Sorry. Risker (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Antandrus (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. bibliomaniac15 05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Euryalus (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Pymouss Let's talk 13:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. LittleMountain5 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. — Athaenara ✉ 16:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Offliner (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Shappy ^talk 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Priyanath ^talk 02:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Samir 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. BrianY (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Extremely neat and organized, plus prolific OTRS personnel. ceranthor 12:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Chris (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Pmlineditor 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Alexfusco⁵ 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Caspian blue 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Tryptofish (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. miranda 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Ysangkok (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Wayiran (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. —EncMstr (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. — madman bum and angel 04:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Joe (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. yousaf465' 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. wadester16 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. -Drdisque (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. An eminently qualified candidate. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. GDonato (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Fedayee (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. --evrik ^(talk) 18:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. snigbrook (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Steven Walling (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. —Terrence and Phillip 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. hmwitht 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Whitehorse1 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support --StaniStani  22:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Howcheng[edit]

2. Oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Σxplicit 05:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

4. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia[edit]

Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi! I'm Jennavecia, also known as Lara (my real first name). I'm 26 years old, and I've been on the project since December 2006, active since March 2007, an administrator since November 2007, and an OTRS agent since May of this year. My main focus on the project is with biographies of living people. I created WikiProject Living people and I'm sure many of you have seen me around the project dealing with various BLP issues and attempting to bring attention to the wider problem. I am requesting Oversight primarily to be an extension of my current work in this area. There are times when living subjects make requests through OTRS to have libelous edits removed from their biographies. This is something I am very much interested in helping with. I believe it is important that these edits be removed as quickly as possible and having the privileges would be helpful.

I would, of course, be available to help with other requests as well. I live in the Eastern Time Zone (UTC -4/-5) and am generally available off-and-on several hours a day via WP, email and IRC. Even when not at my computer, I hear pings from IRC and respond when able.

I am familiar with the suppression/oversight policy and have made requests many times, all of which were carried out. Questions are welcome here, to my e-mail or through IRC. Thank you for your consideration. Lara 06:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on category deletions

I'm getting opposed for this, which doesn't make sense to me, as it's irrelevant to Oversight. But my deletion log is being linked, so I feel it appropriate to also include the restorations. I'm not really sure what is expected of me here. I misunderstood how a tool would work, I acknowledged the mistake before the tool even finished running, I apologized for creating a mess, and I immediately went to fixing the mistake. I restored over half of those needing to be restored myself, and others helping out restored the rest. Lara 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Jennavecia[edit]

Questions

1. Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

   When I nominated myself, I had no idea who else was going to be running, so I don't look at this as a competition. I haven't vetted the other candidates, as I will not be voting; however, I trust that all of us put forth here by the committee are well-qualified. That said, my reason for running is that I see this as a natural extension to my BLP work and believe that my expertise in this area will make me an asset to the team. Lara 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Question from Caspian blue (added 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): It is the known fact that you're a regular commentator and supporter of Wikipedia Review that has been considered a very bad site in the Wikipedia community because people there including many banned users shamelessly bitch about and WP:OUT Wikipedians. Do you think that your WR activities are against roles of Oversight should abide by like dealing one's sensitive privacy? Please tell me about your stance.--Caspian blue 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the key word there is "has". WR is a very different site now than it was a couple of years or so ago. The list of participants is much broader now, and includes admins, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators, stewards, etc. I certainly don't endorse the actions of all the participants, and I publicly speak out against them. I am particularly vocal in my disgust wrt the outing of editors' personal information and true identities (i.e. Hivemind and the actions of Proabivouac), and would not engage in or support anything not in the spirit of the privacy policy/oversight role. Now to your question. The wording is a little confusing to me, but I think I understand what you're asking. If I don't get it quite right, please clarify and I'll will as well. I don't believe my participation on WR would conflict with my role as an oversighter, or break any rules. Lara 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Question from Aitias (added 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Particularly with regard to Caspian blue's question above, I have another question, which is closely linked to this topic. In the past you have shown that you do not shy away from publishing — for no justifying reason — (cf. evidence) information which was deleted on Wikipedia off-wiki, i. e. wikipediareview.com. If you were elected, would you be more reluctant to publish information which was oversighted on-wiki on any websites or to use any information you have access to through your oversighter rights in order to write any off-wiki comments about a particular topic?[reply]

   It's not an apt comparison. Such information would never be oversighted. There's a difference between releasing oversighted material and researching someone's early edits (which is commonly done during RFA, for example) and posting their first edit summaries for scrutiny. Also worth noting that they were deleted revisions only because you deleted your userpage, not specific edits deleted over privacy concerns. As far as "no justifying reason", that's an opinion. I believed then, and I believe now, that it was justified. That said, to answer your question asking if I've stopped beating my husband: I never beat him to begin with. :P I cannot be "more reluctant" than I already am, and have been, in regards to the publishing of sensitive information. Lara 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Follow-up question from Aitias (added 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): In January 2009 you were desysopped per your own request. Later on, in April 2009, you were resysopped. As evidenced by the linked log entries, you did not have sysop rights between 26 January 2009 and 3 April 2009. Your comment on WR linked above is dated 17th March 2009, i. e while you did not have sysop rights — usually, that means one cannot access deleted information. (1) So, how could you access it nevertheless? (2) Did another user, who has sysop rights, provide you the information? (3) If so, this person obviously did trust you. As an oversighter, would you be willing to provide oversighted information if requested by a person you trust/you are friends with? Please note that the latter question ((3)) does especially, but not limitedly, refer to cases 2 and 3 of the oversight policy.[reply]

   Speaking to a specific component of your post, it is perfectly acceptable for admins who are in good standing (as Jennavecia was and continues to be) to have access to deleted content. The theory behind this being that they could just as easily re-request their admin bit from a bureaucrat and look themselves, so no trust or privacy is being violated by giving the information to them. I'm unclear whether this is written down anywhere, but it is standard and accepted practice. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   MZMcBride has thoughtfully addressed the first portion of your question. As a voluntarily desysopped admin who had the option to regain the bit at any time, I retained the right to access administrative information by request. And again, it's different than oversighted information, which I don't currently foresee a need to provide to anyone. The only possible exception that comes to mind is death threats, but even that would have to be an exceptional case and one I would be dealing with only with involved parties or those necessary to resolve the issue. Lara 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Question from Durova²⁸⁵ (added 16:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Editors who have need of Oversight can be nervous and poorly informed. Trust is an important factor because the choice they are making is whether to trust a complete stranger with sensitive information; the alternative may be that they quit editing. Your actual trustworthiness is not in doubt in my mind, yet there is a real possibility that someone who recognizes your name only from a handful of posts may view things differently. Editors have come to me for help who didn't know Oversight existed, and in the past I've linked them to the relevant pages and explained it to them. If someone saw your name among the Oversighters raised doubts--how would you suggest I reply?[reply]

   I'm a little confused by the wording of the question. I see it as possibly being taken two ways. You're asking for a suggested reply for 1/ a user who sees my name listed and thus has doubts about oversight, or 2/ a user sees my names and has doubts about me as an oversighter. I believe you're asking the former, but in thinking this over, I think the response is pretty much the same either way. I hope 1/ would never happen. I may be feisty, but I don't think I've given reason for anyone to have trust issues (at least not serious ones), and I think that's what's important here. In the years I've been on the project, of which nearly two I've been an admin, there's never been big drama over any of my admin actions (even when I allegedly deleted all watchlists in all languages >_>). Part of adminship also involves the responsibility of handling sensitive information, and I've never had serious concerns raised over that either. I may be a firecracker, saying what's on my mind and fighting for what I believe is right, but I take my various positions seriously, and use my extra privileges responsibly. I think that's what's important to highlight to someone who raises concerns, and people are always welcome to contact me with questions and concerns they may have. Lara 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Question from Daniel Case (talk) (added 16:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): As a general matter, do you believe that administrators with additional flags should be held to a higher standard for off-wiki behavior whether or not that off-wiki behavior involves the use of the flags in question, or indeed the administrative powers at all?[reply]

   Generally speaking, yes. I believe all admins and those with extra bits should be held to a higher standard on- and off-wiki. Standards are subjective, though. Do I believe those with extra bits should refrain from being voices of dissent off-wiki? No. Lara 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Follow-up question from Aitias (added 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Replying to Daniel Case's question above you state that you “believe [that] all admins and those with extra bits should be held to a higher standard on- and off-wiki”. In your opinion, does calling someone a “Lucky bastard” off-wiki — as you did here — meet this “higher standard”?[reply]

   Considering the tone and context, yes. Lara 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Further question from Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC): You have mentioned your BLP and OTRS work and concerns in this area as your reason for requesting the tools. How do you balance the procedures required for oversight to work effectively with upholding BLP? To give a specific example, suppose in the course of doing routine vandalism patrol on BLP articles, you come across an edit, since reverted but still in the history, to an article about a professional athlete who has had a history of legal troubles saying that he was sexually abused as a child. The article has more than 5,000 revisions, therefore selective deletion won't work. Pop quiz ... What do you do? What do you do? Do you:[reply]
    • Leave things as is?
    • Leave a note with the diff on the oversight mailing list for another oversighter to review and concur with, making the change themselves?
    • Oversight the edit yourself and let all the others know you did it on the mailing list?
    • Oversight the edit yourself and feel confident enough in your judgement not to mention it; after all all uses of oversight are logged and if someone has a problem, they'll let you know.

