Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and English Wikipedia community have developed a process for the vetting and election of CheckUsers and Oversighters. The governing policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections. The archived discussion is contained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments. Please note that as this is the first election of CheckUser and Oversight on the English Wikipedia, the policy may need to be tweaked in the future.

Both positions require great trust, integrity, and reliability. The applicable policies are: Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia:Oversight.

Election process
  • The February 2009 election will run for ten days, starting at 00:01 (UTC) on February 6 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on February 15, 2009.
  • For this election: there are 3 open CheckUser slots with 6 vetted candidates and 4 open Oversight slots with 7 vetted candidates.
  • Voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish and must have made 150 mainspace edits by January 31, 2009.
  • Current arbitrators and former arbitrators from within the past year may not vote.


CheckUser candidates

east718

Hi! I'm east718, and I've been an administrator on the English Wikipedia since 2007. I didn't plan on running in this election, but was drafted in late 2008 to stand in it. I'm pretty humbled that the Arbitration Committee has placed enough trust in me to consider me for the checkuser tool; if the community also chooses to do the same, I will not betray their trust.

Since early 2008, I have gained experience working behind the scenes with checkusers and helping them solve nasty cases involving long-term abusers, especially abusers who are intelligent enough to take steps to conceal themselves. A couple examples that jump to mind are myself and Dmcdevit working together for several months with the goal of removing a single person from the project who was using multiple accounts to abuse our consensus-based decision making process in an effort to insert pedophilia advocacy into articles; more recently, I have been assisting Rlevse with several cases that are difficult to crack without extensive technical and behavioral analysis.

My main contribution to the checkuser team would be bringing the broad technical skills that I have to the table and continue assisting other checkusers, but in a more effective manner with access to the tool myself. Sometimes, sockpuppets like Bassettcat or Archtransit fall through the cracks for months; I suspect that incidents like this would be isolated with more checkusers reviewing each others' work. I also intend on dabbling in WP:SPI and the Augean stables of countervandalism, since the tedium and repetition involved with the territory is not a problem for me.

I understand that checkuser is to be used only to prevent disruption—obviously, use of the tool to intimidate others or attempt to gain the upper hand in an editorial/internal dispute is verboten. I don't think you'll have to worry about that with me though: I respect all editors and their privacy, and I strive greatly to treat them in a professional manner. I have never abused my admin tools, and I have never attempted to use the bit as a bully pulpit.

As for the legal stuff, I'm an adult who's willing to identify with the foundation, and I'm not one of those careless people who think that they're not responsible for their actions on the internet just because they have a shield of pseudonymity. I have no problem with losing my own pseudonymity, and if my real name, employer, etc. are disclosed, I do not foresee it impacting my service to Wikipedia. I'm familiar with both the English Wikipedia's checkuser policy and the global checkuser and privacy policies, including the six "safe harbors" for releasing information derived from confidential system logs. While I have never been particularly enamored with the "rules" when it comes time to put in work for the encyclopedia, I plan on holding the aforementioned ones sacrosanct. The privacy of editors is nothing to trifle with.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and for any advice or comments you'd like to leave. — east718 | talk | 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for east718

This page is protected, probably to prevent early voting. Unfortunately, this also restricts editors from asking questions of me; if you wish to do so and cannot, please post it on my talkpage and I'll move it over here provided the arbs don't have a problem with it. — east718 | talk | 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not active enough IMO. Mr. Z-man 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm opposing primarily per Majorly and Acalamari. Also, I find that East occasionally lacks tact when dealing with dramatic incidents. Sorry, but I just don't believe he is quite suited for checkusership. No hard feelings, mate. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • East is extraordinarily technologically capable, and I've always found him to be trustworthy. Glass Cobra 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • East718 claims he has never abused admin tools; however, this is totally untrue. Almost a year ago, in collaboration with a now-banned editor, he decided, without any consensus or approval whatsoever from anyone, to add several thousand null revisions to the Main Page. This, as developer Tim Starling pointed out, was a complete abuse of tools, and he should have been desysopped for it. East718 also runs several unapproved admin bots. I shudder to think what plans he has for Checkuser, where most people can't see what he's getting up to.
  • Additionally, I find his attitude to be fairly smarmy. I don't consider him at all approachable for issues, and he would make a terrible Checkuser. Majorly talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Is the bullet above from you? Can you add diffs as relevant? Thank you. -- B ( talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly: see User:Acalamari/CU-OV_February_2009#East718. Acalamari 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Aren't you the one who was tag-teaming with Betacommand? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Dealt with them often, always seems objective and fair. -- Nate
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk)
  • Behavior in Nov–Dec 2008 suggests an uncareful approach to user privacy issues. — CharlotteWebb 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, I found him a few times and he was always fair -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I am opposing due to his use of unapproved admin bots.-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Synergy

