Nishkid64

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

• 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. ceran thor 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? [1]. 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: [2] - 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 [3] – 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

2. Jamie S93 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. Durova ²⁸⁵ 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. Them From Space 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
37. — Σ xplicit 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 - So Why 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. ^{Khu kri} 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. Little Mountain 5 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. ceran thor 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 Pmlin editor 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
86. ~ mazca ^talk 19:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
87. Alex fusco ⁵ 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. -- Dylan 620 ( 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 Mac Dui 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. -- Jayron 32 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. Perfect Proposal 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. Graham 87 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. Grand master 11:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
148. Alexius Horatius 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. hmwith t 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
164. Whitehorse1 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
165. Support -- Stani Stani  22:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply
166. BJ ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Nishkid64

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