    In such a case, when the information is not supported by sources and is clearly libelous, I would suppress it myself. As a new oversighter, still finding my footing, I would then let other oversighters know about it. Lara 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]

    Without a specific example, this one is difficult to answer. Vandals should be dealt with in a business as usual manner with warnings and blocks. As for everyone else, it really depends on the severity of the case. A simple decline may be sufficient in some cases, in others it may be necessary to take the issue to the community. Lara 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Followup question by Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC): OK, here's a realistic example: A representative of a computer-game company writes to the list noting the repeated posting of a series of (apparently valid) product keys to one of their more popular games to the talk page of the article on their game. Once again, there have been too many edits for selective deletion to work. Do you use oversight here? Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would consider this a matter closer to copyright infringement. Unless my interpretation of the policy is off, this doesn't seem like something covered by oversight unless the Foundation steps in. Save that, I wouldn't act. Instead I would follow the request to see what the standard is in such a case. Considering these codes can be shared on various sites all over the internet, I wouldn't expect to see this oversighted. Lara 06:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17. Last question by Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC): You changed your own username a while back to (I presume) protect your privacy (although you still informally go by your real first name). To my knowledge, you have been subjected to outing attempts here to reveal more information than you have chosen to make public about yourself. Given this, are you comfortable with the potential for off-wiki real-world harassment that can come with having oversight?[reply]

    It wasn't a privacy concern. I changed my name because I wanted a change. I still use LaraLove on WR and IRC, and I gave my real name and city to Daniel Brandt when asked me for them and I have my pics posted. Why? I'm not worried. I've had my docs dropped on a site that aims to "pwn" Wikipedians. I just don't care. However, I firmly believe people have a right to whatever level of privacy they want, and those in the position to protect that right should. So, while I'm not particularly concerned about my own privacy, I am concerned with protecting the privacy of others who desire it. Along those lines, females in particular often feel vulnerable in these situations. As was pointed out on the elections talk page, females often prefer to speak to other females about such matters. That's not easy to do when there aren't a lot of females with the tool. A reason for that may be for the reasons that provoked this question. There aren't a lot of females who are unconcerned with the risks. Lara 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Question from Aitias (added 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)): Could you please explain in detail how “Mistake” is an applicable criterion for speedy deletion?[reply]

    Well, basically, I realized that my explanation to him in describing how the_undertow figured out his name made it pretty obvious what his name is. Granted, as easy as it is to figure out, as soon as I hit save, I realized that it was too specific. So I immediately deleted it and requested oversight. Full circle. That said, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking me questions now. You're starting to creep me out. Lara 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow-up question from Aitias (added 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)): Could you please elaborate on how it is possible to post a user's first name accidently?[reply]

    I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking me questions now - is this difficult to understand, Aitias? As Lara explained clearly, it was the way it was described that was the issue, in that it made it too easy to figure out the name. No real names were posted. Majorly talk 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) You're sort of relentless in your revenge efforts, to the point that it's literally creepy. Anyway. In explaining how utterly simple it is to figure out his name, which is on the project, and how the_undertow figured it out, I copied... uh, how to explain this without making the same mistake twice... I copied part of a Wikipedia article, and in doing so it made it obvious what his name was. So I deleted it and requested that it be oversighted. It's really pretty simple. Lara 01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Question from Binksternet (talk) (added 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)): Do you think more oversighters should participate at, or lurk in, Wikipedia Review? Do you think insight can be gained regarding the possible need for oversight action while keeping tabs on off-wiki sites?[reply]

    I don't think it would be a negative thing if more oversighters participated on WR, though quite a few already do. I do believe that there have been instances when users of Wikipedia Review have found and pointed out instances of edits needing to be oversighted. I'm not 100% on that; however, I will say that many BLP issues have been brought up first on WR and then action taken on-wiki immediately following. WR has been very helpful in that regard for myself and other BLP admins who frequent it. I can see it being similar, though significantly less frequent, for Oversight matters. That, in my opinion, is A Good Thing^TM. Lara 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the well thought-out answer. I support your election. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• (comment moved from voting section) Fantastic BLP work. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (Comment moved from voting section)I believe Jennavecia would make a great Oversighter, and her answers to questions satisfy me, even though she declined my friend request on Facebook ;) Firestorm ^Talk 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yup, I like what I've seen. Tony (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lara is being opposed heavily because she is honest, participates on WR, and is not willing to put up with the dirty-tricks crowd. See who opposed her for the list. --Eric Barbour (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user's vote was discounted because s/he is ineligible to vote in this election. Other than that, let's please keep this civil and AGF. There are editors I respect in both lists below this text. I don't think anyone wins when we disparage editors simply because of how they vote. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jennavecia reminds me of another ex-OS member. I believe she will be diligent with the responsibilities as she is particularly concerned about BLP issues, but I worry she might actually end up burnt out with the project. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm already burned out. This would have been a nice change; swapping offices, so to speak. Lara 15:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We need more people like her! --Law Lord (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Please keep comments in this section, moved by --Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, fair enough, I will remain neutral. ceranthor 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Please keep comments in this section, moved by --Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest candidate on the list. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Please keep comments in this section, moved by --Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Best argued case for why WP would benefit from the assignment of privileges. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This user has clue, shedfuls of it. This user understands the BLP problem and has the right approach for dealing with issues related to BLP victims. This user has experience in the trenches, and the trust of the Foundation as evinced by OTRS access. This user is willing to do the right thing and sticks by her principles. This user speaks her mind, even when to do so means political damage to her ensues. We need more users like this one. In my view Jennavecia is the best candidate running for oversight (with the possible exception of Thatcher, who already has it and just wants to be confirmed) this round. With no disparagement intended, I nevertheless am profoundly disappointed in each and every one of her opposers for opposing, not because I doubt their good faith, but because I am confounded as to why they do not see these things as clearly as I do. ++Lar: t/c 07:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• relevant discussion --Ysangkok (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of tiring work (such as a lot of GANs, although she seems to have changed fields). While some people apply for jobs and committees to collect more hats than North Korean generals plastering their torso full of medals, this candidate actually does the work and isn't like a politician who signs up to be the patron of 100s of clubs to get votes and only turns up once a year for a dinner and photo opportunity. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved from vote section) Full confidence this user will do a great job. --Jayron32 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. This lady has judgement and backbone. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I will remain neutral (as far as voting) because I have never encountered this user before. I simply wish to say that I would probably be uncomfortable with any user that gained a bit with so narrow a margin. Perhaps it was due to mudslinging above, but the mud does seem to be slung both ways. Some of the comments are simply bizarre (Facebook?). It is my opinion that a user with access to such sensitive information should have a fairly clear support base, otherwise that distrust will follow them. As was mentioned above, there are respectable users on both sides of this fence. WP always wants transparency, and they don't want to see anything they don't like, and that's hard to achieve. However you slice it, that's not what we have here. Oversight is for those editors that would make the good decisions that we wouldn't always make. It's a place for those who have our implicit trust. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Jennavecia[edit]

1. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Shappy ^talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Acalamari 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongly. iMatthew ^talk at 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Achromatic (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. (X! · talk)  · @065  ·  00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. NW (Talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Firestorm ^Talk 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Huldra (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strongly. ThemFromSpace 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Kingturtle (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Law _{type! snype?} 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. - Kevin (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Ironholds (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. MLauba (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. AdjustShift (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Skinny87 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Tony (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. -- BigDunc 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. LittleMountain5 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. — Ched :  ?  21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support --Law Lord (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Priyanath ^talk 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Yes. Bullzeye ^contribs 04:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Chris (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. iridescent 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Good choice--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Pmlineditor 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. *** Crotalus *** 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support.--Eric Barbour (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - Lara 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