Some dubious – discuss may feel you are too "behind the scenes" (taken from your statement). What assurances can you provide that you will be more open to discussion, or likely to be more active on-wiki? Syn ergy 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I am always open to discussion of my actions, and have always campaigned for more criticism of administrators' actions - without criticism of our behavior, how are we to become better at what we do? On-wiki discussion is strongly preferred by me to email/IRC/whatnot, unless there's a specific reason to avoid it, such as dealing with grave harassment of editors or discussing material that's governed by the privacy policy. (Or, just for idle banter in the vein of #wikipedia-en, which would be a misuse of project resources if it were on some talkpage.) In the two cases I mentioned, pedophilia advocacy has always traditionally been handled by ArbCom and admins working closely with them, and the sockpuppeteer that Rlevse was targeting is very intelligent and subtly disruptive (think Robdurbar or Archtransit). On-wiki discussion may not be prudent in the latter case because of both the privacy aspect, and the possibility of the sockpuppeteer catching on and changing their style up. I think these are acceptable instances where private conversation among a small group of admins or checkusers would be acceptable. My current six week long period of inactivity is involuntary and is because of computer downtime; I don't edit from work. I was averaging around 400 edits a month for 2008, it's up to you to decide if that's active enough. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Apologies. I meant specifically with respect to cases for which this tool would be requested, and not in general (i.e. WP:SPI). Syn ergy 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Question from Shalom

Dear East.718, I have a question regarding your checkuser candidacy, but I'm not sure how best to ask it because I'm not really supposed to be here anymore. So I'll just ask and let you decide how to answer it.

I am best known as Shalom Yechiel ( talk · contribs) and also used some other accounts. I did "right to vanish" last week and am no longer active. My concern relates to a comment you made at my RFA last summer.

Let me state (especially to certain others who may be reading this) that I'm not upset about your RFA vote, your opinion or anything like that. I emailed you afterward, you didn't respond and I left it there. You stated erroneously that I had vandalized Wikipedia during a previous RFA, but you were just parroting someone else's error so I'm not blaming you for that.

What concerns me specifically is this sentence: "Look at it this way: I have no doubt Shalom is a great guy and wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer, but at the same time I wouldn't consider employing him."

Now I understand the context: an RFA is comparable to a job application in that a candidate must be vetted for competence and trustworthiness, and you didn't feel it appropriate to support me. Taken out of context, or just taken literally, it could be read in a much more sinister way, that you might actually not employ me for a job based on my Wikipedia actions. If that's what you meant, then I have reason to wonder if you should be learning private information about users.

My current location can be determined from my IP address signed to this post, and if I can trust your userpage we live in the same U.S. state and we share a professional interest in science. It's not entirely inconceivable that our paths might cross off-wiki at some point in the future, and if that were to happen I would be happy to meet you. I'm just worried that, if I take you literally, you might reject a hypothetical job application to work at your structural engineering firm in 2014 because I vandalized Wikipedia in 2007. Keep in mind that my real name is out there, and other private information about me is available on the checkuser email list.

If this sounds too much like I'm just complaining about myself, I'll ask you a different question: would you employ Gregory Kohs to a position where he is professionally competent, or would you hold his Wikipedia exploits against him? What about other banned users, or other users who are not banned but got into trouble? Can you separate your private, confidential knowledge about users from any possible future real-life interaction you might have with them?

Thanks for reading the question, and I hope you will have a good response. 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Shalom. I'm going to focus mainly on your fear of retaliation... I'm afraid you just misunderstood. This is partly my fault since I didn't explicitly label my rhetoric as that, but what can I do now? The metaphor was for Wikipedia application only, in the sense that I would not hire a former vandal for a middle management position or security officer (a rough equivalent to an admin on enwp). I certainly wouldn't care about the hobbies of a potential colleague, - fucking around on Wikipedia in your spare time seven years ago isn't particularly concerning. Two other things to consider if your unlikely scenario ever pops up: 1/ it would be most immoral of me (not to mention probably illegal) to use privileged information from Wikipedia to make decisions on behalf of my firm, and 2/ I would recuse from making such a decision myself, since my perception of the applicant would be slightly colored.
Best of luck in college, and with whatever career path you decide to take. Send me mail if you'd like to chat or want advice on anything. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, East718. I was hoping you would answer something along those lines. I will not be voting in the elections, but you have answered my concern admirably. Good luck. 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from User:Sticky Parkin

Last year you were running a bot I think, I'm not sure if it was authorised, at least in about January/Feb last year, though it may have been later, I didn't keep up with what happened. What was your reason for running an unauthorised bot at the time, rather than getting it authorised? Do you have a rebellious streak, or feel the need to cheekily do things others who aren't in your clique might not know about? Sticky Parkin 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of east718

