J.delanoy

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

• 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. Durova ²⁸⁵ 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.) -- Menti fisto 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

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. Jamie S93 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 Durova ²⁸⁵ 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. Res 2216 firestar 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. Them From Space 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. Tim meh 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. — Σ xplicit 04:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
48. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
49. Law _{type! snype?} 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
50. So Why 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. The leftorium 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. Little Mountain 5 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. — M C 10| 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. - down load ׀ sign! 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

     Bejinhan Talk 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. ceran thor 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. iride scent 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
130. Pmlin editor 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. Alex fusco ⁵ 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
135. S B H arris 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. Ϣere SpielChequers 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. -- Dylan 620 ( 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- Schnitzel MannGreek. 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. Perfect Proposal 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. Step hen 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply
193. Graham 87 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply
194. Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply
195. Un sch ool 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. wadester 16 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. Tide rolls 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. hmwith t 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. Alexius Horatius 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. -- brew crewer (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 -- Stani Stani  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

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 - So Why 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)) reply

2. — Gavia immer ( talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Menti fisto 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