55. ~ mazca ^talk 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. SBHarris 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. ThuranX (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Mike H. Fierce! 01:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Thekohser 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. --WebHamster 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. She's done some really impressive BLP work... I'^mperator 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. lifebaka++ 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Everyking (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Wholeheartedly. MookieZ (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. With all my flooding heart emotion while wearing a pink bathrobe. --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜STALK!!!} 03:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Ward20 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. ++Lar: t/c 06:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Synchronism (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. --Jayron32 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Calwatch (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Plutonium27 (talk) 03.50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
84. - Josette (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. Grandmaster 05:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Poltair (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Per Lar and YellowMonkey. -- Mentifisto 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. Andy Walsh (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. –Megaboz (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. Xero (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Viridae^Talk 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. Alio The Fool 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. —Terrence and Phillip 16:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. hmwitht 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. I suppport this user's additional access --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support -- Novalis (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Jennavecia[edit]

2. Oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Protonk (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Caspian blue 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Aqwis (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Pzrmd (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. ~ Ameliorate! 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Skinwalker (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Captain panda 02:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Noroton (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. No. Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Nevard (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. — Σxplicit 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 07:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22. Offliner (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. --Folantin (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25. Cenarium (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

26. Wknight94 ^talk 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Raul654 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Woody (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
30. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. -Djsasso (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Weak Oppose Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. JamieS93 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. BrianY (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. --Conti|✉ 09:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [7] ceranthor 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

44. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. —Animum (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Alexfusco⁵ 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. . Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. miranda 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Weakly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Star Garnet (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Ysangkok (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. the wub "?!" 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. –blurpeace ^(talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose — Manticore 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Stephen 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Cxz111 (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. With real regret. Joe (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Also with regret.yousaf465' 04:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Wefa (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. -Drdisque (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. fish&karate 11:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. --Rockfang (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. kollision (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Whitehorse1 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan[edit]

Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am Keegan, that is my true first name. I am 28 years old, and I reside in the Central Time zone of the United States.

I have been a consumer of Wikipedia for nearly six years (fall '03), five years as an editor by IP (fall '04), four years as an account(fall '05), and I have been a sysop for just shy of three years (fall '06).

I serve the Foundation as an OTRS volunteer, working with info and sister projects primarily but access to permissions and photosubmissions in case the need arrives or I run out of other things to do. I am not a sysop on any other project, but sister projects causes me to keep an eye out on other Foundation wikis. This work occasionally includes coordinating with administrators on other projects in dealing with privacy issues.

I can aid Wikipedia by serving as a functionary of the project/Foundation with Oversight. I am calm, civil, communicative and have a solid understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy and how it is meant to work in conjunction with individual projects. Oversight requires the delicate touch of privacy, transparency, trust, and knowing when to suppress an edit and when to tell someone no. It's quite the high-wire act, but I have great balance. I am not an article writer, I make no bones about it. I wish to aid the project and the community however possible by maintaining what others have taken their time to write; Oversight is one of those spots that I can fill to give back for the knowledge that others have given me.

If you are unfamiliar with me (I'm not the most active of this slate at clicking "edit"), please do have a hearty look over my contributions and my logs. I have requested Oversight many times over the years and to my recollection all requests have been valid and acted upon accordingly, including dealing with some well know long-term vandals and other cross-wiki issues. I am available here for questions or concerns or by my email. Keegan (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Keegan[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]

  I'll answer the second question first, because it is the short response of the two: I do not consider myself to be better qualified than any other candidate.

  Now for the first question, which is a bit more complicated: I do not think that I should be one of the ones elected. I believe that I can be one of the ones elected. My feelings on UserRights are adequately covered in two essays I wrote, located here and here. My experience in my physical life as well as my digital one leaves me confident that I can fulfill the job as required. Oversight requires a delicate touch and is not a measure of status or gravitas; it serves as a function to protect both the privacy of others and the project in itself. Now, the actual act of oversight or revision supression undertaken is a different issue, because it has status and gravitas. To perform an oversight function requires the trust of the community, which is implicit in the results of an election. To just say "Trust me" smacks of ego when there is no confidence to boot. Perceptions of status are just that: perceptions. I convey no special privilege to any one user. I hope this adequately addresses your questions. Keegan (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]

  Easy to answer now, since I know of better ways to deal with such situations. I would not. Previously I was engaged in a debate in which I deleted an article after a legal threat. However, that was an unusual sequence of events that, for privacy reasons, cannot be outlined. I learned my lesson about the proper process under such duress. I have since run across multiple scenarios that have been properly remedied without disruption. Keegan (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "All communication sent via the "E-mail this user" link is considered public, at my discretion. Reasonable requests for confidentiality will be honored, but the whole "e-mail is sacrosanct and private" argument I do not buy for one solitary second. Do not expect to use that argument as an all-purpose shield. I also never check my email. So..." is from your userpage. For an oversight candidate? NW (Talk) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed that entire section. Frankly, I haven't looked at it in quite awhile. I took if from Calton with humorous intent. Perhaps you can reconsider, I actually do consider email private and this was not an accurate reflection of my views. Keegan (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and by "it" I mean that header. I skip down to business. Keegan (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Followup Now that I am on my home PC, I have a further moment to explain. The entirety of that section was meant to be satirical. I do not care where you post on my page, how you format, or if you smoke. Do as you please, and yes you may email me and it will be kept confidential. Now, following that, I understand the relevant misinterpretation; the problem with satire is you have to be in on the joke. So in summary, I do take private communications quite seriously and some times my quirky sense of humor gets in the way of that perception. I hope that this can be considered by all reading the comments and participating in the election. Keegan (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I can accept that as a valid statement. I shall take another look then, and possibly reconsider. NW (Talk) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mike.lifeguard 06:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Would you please make a (realistic) statement regarding your anticipated availability for handling oversight matters?[reply]

  I am realistically able to click buttons around seven hours a day. My employment does not make computer access immediate in the sense I am sitting right there in front of a screen. With that said, I do get email updates on my phone and read them as the day goes by when lists are posted to. Following that, if it's an urgent need for Oversight coming through the list, it is realistically possible for me to take three minutes to hop on the PC and take care of it. If it email that needs responded to without action being taken, I can take care of that in due course. My employer is quite understanding about that sort of situation. Keegan (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) Don't know Keegan, but seems well prepared. ceranthor 12:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Keegan[edit]

2. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Prodego ^talk 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. (X! · talk)  · @065  ·  00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. JamieS93 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Aqwis (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Chzz  ►  01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible; did not have 150 article space edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

12. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    龗 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indented, as user is not yet eligible to vote. (X! · talk)  · @251  ·  05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. AdjustShift (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Cenarium (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

20. Knows his stuff. AGK 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. LittleMountain5 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. --UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 16:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. — Ched :  ?  21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Shappy ^talk 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Samir 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. BrianY (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. ceranthor 12:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Pmlineditor 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Alexfusco⁵ 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Cubs197 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. miranda 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Ysangkok (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. iMatthew ^talk at 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Icewedge (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. WJBscribe (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Synchronism (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. — madman bum and angel 04:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Malinaccier (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. billinghurst (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. —Terrence and Phillip 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Timmeh (review me) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Lara 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. hmwitht 18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support --StaniStani  22:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Keegan[edit]

2. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Caspian blue 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Z-man[edit]

Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Thank you for considering my request to serve the project as an oversighter.

I've had an account on Wikipedia since December 2005, became an active editor several months later, and became an administrator in June 2007. More recently, I've gotten involved as an OTRS volunteer (February 2008) and as a MediaWiki developer (September 2008). My recent work focuses mainly on the maintenance and support side of the project, developing bots, scripts, and tools to maintain the project and to help other users work more efficiently. I see oversight as an extension of the work that I do, as oversight should be a tool used in the background to quietly protect Wikipedia, users, and the general public from potential harm.

From my OTRS/BLP work, I'm familiar with working discreetly with potentially sensitive information and I've requested oversight several times in the past and believe I have a good grasp of the oversight policy and can use it to protect the project and individuals. From my MediaWiki work, I'm already familiar with the interface for the oversight system and the new revision deletion system.