  2. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support Privatemusings ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. BJ Talk 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. THE GROOVE 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Glass Cobra 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. rootology ( C)( T) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Avruch T 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 07:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Jack Merridew 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. -- Nate 14 81 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Support لenna vecia 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. – Sarregouset (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Yup LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support - Tim meh ! 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support - Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ;) reply
  26. Dmcdevit· t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. -- Caspian blue 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Strongly Secret account 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support Bearian ( talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support-- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support - Showtime2009 ( talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Support - Iss246 ( talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to east718

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. RMHED . 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Majorly talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Acalamari 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Mr. Z-man 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose. Everyking ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose Prodego talk 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. miranda 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Little Mountain 5 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Noroton ( talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Joe 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. J.Mundo
  20. Oppose Ironholds ( talk) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Davewild ( talk) 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Weak oppose — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose -- Herby talk thyme 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose — Aitias //  discussion 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Stifle ( talk) 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Tex ( talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Welshleprechaun ( talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Sticky Parkin 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Spencer T♦ C 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. -- B ( talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Logos5557 ( talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. CharlotteWebb 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Very weak oppose – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. shoy ( reactions) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Sceptre ( talk) 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Sandahl ( talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Artichoker talk 16:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose.-- Crunch ( talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Opppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Step hen 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. —  TKD:: Talk 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose -- SimonD ( talk)
  52. Oppose - Philippe 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. FluffyWhiteCat ( talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. GRBerry 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Dlabtot ( talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. -- A Nobody My talk 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose Rje ( talk) 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58.  GARDEN  23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. McJeff ( talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose -- Rockfang ( talk) 01:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose - per tiptoey-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose Graham 87 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle

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

Here on en.wiki I have been an Administrator for close to six years and a Bureaucrat for close to five. In each of these capacities I consider myself fair-minded, level-headed and considerate. The integrity and success of Wikipedia is always at the root of my actions here.
Although I want to base my experience in Wikipedia on the tenets of making others feel welcome, creating a friendly environment, and forgiveness, I also accept the reality that a firm hand is necessary in disciplining people who won’t comply. Systems and policies are in place to deal with defiant people and hardcore vandals. I support the penalties issued by the community and/or ArbCom, and I do my part the help enforce them. For example, I have spent a great deal of time, research and energy over the past year to help contain the sockpuppetry charades of banned users Beh-nam, NisarKand and Tajik. Their relentless puppetry and edit wars sometimes occur faster than checkusers can keep up. I file appropriate reports, complete with evidence, and revert the edits in question. Through this experience I noticed that there was a need here for more checkusers – and that is what brings me here. I have the energy, the time, and the experience to be of use to Wikipedia in this regard.
I am familiar with the policies surrounding checkusers. I will not fish. I will not compromise privacy. If granted the responsibilities, I will use the tools only in extreme cases of disruption, sockpuppetry and vandalism. In regards to privacy and my potential interaction with personal information, I am a public school teacher. I am trusted with students’ mental and physical health status, criminal history and family situations. I review that information with complete respect to the individual and never compromise the information. Even though I would act as such on my own, I am actually bound by law to do so. I do not put myself or the school district at risk by compromising private information, and I will not put myself or WikiMedia at risk either. I respect privacy. I respect editors. I respect process. I respect policy. I have no history of abuse of power.
Thank you for your consideration. I welcome all comments and questions. I am happy to be a part of this process and to be working with you on Wikipedia. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments and questions for Kingturtle

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • A wiki-resume that could wrap around a city block. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My reason for opposition is, unfortunately, the same as Dan's support. "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs" is a philosophy that has served us terribly -- we have qualified candidates who do not have overfull plates. -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My opposition to Kingturtle is nothing in the slightest bit personal - all of my interactions with him have been very positive and he is an overall clueful and trustworthy editor. But occasionally I have some questions regarding his overall judgement when making a decision could prove to be unpopular - I feel he is a tad prone to "go with the flow", which I feel is undesirable for a checkuser (and a 'crat, but he has a fairly good eye for consensus so no problems here). Sorry, Kingturtle - nothing personal at all. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strong Support. When I read about the position, KingTurtle was actually the first username that came to mind. KingTurtle has been an active administrator for some time who also aids in username migrations, so this would be a perfect addition to his user privileges. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk · contribs)
  • Too many hats, sorry. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not much experience in the field.-- Caspian blue 00:06, 7
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎#Kingturtle. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I will make every effort to make my CU activities transparent. There will be situations, though, in which privacy will trump publicity. Therefore, I am not willing to disclose publicly all my CU activities. In cases that I will not disclose publicly, I will certainly disclose to other CUs and/or ArbCom members. I will never take action without either the community, a CU or an ArbCom member knowing. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Mike R

What happened here [1]? Mike R ( talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

On 17 Jun 2008 2008 I emailed the ArbCom mailing list a letter requesting myself to become a CheckUser. I received an immediate response from a member informing me they received my request and were reviewing it, and to give them a few weeks. On 26 June 2008 Raul made the announcement you are citing, but I had never received word from anyone on ArbCom about such a decision or any other decision, before or after that announcement. I waited for an explanation or a decision, but I received no word at all from ArbCom. On 8 Dec 2008 I sent another letter of request to the ArbCom mailing list. This time I received a reply, and I entered into the process that brings me to this election today. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is useful to leave a paper trail. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Kingturtle

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support. Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support -- Avi ( talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Cla68 ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. Everyking ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Little Mountain 5 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Noroton ( talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Very Strong Support. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk · contribs)
  11. Joe 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Strong support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Davewild ( talk) 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Weak support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — Aitias //  discussion 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. -- Conti| ✉ 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. لenna vecia 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Andre ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Support Tim meh ! 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. 4I7.4I7 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Secret account 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Edit Centric ( talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Menti fisto 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support - Philippe 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Support Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Support Deb ( talk) 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support -- Sigma 7 ( talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support -- Kinston eagle ( talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Support — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Support Rje ( talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support Trusilver 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. CharlotteWebb 10:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support - AdjustShift ( talk) 14:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support Graham 87 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Kingturtle

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose — Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose JayHenry ( talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. RMHED . 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. BJ Talk 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Majorly talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Mr. Z-man 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose Prodego talk 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Grace Note ( talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Cenarium ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Sorry. -- B ( talk) 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. -- Caspian blue 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. arimareiji ( talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. shoy ( reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 04:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Step hen 06:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Oppose -- Saivash ( talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Ineligible to vote. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kylu

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

I have previously assisted checkusers here with cases, either helping compile contributions by different editors in an attempt to avoid having to use checkuser, or by checking IPs and ranges for various methods of avoiding scrutiny (TOR, open proxies, closed zombied machines).
I'm already familiar with the CheckUser tool itself from various non-WMF projects and assisting in its documentation and policy development. I have to admit that my approach to restricted access tools is a bit conservative: While I am a fan of transparency in the process, I'd prefer to expose as little checkuser-gleaned information as possible.
Thanks. :) Kylu ( talk) 02:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Kylu

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My reasoning (what in the world is wrong with explaining my vote below?): although she is less active at the moment, I have every confidence in her from past interactions. Even if she is not as active as others, this is an easy strong support because of the trust I have in her. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think she's going to be too swamped as it is with stewardship. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Don't really like the idea of dual positions let alone dual elections. Let's at the least add one job at a time shall we? -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Hah, I absolutely agree with disliking the dual elections. When I found out I was in this one, I wasn't happy with the timing. Kylu ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Kylu will soon become a steward, which is obvious at this point. Highly trustworthy and civil, Kylu has not shown me anything that leads me to doubt she will do a good job with the checkuser tool. Therefore, I am supporting. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Echo with the above. BTW, stewart =!steward. miranda 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Kylu is more of cross wiki person, who I think will be a great Steward, but less active on enwiki. Prodego talk 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • same rationale as Prodego.— Sandahl ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I tried to get Arbcom to appoint Kylu months ago. It's about time. Thatcher 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think this is a good idea, per Prodego. Giggy ( talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Seems to be the only candidate I fully trust with this tool. -- Charitwo ( talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I completely trust Kylu to use the CheckUser tools well and we don't have so many candidates for this post, so even though her activity on enwiki is not very high, I support. Cenarium ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • too many hats already (isn' t she going to be elected as a 2009 steward?)-- Caspian blue 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)(addendum) Oops, I see Thatcher's recommendation belatedly, and I was too quick for judging. -- Caspian blue 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Even though I see this as reduludent as stewards has checkuser access. Secret account 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Stewards are not supposed to perform local checks on a project where there are local checkusers. [2] This is such a project, so being a steward is not redundant with being a local checkuser. GRBerry 06:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#Kylu‎. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Checkuser requests that I perform will be either from a public forum (in which case they're already documented) or merely assisting another checkuser (in which case I consider the onus to be on the checkuser performing the check). In the event that there are other rules that are disclosed to checkusers from the ArbCom, I'll obviously perform under those as well.
Semi-relatedly, I would prefer to have a personal log of checkuser activities in my userspace, given allowance to do so, though I'd obviously limit it to my own checks and not post IPs or ranges, nor the names of non-matching users: If someone were to checkuser me against a vandal in pursuit of the vandal, I'd rather not have my name attached to them in any public way if I'm not guilty of it.
Lastly, the checkuser policy mandates having at least two checkusers per checkuser-having project to attempt to keep abuse limited. This is not an issue with this project, as we have quite a few users with checkuser rights, but instead we have a perception (valid or otherwise) that it's a power-centric clique. Why ask a clique to watch itself? Better to encourage adoption of a body like the WP:Review Board to do so instead.
While people enjoy being trusted, and it's nice to have such trust, you shouldn't be put into a position where that trust is required on your part, simply because there is no other alternative.
If you'd like a more detailed explanation, please let me know. Kylu ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds reasonable, sure. I've wondered at checkuser-performed blocks with, ah, less-informative block reasons myself. :) Kylu ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Kylu