Living in the US Eastern Time Zone, I'm typically available between ~20:00–04:00 UTC, though depending on the season and my schedule, I may also be available at other times throughout the day. Even when not actively editing, I can generally still be reached through email and/or IRC. Mr.Z-man 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Mr.Z-man[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
  • I don't know if I would go as far to say that I'm better qualified than all other candidates. I have respect for all the candidates and the work that they've done, though I do believe my experiences, particularly OTRS experience working with the public, including BLP subjects, as well as my desire to continue serving the project in a maintenance/support role make me well suited for working as an oversighter. I believe I have the trust of the community, and as an oversighter, one of my goals would be to maintain that trust, as well as the integrity of the project. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
  • I don't believe that the motivation for the request or the motivation for the potential suppression target should really matter. The purpose of oversight/suppression is to protect the project, its users, and the public from harm. Whether an edit was made out of malice, an accident, or an attempt to game the system should not matter; if it has the potential to cause harm and cannot be adequately dealt with without suppression, it should be suppressed, regardless of whether or not it gives some vandal or wikilawyer any gratification. Such attempts to game the system should be dealt with separately from the issues of potential harm, this should be immediately in the case of vandals, or by the community or ArbCom (depending on the severity and sensitivity of the situation) for other cases. Mr.Z-man 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Samir 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC): How old are you? Number please, not "over 18"? I realize there are diverging opinions on the relevancy of age, but I personally think age is very relevant when you are standing for OS and dealing with sensitive information. To boot, I am asking you what you do in real life, and specifically whether you have real world experience in handling sensitive information, as it would help me with my decision on your candidacy also. Thanks.[reply]
  • For privacy reasons, I'd rather not make my exact age public, though the answer to the rest of the question ought to narrow down the range quite a bit. For most of the year I'm a full-time undergraduate student studying Materials Engineering (with a minor in economics). Currently I'm doing some MediaWiki-related advising and MediaWiki extension development for a non-profit organization. I have access to a few non-public wikis, though none of the information is particularly sensitive, and shell access for one wiki. In previous jobs I've worked in building services engineering design and CNC machining. I've also worked as an election inspector, which involved access to voters' IDs. Mr.Z-man 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mike.lifeguard 05:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC): May I ask why you are asking for oversight rather than checkuser permissions?[reply]
  • I did consider it when deciding to apply. From what I understand, checkuser often requires large time investments, in some instances hours per case. While I do often spend such time working on wiki-related matters, I was concerned that I would either spend too much time working on checkuser work and my other work might suffer, or I might not devote an adequate amount of time to checkuser work. Additionally, while I may be qualified for the technical side of checkuser, I'm admittedly not very good at things like analyzing behavior patterns and I have little experience working with sockpuppetry matters (out of choice, I don't find it particularly interesting). So I decided to leave checkuser to people with different priorities and/or better qualifications and instead apply for a tool that seems to be more consistent with the work I do now. Mr.Z-man 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your answer, disappointing though it may be. I see a greater need for checkusers than for oversighters, and it is confusing to me that the number of candidates is so skewed. While I think having you as a checkuser would be more useful, I think having you as an oversighter will be useful too. Thanks for your honest answer - it is indeed difficult to find people interested and willing in the nature and volume of checkuser work.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Mr.Z-man[edit]

2. JamieS93 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yep. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Prodego ^talk 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Acalamari 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. (X! · talk)  · @065  ·  00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. ~ Ameliorate! 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. —Animum (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. ~fl 06:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. tedder (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Shimgray | talk | 14:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. LittleMountain5 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. -Drdisque (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. — Ched :  ?  21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Shappy ^talk 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 23:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Alexfusco⁵ 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Recognizance (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. --SPhilbrickT 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Res2216firestar 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. — Aitias // discussion 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Ysangkok (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Caspian blue 00:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. iMatthew ^talk at 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. —EncMstr (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. --Charitwo ^(talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. — madman bum and angel 04:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Ruslik_Zero 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. --Until It Sleeps ^alternate 17:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. –Megaboz (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Steven Walling (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. kollision (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. —Terrence and Phillip 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Doctorhobomd (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68. Strong Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Lara 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. hmwitht 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Whitehorse1 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Mr.Z-man[edit]

2. Pzrmd (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kingturtle (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   --Fox1942 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

5. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. BrianY (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Pmlineditor 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. WJBscribe (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. fish&karate 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Technically bright, but analytically dull and a bit judgment impaired. We have too many of such in the upper echelons on Wikipedia already.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. SlamDiego_←T 12:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Outriggr (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64[edit]

Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have been active editor since July 2006, an administrator since September 2006 and a CheckUser since October 2008. In addition, I am an administrator on Commons, a bureaucrat on Meta and an OTRS agent. I am asking for oversight permission because I believe it will be of great assistance to my function as a CheckUser. There have been dozens of incidents where I was in need of an oversighter to handle a spate of abusive account creations or edits created by the You-Know-Whos of Wikipedia, but was unable to find someone to help me out. With oversight, I hope to handle cases on sensitive matters in an accurate and timely manner.

I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's oversight policy and only wish to use the tool to protect the privacy of the editors that serve as the foundation for Wikipedia. I actively coordinate with Stewards and CheckUsers from other projects in dealing with crosswiki sockpuppetry, and I believe my experiences there will successfully guide me in future crosswiki collaboration that may require the use of the oversight tool.

My time zone is EST (GMT -5:00) and I am usually available at various periods from 14:00 UTC to 4:00 UTC.

Thank you for considering my nomination. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me either on my talk page or privately via e-mail. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Nishkid64[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
  • I think everyone here is well-qualified for the respective positions. I wouldn't say that I am more qualified than anyone else, but I believe through my experiences as an administrator and CheckUser, I will have something unique to bring to the table. As the most active CheckUser (which surprised me and made me think "I need to get another hobby"), I usually find myself as a first responder to targeted vandal attacks from banned users. These situations are always hard to deal with when you don't have a fast-acting combination of CheckUser and Oversight available. If elected, I will use the CU and oversight tools to handle abusive sockpuppetry and the suppression of sensitive material in a timely manner. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) He has taken care of many SPI works and his extra tool would benefit the work.--Caspian blue 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
  • For each oversight request, I will investigate the matter to the fullest extent and make an appropriate decision using policy and my own judgment. Essentially, if I feel the matter meets the criteria for oversight, or if I feel oversight is the best way to address a matter, then I will go ahead and use the tool. If someone attempts to wikilawyer their way around the oversight policy, then I will decline the request. Our oversight policies are quite clearly defined, so if someone is so adamant about having an unreasonable request accepted or declined, I will point them to the policy discussion page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well organized, intelligent, honest. Meets all the criteria of a trustworthy, oversight-worthy person. ceranthor 12:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Please keep your comments in this section, moved by Tznkai (talk), 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from Meowy 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I have, over the past two months, repeatedly asked you to justify your banning (without any on-record discussion) of The Diamond Apex as a sockpuppet of MarshallBagramyan and you have repeatedly failed to justify it. In a final attempt to drag some sort of response from you I have all but accused you of inventing trumped-up charges of sockpuppetry in order to get rid of inconvenient editors that you have had editing conflicts with. Yet you have still stubbornly refused to give any valid justification for that banning and - more importantly - you have always refused to provide any editing evidence to support the sockpuppetry charges. What confidence can we have in your investigative skills and decision making if, when faced with a serious accusation about one of your decisions, you choose to remain silent?[reply]
  • This is indeed a serious accusation; I'm sure that people commenting here would appreciate more context, specifically including diffs if you're able to provide some. For my part, I've found this question from you at Nishkid's talk page, which was promptly replied to, without any further reply on your part. You say that Nishkid banned The Diamond Apex, when that user's block log shows no blocks from Nishkid; indeed, Nishkid has even unblocked MarshallBagramyan, the alleged sockmaster. If discussion or evidence elsewhere would support your accusations, links would be helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest. In his reply to me, Nishkid says he made the sockpuppery accusation against TheDiamondApex to another administrator (using private communications I assume, since little about this troubling case is on-record). Nishkid didn't do the actual banning, but he made the accusation. There aren't any diffs to provide - there is no on-record discussion about the accusation, no on-record presentation of evidence. In his reply to me, Nishkid talks about "suspicious" early contributions by TheDiamondApex - without citing what those contributions were or explaining why he felt they were suspicious. It is also clear in that reply that the CU request was a sort of "fishing expedition": Nishkid expected a result that would prove TheDiamondApex to be an (unnamed) banned user, but when a completely different result were found he decided to run with that instead and ban two editors rather than just the one he was targeting. That's the core reason why Nishkid can't produce any evidence indicating editing collusion between MarshallBagramyan and TheDiamondApex - he has none. Nishkid believed he had seen some connection between the edits of TheDiamondApex and the edits of an unamed banned editor - when the CU result completely disproved that connection but unexpectedly suggested a connection to MarshallBagramyan, Nishkid decided "I'll hang him anyway, and make it a double hanging". Meowy 16:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what Luna Santin wrote?

You say that Nishkid banned The Diamond Apex, when that user's block log shows no blocks from Nishkid; indeed, Nishkid has even unblocked MarshallBagramyan, the alleged sockmaster.

Your accusations that "Nishkid decided 'I'll hang him anyway, and make it a double hanging'" are completely unacceptable, especially given that you have given no evidence to suggest that what Luna Santin said is incorrect. Essentially, from what I see, you are trying to get Nishkid in trouble for being wrong, and nothing else. Being wrong occasionally is normal. I can't believe I actually have to tell you that. You say that Nishkid didn't do the actual banning, but he made the accusation. So what? Yellowmonkey is capable of deciding whether he thinks a check should be run.

If you are going to accuse people of, or imply that someone is making blocks out of policy, you had better have good evidence to back it up. As it is, I think your comments border on personal attacks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what Nishkid wrote? [8]. The block would not have been made if it were not for Nishkid, he made the complaint - all Yellowmonkey did was make the CU check (at Nishkid's request). Nishkid made the CU request for one reason, then, when that reason didn't lead to the result he wanted, he twisted its result to fit a different allegation (hence my eloquent and justified "I'll hang him anyway, and make it a double hanging" comment). The block was made out of policy: no evidence of sockpuppetry was presented at the time - nor has any been presented subsequently. Two editors sharing the same household does not constitute sockpuppetry, two editors editing the same articles does not constitute sockpupetry. Sockpuppetry is revealed through actual edits, and none of the edits by MarshallBagramyan and The Diamond Apex show signs of sockpuppetry. If they did, then why did Nishkid not pick up on them before making the sockpuppet allegation. He made the allegation because he suspected The Diamond Apex of being a completely different editor - an un-named banned editor (perhaps the evidence was a similarity in their writing or editing styles). Evidence for one allegation cannot, in a matter of minutes, be turned around and made into evidence for a completely different allegation after the first allegation is proven false. Yet that is what Nishkid is wanting us to accept. Meowy 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely technical standpoint, two editors on the same IP addresses editing the same articles at the same time arouses suspicion. Upon investigation, it looked as if MarshallBagramyan had created The Diamond Apex as a sockpuppet. Under that reasonable assumption based on technical evidence, I saw that The Diamond Apex had voted delete in an AfD nommed by Marshall, had participated in internal discussions and had violated the 1RR parole placed originally on MarshallBagramyan. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, I did read it. Once again, so what? All I see there is that Nishkid did not expect Yellowmonkey to find what he did.

Look, Yellowmonkey (not Nishkid) ran a check, and based on those results, and his own judgment, YM blocked the two editors (One of which Nishkid later unblocked). And yet you still claim that Nishkid is being malicious here? Please explain this. Are you claiming that Nishkid coerced Yellowmonkey into running a check and blocking those editors? Or, do you merely think that being wrong (i.e. being human) precludes someone from holding a position of trust? Because I'm not getting this at all. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put words into Yellowmonkey's mouth. At the time I asked him about the sockpuppetry block and he was very unrevealing: [9] - but you are verging on being pedantic by suggesting that Yellowmonkey took the lead role here. All the CU result revealed was that MarshallBagramyan and The Diamond Apex shared the same internet provider. If YellowMonkey wants to state that that alone is evidence of sockpuppetry, then I will let him have a share of my criticism. One wonders what was the justification given at the time for running a CU check on MarshallBagramyan. It suggests an extended series of events, not just one CU request to compare The DiamondApex with that un-named banned editor. I guess it was all part of the same fishing expedition. But we can guess almost anything because nothing about this case is on-record. It was all done secretly, via back-channels and private comunications - procedures guaranteed to generate suspicions of bad motives. But things are dripping out gradually - I had puzzled about YellowMonkey's "MarshallBagramyan hiding from sanctions" edit summary, and he did not answer my question asking him what it meant. Nishkid's above post gives that answer. MarshalBagramian was blocked for sockpuppetry because it was believed (by either Nishkid or YellowMonkey or both) that he used a sockpuppet to circumvent his revert restrictions. And the evidence fot that belief was based on nothing more than the existence of another editor, The Diamond Apex, with the same isp and who happened to have also made a revert of the same article. Nishkid, why don't you just say you made a mistake in this decision and, if possible, also say that you recognise that secretive, off-the-record processes do not encourage editors to have faith in the results of those processes. Meowy 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • YellowMonkey determined that MarshallBagramyan and The Diamond Apex were in fact the same person. You don't have to dig deep to see the number of sockpuppetry violations had been committed. Both editors had actively participated in the same edit war on Moses of Chorene. That in itself is a policy violation. Both editors participated in the same internal discussions, which as ruled by the AC in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings, is in violation of WP:SOCK. Under normal practices, the newer account is usually blocked indefinitely and the main account is blocked for a set period of time for violating policy. That is what happened with MarshallBagramyan. In private discussion with MarshallBagramyan, he admitted that he had asked The Diamond Apex – someone he knew in real life – to edit AA-related articles on Wikipedia. What eventually ensued can be classified as meatpuppetry. Evidence of WP:SOCK violations were observed, and as a result, both accounts were blocked – one indefinitely and the other for 3 months (lifted after a month by me). MarshallBagramyan has explained everything to me, and according to him, he had already explained to you that I wasn't making up some bullshit accusations. I don't know what more you want from me. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say "You don't have to dig deep to see the number of sockpuppetry violations had been committed". Then what stopped you from doing that digging and presenting the data for all to see? You say "Both editors had actively participated in the same edit war on Moses of Chorene. That in itself is a policy violation." What policy violation is this? You say "Both editors participated in the same internal discussions, which as ruled by the AC in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings, is in violation of WP:SOCK." That case dealt with a single individual with multiple accounts - I have read through it, and can see no connection to this case. As for the rest of your explanation - when you asked to be made an administrator, other administrators sponsored you to allow you to obtain that position. Does that make you a sockpuppet of those administrators? By your reasoning it does. Where is there a wikipedia rule saying that it is forbidden to suggest to someone that they should try editing Wikipedia? Where is there a Wikipedia rule saying that it is forbidden for people living in the same household to have separate Wikipedia accounts? You seem to have wildly distorted the true meaning of a sockpuppet account. That is why I stressed the fact that you have always refused to provide any editing evidence to support this particular sockpuppetry charge. A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes. Show us even one example of fraud, disruption, or deceptive practice in this case. You yourself have admitted that The Diamond Apex is NOT MarshallBagramyan, so there can be no charge of sockpuppetry. The after-the-event attempt to erect the alternative charge of meatpuppetry is equally invalid. Even the most casual glance at the edits that these two users made shows a completely different style of editing, without any continuity or co-ordination, and with The Diamond Apex often making careful use of published sources to support his arguments. That is why I particularly objected to the banning of that editor, he had access to hard to find sources and knew how to use those sources in a proper academic way - a rare commodity amongst Wikipedia editors. It is reasonable for me to asume that rarity was the reason he was "got at", given the total lack of evidence to justify the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry charges. Meowy 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Participating in any edit war with multiple accounts is a clear WP:SOCK violation, since it obfuscates 3RR counting, gives the inappropriate image of who's truly participating in the edit war and violates the 1RR parole placed on MarshallBagramyan. This is standard policy interpretation. Ask anyone. See Principle 3 at RFARB/Privatemusings; that was also the basis for the recent desysopping of Geogre, who used the Utgard Loki alternative account in internal discussions. I really don't understand how you can equate "sponsoring" me for adminship to meatpuppetry. It's absolutely ridiculous. MarshallBagramyan admitted that he recruited a real-life acquaintance to edit AA articles after VartanM, an Armenian nationalist editor, had left Wikipedia.
        • Recruiting editors to join your POV pushing group is in violation of policy. That is exactly what MarshallBagramyan did. This is what is termed abusive meatpuppetry, which is taken just as seriously as abusive sockpuppetry. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that in purposes of dispute resolution, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." Both users, treated as the same user, participated in the same editing dispute on Moses of Chorene. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your excuses are getting more feeble and they are all still completely lacking in evidence to back them up. You claim something is true, but completely avoid the inconvenience of presenting even minimal evidence as proof. What "multiple accounts"? For what "edit war" are you claiming The Diamond Apex was "recruited"? Give us some diffs that indicate the date of this "recruitment", and examples of this "warring". What "POV pushing group" are you referring to? What "POV" are you referring to? Most importantly, indicate, using diffs, some examples of The Diamond Apex and MarshallBagramyan acting together in a manner that would suggest sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: that would be the minimal evidence required to back up a sockpuppetry allegation. Merely editing the same article is not evidence of sockpuppetry. You have admitted that The Diamond Apex is NOT MarshallBagramyan. You have admitted that you asked for the CU request because you suspected (for unspecified reasons) that The Diamond Apex was a banned editor. When the CU result indicated there was no substance to those suspicions, instead of dropping the matter you immediately resorted to a trumped-up charge to get him banned. That is why you did not produce any evidence to support this sockpuppetry charge at the time the ban was imposed, and why you still cannot produce any evidence to support this sockpuppetry charge: whatever evidence you have had pointed to The Diamond Apex being an entirely different editor from MarshallBagramyan. Meowy 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand, since everyone I've talked to off-wiki agrees with my decision. See [10] – both users participating on Moses of Chorene edit war on May 22. MarshallBagramyan makes a revert, Grandmaster partially reverts him, and then The Diamond Apex reverts back to Marshall's version. Then, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Armenian historiography, where both users voted to delete the article. I am only saying The Diamond Apex is not MarshallBagramyan because that's what Marshall told me. He could be lying for all I know. I took his word for it that it was in fact someone he knew in real life. I saw two editors on the same IP addresses participating in the same discussions, edit wars, internal discussions, etc. As far as I’m concerned, both users can be treated as a single user. I have no beef with Marshall. I actually like what he’s done for the project. The same goes for The Diamond Apex. If you use CheckUser to look for sockpuppetry and instead observe a different and unexpected case of sockpuppetry with clear policy violations, that’s still grounds for a block. You seem to think that since I wasn’t looking for MarshallBagramyan in the original CU, I had no right to investigate the MarshallBagramyan-The Diamond Apex connection. This is my last comment on this matter. Everyone, take what I've said for what it is. If you think more clarification is required, contact me on my talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it again - you are wildly distorting the true meaning of a sockpuppet account. A claim of "two editors on the same IP addresses participating in the same discussions, edit wars, internal discussions, etc" do not on their own justify a sockpuppetry allegation, far less a ban. It might justify a careful look at the edits of each party, and evidence found as a result of that careful look may justify a sockpuppet allegation. But you never made that careful examination - you simply concocted a quick-and-messy alternative allegation when your initial banned-user suspicion proved to be completely false. You acted rather like the wolf in Aesop's "The Wolf and the Lamb". As for your "everyone I've talked to off-wiki agrees with my decision" statement, I need only to remind you about the recent controversy about Jewish lobbyists attempting to become Wikipedia administrators, and their observation that much of the power of an administrator comes from the fact that administrators almost never disagree with each other or reverse each others decisions. Whether you believe The Diamond Apex is, or is not, MarshallBagramyan is unimportant, it is the evidence you present that is of value. Evidence you repeatedly fail to present. I know for a fact that The Diamond Apex is not MarshallBagramyan, but again that is unimportant because evidence for sockpuppetry MUST come primarily from editing behaviour. CU evidence is only important as a sort of icing on the cake of editing evidence. Your difficulty is that you have no cake.