  1. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Privatemusings ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Orderinchaos 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. BJ Talk 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Majorly talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Mr. Z-man 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Kuru talk 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Support – TheAE talk/ sign 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support J.delanoy gabs adds 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Support Little Mountain 5 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Noroton ( talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Joe 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Thatcher 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. PhilKnight ( talk) 04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. John Reaves 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Davewild ( talk) 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Yes -- Herby talk thyme 09:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Jack Merridew 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. لenna vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support -- Charitwo ( talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Spencer T♦ C 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Cenarium (Talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Support -- B ( talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Strong support - Alison ❤ 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Sarah 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Geogre ( talk) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Protonk ( talk) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support Captain panda 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. shoy ( reactions) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Tim meh ! 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Support▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Dmcdevit· t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Step hen 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Support Secret account 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Kusma ( talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Caspian blue 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. — Dark talk 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Support. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Support Saivash ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Ineligible to vote. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Lycaon ( talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Support Rje ( talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61.  GARDEN  23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Apteva ( talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Support Graham 87 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Kylu

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. RMHED . 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. JayHenry ( talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Khoi khoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Prodego talk 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose — Sandahl ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Giggy ( talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. — Aitias //  discussion 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. seresin (  ¡? )  20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. OhanaUnited Talk page 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Lucasbfr

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

Hi :)
I have been a Requests for checkuser clerk since its reorganization in early 2007, and I'm now clerking on the new Sockpuppet investigations process. To clear up any confusion, RFCU clerks only helped with formatting cases, archiving them and helping users at the time. We were not allowed to comment on the merits of cases. Helping on the hundreds of cases that are processed each year (My edit count tells me that I edited more than 900 times the RFCU page) allowed me to get a fine grasp on the checkuser practices on Wikipedia. I am also an ORTS volunteer (despite unfortunately not being very active there), where we sometimes have to deal with sensitive or private information.
For the policy part, I have always been interested in the privacy issues involved on Wikipedia, and I value my and other people's privacy very highly. I have therefore always kept an eye on the foundation's privacy policy. I know very well that the project needs to protect itself from abuse, but not at any price. I would for example strictly follow the guidances on IP addresses.
Technically, I am a Computer Science Graduate and I have been using whois, rdns and nmap often enough when considering blocks and unblocks to believe I am able to read them.
Finally, I wanted to stress that I'll be happy to help out but I know all the users that are being considered today, and I know they are all trustworthy. I rest assured the people who will be appointed will be good choices, whatever the results.
Don't hesitate to ask questions! -- lucasbfr talk 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Lucasbfr

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

First of all I'd like to apologize, this reply is going to be a mess. There are 2 types of "private" requests:
  • most of them are sent because a CU is available at a given moment or because the they know about the situation already. These are not logged because the CU either doesn't have the time to fill the form after the request has been completed, or doesn't feel filling the paperwork a second time (a reason must be filled for every check) will help for later checks. I think we should find a way to properly log them (even if I'm sure I am not inventing a new concept here).
  • some are sensitive: checking a known user can be lead to uncomfortable situations whatever the CU result, or a legitimate check can lead to unexpected results. A check might also draw attention to a someone being harassed or simply give too much technical details to an abuser. Many check results are relevant to the community to better understand a dispute, but some results are asked out of mere curiosity (joke accounts, anyone?). If someone screwed up, is it necessary to send him in the arena where the plebe is waiting with stones in their hands and asking for blood ;)? If the matter can be resolved privately and we can all go back at writing the encyclopedia, everybody wins. I like Deskana's "I know what you did last summer" testimony at WP:CHECK.
Keep in mind that even for public requests, results are sometimes not disclosed to the requestor for the same reasons.
I understand that you're concerned about CheckUsers abusing the tool and going for fishing expeditions in the dark. Fishing is bad because people are entitled to their privacy as long as they don't break rules. However, I don't think this is something that happens a lot (CheckUsers don't run around checking legitimate accounts for fun, same as Administrators don't block people for fun). Keep in mind that checking a suspicious account (mostly SPAs I guess) to find the master is not fishing. However asking for disclosing all checks or all results will lead to less privacy for our users, not more.
A last thought: many people criticized Deskana for releasing CU results last month. The check was justified, however I'm not sure releasing the results was a net benefit to the project, in the end. -- lucasbfr talk 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Wow, that was a long reply... tl;dr version: logging more things is a good idea, but logging every check would lead to less privacy without much benefit for the project. -- lucasbfr talk 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I know that feeling (I remember digging through block logs trying to guess who was targeted)! This is a good practice for most of the blocks and I'll try to do it when I can. However I know CheckUsers sometimes want to block an IP without revealing whose it is, and I wish to err on the side of caution as much as possible when releasing IP ownership informations. I guess this is something where I'll need to find a balance if I'm elected. -- lucasbfr talk 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Lucasbfr