If that really is the last you have to say on the subject, then I will take the matter elsewhere. There are broader issues involved, such as the casual way sockpuppetry accusations are thrown around, the low (or no) level of evidence that is required to support such accusations, the way that editors making repeated false sockpuppetry accusations escape without sanctions, the secretive and rushed way that decisions are made, the lack of a proper appeal process, and the fact that the opinion of an accusing administrator in such matters seems to be considered Gospel, nullifying the need for on-record discussion or evidence. Meowy 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of work and never gets tired and has done 1000s of CUs by himself. While some people apply for jobs and committees to collect more hats than North Korean generals plastering their torso full of medals, this candidate actually does the work and isn't like a politician who signs up to be the patron of 100s of clubs to get votes and only turns up once a year for a dinner and photo opportunity. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be unsuited for the powers he currently holds, so don't give him more powers. Meowy 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved from vote section) As per question by Meowy 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC). yousaf465' 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Will you feel comfortable getting involved? When you have done so, it has been to good effect, but at times I believe you may have shied away from controversy. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When I edit on Wikipedia, I like to stay in my comfort level. I'm here as a volunteer, and I'd prefer it if things ran smoothly with as little drama as possible. Of course, there are times where this is inevitable. I will be ensnared in controversy and I'll have to deal with it, as appropriate. If I believe something is worth doing, and know that it will elicit controversy, I'll do the best I can do – hold my head high and defend my position. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Nishkid64[edit]

2. JamieS93 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Shappy ^talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Of course --Caspian blue 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Absolutely. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. iMatthew ^talk at 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. NW (Talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Prodego ^talk 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. (X! · talk)  · @067  ·  00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Without question. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Antandrus (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Pzrmd (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Firestorm ^Talk 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Vote indented as user is not eligible to vote this time. Sorry. Risker (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

21. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. JayHenry (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. —Animum (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. ThemFromSpace 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Captain panda 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Kingturtle (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. — Jake Wartenberg 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Nathan ^T 03:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Nevard (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. — Σxplicit 05:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. – B.hotep •talk• 07:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 07:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. --Yannismarou (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. AdjustShift (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Cenarium (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Tony (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

47. Strongly support. AGK 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oniongas (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. ^Khukri 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Wknight94 ^talk 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Shimgray | talk | 14:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. LittleMountain5 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Pectore^talk 15:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Salih (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. Strong support. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Woody (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Priyanath ^talk 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Samir 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Strong support --naveenpf (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. BrianY (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. ceranthor 12:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strong support Pmlineditor 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. ~ mazca ^talk 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. Alexfusco⁵ 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. — Satori Son 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. Alefbe (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. miranda 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Darn it, missed #100. Anyway, strong support; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. —df| 10:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. Ysangkok (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. Ben MacDui 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 23:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109.   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Wayiran (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Synchronism (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. WJBscribe (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113. Fedayee (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. --Jayron32 03:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
115. — madman bum and angel 04:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Cxz111 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Acalamari 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. PerfectProposal 02:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. Joe (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. SBC-YPR (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. --Until It Sleeps ^alternate 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Graham87 01:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. Saravask (talk)
131. Poltair (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. -- Y not? 18:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. -- Banjeboi 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. -Drdisque (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support. An excellent candidate; I'm a bit surprised he's not an oversighter already, actually. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
143. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
147. Grandmaster 11:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. AlexiusHoratius 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149. --Baki66 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Steven Walling (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
153. snigbrook (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
155. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
156. billinghurst (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
157. Alio The Fool 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
158. - Ankimai (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
159. Biophys (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
160. Fangfufu (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
163. hmwitht 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
164. Whitehorse1 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support --StaniStani  22:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
166. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Nishkid64[edit]

2. yousaf465' 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Meowy 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Terrence and Phillip 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy[edit]

SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi everyone, first of all let me say this: I am honored that the Arbitration Committee has decided that I may run in this election amongst such high-profile and long-time users.

As those regular to RfA and deletion related areas probably have noticed, following my RfA I have taken an interest in the speedy deletion policy on this project, being one of the more active admins in this area in both patrolling it and discussion. I am also (according to the page-contributions tool) the most active admin at WP:RFPP. Lately I have also taken a minor interest in clerking WP:CHU and attempting to bring saved articles from CSD patrolling to DYK (worked with one so far with two more currently nominated :-)

While patrolling CAT:CSD I have come across multiple pages with information that needed to be oversighted and all my requests were granted. I think having the tool myself will integrate seamlessly into this area of adminship I am active in. In all my time on Wikipedia, I hope I have demonstrated to be a calm, civil and communicative person when dealing with any issue that I have been confronted with and I have done my best to avoid the drama that befalls Wikipedia far too often. I think this allows me to serve in such a sensitive area of the project where the privacy of individuals is affected.

In real life, I am 25 year old law student from Munich, Germany, which makes my time zone CET/CEST (UTC+1/+2). My online time varies but I am usually quick to respond to mails which I monitor at any time I am at work, university or at home.

Last but not least: Elections such as this one will always attract opposition for everyone running. I do not expect anything else here. But, if I may, I would like to ask those who oppose this candidacy to add a brief reason or tell me on my talk page why they chose to do so. After all, if any mistakes I made or make made you vote in such a way, I can only seek to address and learn from them if I know what they are. Also, please feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page or via e-mail. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for SoWhy[edit]

• Question from Aitias (added 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
  • A.: To be completely honest: I was quite surprised when I saw who my "competition" was. When I decided to run for this, I never, ever thought it would be against such experienced and respected users, all of them senior to me in terms of adminship and on-wiki experience. So no, I do not think I am better qualified than any of them but then again, this is for the community to decide.
    Why they should elect me then? Good question. As pointed out above and in my first statement, I am both one of the "new guys" when it comes to administrating Wikipedia and someone who has so far successfully avoided to be caught up in any drama at all. I think the tool in question needs to be given to candidates who have demonstrated that they will never, ever make a rash decision in the heat of the moment because deleting a revision has a negative side to it as well as a positive. Naturally, it serves to protect privacy of individuals, which should be one of our most important tasks (after all, this project should serve to help people, not hurt them). On the other side, deleting revisions makes work harder for admins because it denies them certain information they might need to assess problematic behavior (and some admins might even feel a bit insulted that they are not trusted to see such information). I have hopefully demonstrated with my administrative record that I am able to be calm and drama-free when it comes to performing such actions and I think this is something that is very important for performing in this role.

• Question from Porturology (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I would like to ask a biographical question which you are of course free to ignore without prejudice. I note that you are a 25 year old Law student in Munich but is English your first language and heritage? I ask this because in my few dealings with you I have noticed that your formal English is perfect but I feel you have occasionally missed the nuances of the language (certainly from the viewpoint of a slightly older Anglo-Celt medical practitioner in country Australia)[reply]
  • A.: It is neither, which explains these problems you have noticed. My heritage is Austrian-Italian (my name is completely Italian for example) actually, my first language is German, with (now rusty) Italian my second one. I learnt English from the internet actually and I have done much work in English-language communities (even semi-professional support work) to learn the language. But nuances of languages can not or only with great difficulties be transferred into online communications and although I prefer to watch almost all films and shows in English if I can, I have not grasped all nuances and subtleties yet (and I doubt I ever will).

• Question from Mailer Diablo 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
  • A.: This is a hard question to answer in general. I do not think that the OS policy can be gamed easily because either an edit does need to be oversighted, then it's irrelevant who requested it, or it doesn't. I would really like to request some examples to understand what kind of behavior you imagine as such "gaming".

• Question from TomStar81 (Talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC): In you candidate statement you penned the following: "...I would like to ask those who oppose this candidacy to add a brief reason or tell me on my talk page why they chose to do so. After all, if any mistakes I made or make made you vote in such a way, I can only seek to address and learn from them if I know what they are." To me, this is a sign of great maturity; one who acknowledges that he or she is imperfect and asks for his or her fellow contributors to provide examples of the things in need of correction is one who is ready to be entrusted with additional responsibility. However, if I may, I would like to ask why you and you alone have stated this, and what measures you would take if such information was provided to you?[reply]
  • A.: First of all, thanks. As for the questions, I have no idea why the other candidates have not stated this explicitly but I do have trust that they are equally wishing to understand why someone would not trust them with such responsibility in case they can do something to improve their behavior and/or gain that trust in a later election/discussion/etc. I have asked this explicitly because ArbCom related elections are somehow exempted from Wikipedia not being a democracy and thus people voting (not "!voting") in these elections do not have to explain their reasoning - which I think is an unfortunate idea because it does not place a burden on voters to justify their vote but allows them to easily vote based on ILIKEHIM/ILIKEHER / IDONTLIKEHIM/IDONTLIKEHER which does not help the candidate at all.
    I have asked this because I have so far tried my best to address mistakes I made and I wanted to do the same here. If someone does not trust me, I am eager to understand why they don't because it might be a mistake I made, a misunderstanding, a difference of opinions etc. If it's something I can address, I am equally eager to try and do so. For example: Two voters who opposed me so far have provided such reasons for me to understand. One of them was based on a fundamental difference in opinions on how to handle speedy deletions (which as any difference of opinions is not a "mistake"). The other one was a valid concern raised over my work at WP:RFPP which I will try to take to heart. I had hoped for more people to do so but unfortunately, only two editors took the time (which I appreciate a lot).

(comment moved from vote section) With your answer to my question you have earned this vote. Endeavor to take good care of it, as I do not issue a vote for these responsibilities lightly. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of SoWhy[edit]

2. Strongest possible support. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strongly. iMatthew ^talk at 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Aqwis (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. -- Mentifisto 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. ~ Ameliorate! 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. —Animum (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. ThemFromSpace 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. ~fl 06:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Without reservations MLauba (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Offliner (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Aditya (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. LittleMountain5 15:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Ian¹³/t 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Barras (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, per my talk page, I am ineligible to vote in this elections. --Barras (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24. — Ched :  ?  21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. ceranthor 12:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Of course. Pmlineditor 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Pim Rijkee (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election, you do not have sufficient mainspace edits before the cut off.---Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28. ~ mazca ^talk 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Taelus (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Caspian blue 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. decltype (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Ray^Talk 07:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Ysangkok (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support ≈ Chamal ^talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Synchronism (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Calwatch (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strongly FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. tedder (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. Polargeo (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. AlexiusHoratius 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Junk Police (reports|works) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, ineligible in this election; less than 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15. Risker (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

60. Alio The Fool 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. —Terrence and Phillip 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. 2help (message me) 04:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. hmwitht 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Whitehorse1 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to SoWhy[edit]

2. JamieS93 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prodego ^talk 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. (X! · talk)  · @068  ·  00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Pzrmd (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Javert^talk 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. - Kevin (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

14. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. BrianY (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. iridescent 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Alexfusco⁵ 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Vote indented as user is not eligible to vote this time. Sorry. Risker (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Earfetish1 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Vote indented as user is not eligible to vote this time. Sorry. Risker (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Joopercoopers (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Star Garnet (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. WJBscribe (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Stephen 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Cxz111 (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Joe (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher[edit]

Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I was granted Oversight permission as an inaugural member of the Audit subcommittee, which was formed in part as a response to my essay on the need for a method to review the Oversight and Checkuser positions. My appointment to the Audit Subcommittee is temporary, until the first elections are held, and I do not intend to run for election. I would like to retain the Oversight tool after my term on the Audit Subcommittee is over, so I seek a public confirmation.

While in the position to review and monitor Oversight requests and the Oversight mailing list, I have noticed occasional lapses in coverage, especially as it relates to complicated or unusual requests. It seems that simple requests are handled quickly, but complicated requests sometimes "fall through the cracks." I don't intend to be online all the time (although sometimes it seems like I am) or to respond to many routine requests (although I can't rule out that I will), but I would like to be able to attend to requests that go stale for one reason or another, as I notice them, rather than hoping someone will eventually see them and follow up.

I also reserve the right to comment from time to time on the appropriateness of requests and responses, not as an Auditor but as a party interested in responsible use of the tools. Thatcher 03:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for Thatcher[edit]

A few questions:

• Do you think your last-minute addition into the race undermines the election's integrity? Why or why not?
• It's my understanding that at some point previously you were pretty much ready to leave Wikipedia and that you returned only to kick-start this Audit Subcommittee. What's changed (or have things changed) and why?