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Strong support -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Arakunem Talk 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Strong Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Orderinchaos 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support. Hermione 1980 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. -- Avi ( talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. BJ Talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Cla68 ( talk) 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Majorly talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Mr. Z-man 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. MER-C 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support Prodego talk 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support Little Mountain 5 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Noroton ( talk) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support – Capricorn42 ( talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support Ironholds ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Orpheus ( talk) 07:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Davewild ( talk) 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. X clamation point 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36.  Badgernet   ₪  12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Strong support — Aitias //  discussion 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. -- Conti| ✉ 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Stifle ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Tex ( talk) 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. لenna vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Strong support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Hús ö nd 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. — Snigbrook 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Cenarium ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Absolutely -- Caspian blue 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Syn ergy 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Alefbe ( talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Yes OhanaUnited Talk page 05:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support -- DFS454 ( talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. -- Oxymoron 83 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. shoy ( reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support The Helpful One 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Tim meh ! 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Caulde 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Glass Cobra 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Support -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. -- Kubigula ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Step hen 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog M. se fâche( woof!) 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Secret account 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Sam Blab 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. -- A Nobody My talk 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. Kusma ( talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. utcursch | talk 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. Support. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. So Why 08:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Support Paxse ( talk) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Support Rje ( talk) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81.  GARDEN  23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Seraphim ♥ 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84. McJeff ( talk) 18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. Support - MBK 004 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  86. Kralizec! ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  88. Spartaz Humbug! 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  89. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  90. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  91. Enigma msg 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  92. Support Graham 87 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Lucasbfr

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Minor oppose WackoJacko ( talk) 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Apteva ( talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

NawlinWiki

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

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, an active contributor since the spring of 2006, and an administrator since late 2006. Lately, I've been spending a lot of time dealing with serial vandals who create multiple accounts. In doing that, I've been relying on the assistance of checkusers (especially User:Alison, User:Thatcher, and User:Nishkid64), but I'd like to start pulling my own weight. Of course, I would be working with requests at WP:RFCU as well.
I'm familiar with WHOIS and other tools for identifying static and dynamic IPs, and am a pretty quick study as to any of the technical aspects of the process that I'm going to need to learn. I'm an adult and willing to identify myself to the Foundation. I have computer access most of the time, so I'll be able to deal with checkuser requests promptly. I will be careful to follow Wikipedia policies and to respect users' privacy in the use of the checkuser tools.
Finally, I agree with Lucasbfr that all the nominees here would be excellent choices. If it were up to me, I'd say that anyone on the list who gathers substantial support should be appointed. NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for NawlinWiki

  • One of Wikipedia's most active administrators. Deals with problems in a rational manner, and understands the CU process, which are pluses. However, his answer to the question above does not inspire confidence - there are times when circumstances related to privacy issues require checkusers to act in privacy. Therefore, I cannot support. Sorry, Nawlin. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've found his dealing with pagemove vandalism cleanup to be rather excessive and heavy handed: Doing unnecessary selective deletions on pages with hundreds of revisions to remove juvenile pagemove vandalism history entries and excessive semiprotection, semi-protecting articles for months, with indef move-protection after only 1 instance of pagemove vandalism and little or no normal vandalism. I'm somewhat worried he might use a similar heavy-handed approach to checkuser work. Mr. Z-man 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry. You're too heavy-handed in how you deal with certain issues - Alison ❤ 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Disappointed with the results here: see User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#NawlinWiki‎ for my reasoning. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I'm willing to disclose all requests (in fact, the easiest way would be to announce that I won't take CU requests by email, just by talk page post or RFCU). Not so sure about the second one -- if, for example, I'm doing a sockpuppet investigation and I checkuser an account which turns out not to be related, I don't see why that needs to be posted publicly. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of NawlinWiki