I think it's important to note that while the tone of these questions may project a particular attitude, I will not vote in this election; these questions are simply to satisfy my curiosity. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I emailed Arbcom about retaining oversight on the first day that nominations were being accepted. I think they were looking for a way to appoint me without making me go through the election process, and I assume that discussion stalled or got lost in the press of other business. When I returned from vacation and saw that the election process was underway, I offered to submit myself for formal election/reconfirmation. Anyone who is uncomfortable with that should certainly not vote for me, although I would confess to finding it strange that voluntarily submitting to a reconfirmation election would be held against me. Thatcher 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. A few situations had occurred behind the scenes that really turned me off for a time. However, I find that I am still willing to perform services that make the project a better and more humane place for others to edit. Thatcher 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your role in the audit subcommittee, do you think it is appropriate to use the oversight and checkuser tools for routine requests? "Not so routine" requests? I realize you clearly state that you would like to retain oversight rights after your tenure on the subcommittee, but what about until then? - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee might be a better place for this discussion.) When the Wikipedia:Review Board was under consideration, there was considerable discussion about whether reviewers should use the tools themselves or not, but when the Audit Subcommittee was established (as a direct delegation of Arbcom's authority in the area), no restrictions were placed on the members. I have acted on a number of stale requests for oversight, in some cases by taking direct action, and in some cases posting reminders to the mailing list. How long should an auditor wait on seeing a request; minutes? hours? days? In general, I think auditors should not become routine users of the tools, but I don't have a problem with occasional use, especially as it relates to the customer service and time-sensitive aspects of oversight. I don't think occasional use will impair someone's ability to be an impartial and fair auditor; if you are impartial and fair to begin with, running a few checks or oversights is not going to infect you suddenly with the "cabal virus." Thatcher 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the answer. I did ask here because I am not aware of any other members of the subcommittee using the tools (and in fact, I've heard from some who said explicitly that they would not use them unless there was an immediate need to do so) - where I did hear that you had used them (and of course, I do not know the details). I realize it isn't a matter of policy and there is no actual "rule" preventing you from doing it but I asked this question to gauge whether or not you found it appropriate, personally. Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should be updated statistics here in a day or so. Thatcher 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • After reviewing the CU/Suppression statistics, I have a follow up question. To be completely open and honest, I'm not seeing how 389 checkusers and 34 suppression actions can constitute as acting on "stale requests". Was your comment above only in reference to use of oversight or do you share the same thoughts regarding the use of the checkuser tool? I know you held the checkuser rights before your appointment to AUSC but given that your "job" is essentially to monitor for abuse, I personally don't believe that you should be using the tools in a routine manner (again, I realize there is no rule prohibiting you from doing so - just a matter of personal judgment). Just interested to hear your thoughts on that. And on a final note, if this nomination does not succeed, would you refrain from any further use of oversight rights excluding those rights required to be used in your role as a member of the audit subcommittee? - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was also surprised by the amount of checks I ran in June, for July, the total so far is about 190. A lot of the checks I ran in June were related to Arbitration Enforcement issues I was trying to manage; there were a lot of brand new editors on contentious articles, and I didn't want to be sanctioning one person if the other was a sockpuppet. Since I previously handled nearly all enforcement requests for a period of 9 months or so, I felt I would recognize the parties. There were also a number of checks related to Oversight issues, and related to requests for IP block exemptions on range blocks that I had previously placed. A few checks are related to the customer service aspect of CheckUser. Take for example this incident report from yesterday. If I see a situation like that, where CheckUser would potentially be very helpful in identifying additional disruptive and fraudulent edits, I could either refer the person to SPI, which is so complicated these days that I don't understand it myself; or mention the matter on the checkuser mailing list, which may or may not get action and which irritates the non-enwiki checkusers who like to use the list for cross-wiki coordination; or I can take 2 minutes and address the problem myself. If you go back to my RFA, the idea of customer service as always been one of my goals. I would have preferred to see a lower number, and I will watch my own use more carefully for the rest of my term on the audit subcommittee. (In particular, I have given up on WP:AE, having been reminded of why I dropped it from my watchlist in the first place.) However, I don't believe that checking for sockpuppets of Amorrow, or of editors who post libelous claims to BLPs, or of edit warring ethnic cliques, compromises my ability to fairly judge other checkusers. (Of course, if I was biased, I would be sure I wasn't, so you'll ultimately have to make your own judgement.) Thatcher 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the explanations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment moved from vote section) Would really prefer someone who's more attentive to his emails. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (comment moved from vote section) Can I vote a second time using User:Jehochman2? You deserve two votes. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Even when we've disagreed, I've found Thatcher engaged and thoughtful. In fact, this discussion we engaged in at his talkpage was one of the things that really started changing my thinking on WP:BLP issues. While we initially disagreed, by the end of the discussion, I'd come around to his way of thinking, and that conversation -- and how responsive Thatcher was to my concerns -- developed a trust level (on my end, anyways), which makes my support below quite easy. Unitanode 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly I've only seen you around, but what I've seen impressed me-and others too, apparently.ceranthor 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On balance, not supporting - even in the face of overwhelming approval - is not a viable option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorsement Not allowed to vote, but this user does a lot of work and never gets tired and has done 1000s of CUs by himself. While some people apply for jobs and committees to collect more hats than North Korean generals plastering their torso full of medals, this candidate actually does the work and isn't like a politician who signs up to be the patron of 100s of clubs to get votes and only turns up once a year for a dinner and photo opportunity. When he was a ArbCom clerk he was proactive and did a lot of analytical work, rather than just the bare mininnum of filling in the papers at the end.YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment moved from vote section) Judging by the stats we need you to continue in this role.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of Thatcher[edit]

2. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Shappy ^talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Absolutely. --Caspian blue 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Majorly talk 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. iMatthew ^talk at 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Triplestop x3 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. God yes. Viridae^Talk 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. JayHenry (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Huldra (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. —Animum (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. ThemFromSpace 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Skinwalker (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Captain panda 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support --B (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Noroton (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Nathan ^T 03:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Absolutely. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Nevard (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Unitanode 05:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. — Σxplicit 05:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Offliner (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. AdjustShift (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Euryalus (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Cenarium (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Tony (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Wknight94 ^talk 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. LittleMountain5 15:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Woody (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Guettarda (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. AniMate^draw 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
63. — Ched :  ?  21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Recognizance (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
69. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. chaser (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Nepaheshgar (talk) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. Samir 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. --Conti|✉ 09:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Kusma (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Joopercoopers (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. ceranthor 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
83. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
84. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
85. *** Crotalus *** 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
86. ~ mazca ^talk 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
87. SBHarris 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
88. Alexfusco⁵ 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
89. — Satori Son 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92. Arakunem^Talk 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
93. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
95. . Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
96. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
97.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
98. Gazifikator (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
99. SoWhy 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
101. Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
102. Pmlineditor 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
103. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
104. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
105. miranda 20:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
106. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
108. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109. the wub "?!" 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
110. Ysangkok (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
111. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
112. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
114. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Go get 'em Margaret! Crafty (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

115. --Charitwo ^(talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
116. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
117. WJBscribe (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
118. Fedayee (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
119. Absolutely. --Jayron32 03:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
120. — madman bum and angel 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
121. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
122. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
124. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
125. support JoshuaZ (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
126. Grandmaster 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
127. Amalthea 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
128. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
129.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
130. Graham87 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
131. Poltair (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
132. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
133. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
134. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
135. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
136. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. I'm somewhat surprised Thatcher wasn't already an oversighter - I thought he was! -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
138. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
139. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
140. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
141. –Megaboz (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
142. AlexiusHoratius 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
143. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
144. Steven Walling (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
145. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
146. --MONGO 05:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
147. Per the "I have seen this name throughout my career" clause. —harej (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
148. Alio The Fool 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
149. —Terrence and Phillip 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
150. Yes. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
151. Can't imagine an objection. Good luck. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
152. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
153. Lara 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
155. hmwitht 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
156. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support --StaniStani  22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Thatcher[edit]

2. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fox1942 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

3. BrianY (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   PuebloUnited (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)(Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - Unitanode 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Everyking (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. fish&karate 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Whitehorse1 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle[edit]

Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi all, I am User:Stifle and I have been a Wikipedian for 3 years and 10 months and an admin for a bit over 3¼ years. I am an OTRS user for over 7 months.

I appreciate the ArbCom's support in nominating me for a position as an Oversighter. I asked to be nominated for two main reasons:

• I am usually online and available for most of the European workday (0900-1600 UTC), as well as many evenings, and generally able to react quickly when there may be an issue.
• As an OTRS user, I sometimes have cases where a ticket requires a page or entry to be oversighted, and I have to go chase down an oversighter/steward to get it done.

I'm aware of the ANPD and oversight policies, and have strong communication abilities. I freely admit that my article-writing skills are not in the same division as many other esteemed contributors, but I feel my input in maintaining what others have written and submitted, as well as other janitorial tasks, is valuable.

I expect that, if elected, my primary use of the tool will be to hide usernames and log entries containing real names or defamatory information. Please feel free to ask me any questions here or in any other venue (ideally a venue I'm aware of, otherwise it might not work :)) Stifle (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't intend to vote in the oversight section of this election, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Well, the white powdery stuff is starting to accumulate on the ground and it's clear that this will not be a successful election for me. I want to thank those who voted, on both sides, and ask that anyone who is prepared to do so would leave feedback either by talk page message or email. My address is user.stiflegmail.com; anonymous feedback from throwaway email accounts is also welcomed, as are comments from those who did not vote. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]