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Arakunem Talk 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support - Euryalus ( talk) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support Mattinbgn\ talk 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Chick Bowen 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Majorly talk 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Kuru talk 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Support Glass Cobra 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support Little Mountain 5 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Support – Capricorn42 ( talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. ~ mazca t| c 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. WWGB ( talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Support - Wysprgr2005 ( talk) 14:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Support - -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support -- Regent's Park ( Rose Garden) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- B ( talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Support -- Deadly∀ssassin 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support -- prashanthns ( talk) 14:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. Bearian ( talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support - Philippe 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Support Deb ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support Accounting4Taste: talk 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support -- Sigma 7 ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. A Nobody My talk 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Support Chergles ( talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39.  GARDEN  23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support eug ( talk) 09:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support Modernist ( talk) 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to NawlinWiki

  2. Oppose -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. BJ Talk 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. RMHED . 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. THE GROOVE 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Mr. Z-man 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose Prodego talk 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose Ironholds ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Davewild ( talk) 08:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. X clamation point 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. – xeno ( talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. -- Conti| ✉ 14:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Cenarium (Talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Tex ( talk) 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose لenna vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose - Alison ❤ 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. SF3 (talk!) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Caspian blue 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. shoy ( reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose Guest9999 ( talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. miranda 01:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Step hen 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Orderinchaos 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. 4I7.4I7 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Secret account 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose Rje ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Seraphim ♥ 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose McJeff ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose Graham 87 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Versageek

Versageek ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
On the boring facts side:

  • I've been an active user here on en.wiki for close to two years now, and an admin for slightly more than one of those years. (for the curious, my account was created sometime in 2004). I've been an OTRS agent since May 2007. I've been an admin on en.wiktionary since Sept. 2006. I've been a checkuser on wikiHow for ~2yrs, and a checkuser on en.wiktionary for ~4 months. IRL, my work involves diagnosing network and connectivity issues - so I'm familiar with the technical networking tools.

My Views:

  • I view CheckUser as a technical tool to help stop disruption. Experience on other projects has taught me that all CheckUser tool output requires interpretation based on both technical knowledge & awareness of the context in which the disruption is occurring. Between my IRL experience with networking, my experience with the CheckUser tool on other projects, and the time I've spent here on en.wiki - I believe I have the ability to handle this sort of task in the this environment.
  • I consider myself conservative when it comes to user privacy, and I would certainly adhere to the WMF's privacy policies and the project's CheckUser policies. I identified to the Foundation when I became a CheckUser on en.wiktionary last year.
  • I'll admit up front that there are folks on this list who have far more experience with our SSP/RfCU/SPI processes. (er.. well, all of them do).. The amount of time I have to dedicate to the project is limited by normal, real-life commitments. I spend my time where I feel I can be most useful - and spending time at SSP/RfCU/SPI without access to technical tools didn't seem particularly useful to me. Should I be selected, I will shift my project time into CheckUser duties & away from other things.

In case it isn't obvious, I hate writing about myself.. I like to think I'm much better at answering questions. If you'd like to get a head start, my talk page is over here. Thanks in advance for your consideration. -- Versa geek 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Versageek

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • This 'secrecy' thing is a bit complicated..
One of the things which prevents all but the most determined of our dedicated sockmaster corps from evading detection is a bit of opaqueness in the CU process. We don't tell all of our behavioral or technical cues because doing so would allow the sockmasters to avoid giving those cues.
I think that the sort of limited public logging you suggest would create more drama than it would prevent.. If the requests/results were logged without being accompanied by the reasoning behind the request, it would be a source for constant speculation and if we log the detailed reasoning, it removes the opaqueness and makes the tool less effective.
That said, I think that MOST requests should be made & handled on-wiki. There are two types of requests I'd be willing to take off-wiki.. one would be checks to stop currently active blatant serial vandals (we all know how they behave!) , and the other would be a very long, complicated request. In the latter case, I would post a summary of the request & my results on wiki. In anycase I would keep a personal log of everything I ran & and the reasoning for running it - in case my actions were called into question at a later date. I have no objection to having any of my actions reviewed by someone - but for the reasons noted above, I don't think that public logging of all requests is the way to go at this point in time. -- Versa geek 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, barring any need for extraordinary measures, it's certainly the practical thing to do! -- Versa geek 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Versageek

  2. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. Hermione 1980 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Chick Bowen 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Majorly talk 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. BJ Talk 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. — neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Mr. Z-man 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Kuru talk 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. MER-C 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. miranda 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support Little Mountain 5 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Joe 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Noroton ( talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Davewild ( talk) 08:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Yes -- Herby talk thyme 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. لenna vecia 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Alison ❤ 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Cenarium ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. shoy ( reactions) 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Syn ergy 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support.-- Crunch ( talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Strong Support -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Glass Cobra 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support. - Ken g6 ( talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. + Corpx ( talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Dmcdevit· t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Support -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Step hen 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Secret account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Sam Blab 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Support. Bearian ( talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support - Philippe 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. Alefbe ( talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support Rje ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  @en.wb 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Support Spencer T♦ C 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Support - of course, Eric Wester ( talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Support Graham 87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Versageek

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    minor oppose Chergles ( talk) 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oversight candidates

Daniel Case

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

I am honored to be nominated for this responsibility and to be among such other well-qualified candidates for the job. The community will be well served by whoever wins.

I have been a registered editor for about four years now and an admin for a year and a half. I have become active on Commons, and I have accounts, all under this name, at Wikiquote and Wiktionary and the French Wikipedia, all of which I use from time to time. I am active in the newly-formed Greater NYC Wikimedia Foundation chapter.

I have learned to balance editing and admin work: the former primarily on National Register of Historic Places articles, the latter on AIV, UAA, CAT:RFU and DYK. I describe what I do as administering (I hate calling it "administrating") from the front, and only involving myself in the drama at the back when I have to. Oversight is an extension of that, with the caveat that it is quiet work done in the dark for what most of the community must trust is the best of reasons. I have no reservations about doing it.

Besides my experience and policy knowledge, I have several years' experience in journalism and the attendant practical awareness of U.S. defamation law (I wrote the articles about the two most recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., if you really want to look) which I believe would be helpful in making the judgement calls involved in oversight.

Thank you for your consideration and the best of luck to whoever is the community's choice. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments and questions for Daniel Case

  • What is your reasoning for choosing not to allowing email to yourself? There are some subjects and issues that need to be conveyed privately, in my view. I thought that it was often part of administrator nominations that administrators should allow private access by email. And, in a checkuser role, are you meaning to preclude ever allowing anyone to contact you with confidential information? I don't understand prejudgement that no information can ever be confidential but important to discuss for some reason. doncram ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    It appears to me that Daniel has email enabled. Special:EmailUser/Daniel_Case. -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I was not aware of that email interface. Then perhaps it has been available, but i have not known that all along. However, I've contacted Daniel approximately 3 times during the last two years requesting email contact, and he never replied. The effect has been to preclude contact and avoid the requested off-line discussion of matters which I never did state publicly. Has email contact been possible all along then, and if so, why not direct me to it? doncram ( talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, this was entirely a misunderstanding on my part, please disregard my question. doncram ( talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've seen Daniel Case around quite a bit, and I've always had a very positive impression of him. He is very responsible, trustworthy, and civil - one of Wikipedia's best administrators . He is worthy of our trust for oversight. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • A good and trustworthy admin who isn't already wearing lots of hats. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I really highly think of Daniel Case's contribution in general, especially his devotion for DYK. However when he proposed an infinite ban for Kurt Weber, the canvassing to one of editors who harassed the user really disappointed me a lot. Oversight should go to others who can keep cool other let behind personal feelings.-- Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As with Lucasbfr standing for CU, Daniel Case is an excellent candidate for the permissions of oversight. Caulde 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
For inadvertently revealing their IP or other information that could be used to identify them if they keep their identities a secret. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Daniel Case

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Ty 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. JayHenry ( talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. — neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. rootology ( C)( T) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Little Mountain 5 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Noroton ( talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Royal broil 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. DGG ( talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support-- Tinu Cherian - 08:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Davewild ( talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25.  Badgernet   ₪  12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- Doug Coldwell talk 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. WWGB ( talk) 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. — Aitias //  discussion 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. لenna vecia 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Sure. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Majorly talk 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support prashanthns ( talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. arimareiji ( talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. -- El on ka 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Glass Cobra 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Protonk ( talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Jamie ☆ S93 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support -- Polaron | Talk 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. seresin (  ¡? )  20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Cla68 ( talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. – wodup – 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support -- Mblumber ( talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Secret account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Sam Blab 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Caulde 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. - Philippe 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Step hen 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support - chaser (away) - talk 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. David Shankbone 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Support Rje ( talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. iride scent 20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. CharlotteWebb 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Elbutler ( talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Enigma msg 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Support Graham 87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Daniel Case

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Law shoot! 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Xasodfuih ( talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

DerHexer

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

Hello, I'm DerHexer! You might conclude from this text that I'm not a native English speaker. I started editing the German Wikipedia in September 2005, and became a sysop there in October 2006. Two months earlier, I had joined this project, and I became a sysop here in July 2007. Five months later I was elected as a steward. Being a steward, I had to deal with some oversight requests on different wikis—whether declining the request or carrying it out, so that I think that I'm a bit experienced with the role. But normally I fight vandalism, block open proxies and delete nonsense on many projects. That's why I made about 170,000 edits and 300,000 log actions (75,000 resp. 140,000 here on en:wp).
But in my opinion stats are not so important; an oversighter should be available via mail(ing list), IRC and preferably OTRS, and though my studies prevent me from editing here as I did some months ago, I'm daily available via these three communication systems for some hours. I would help out as much as I can if I were elected, but it's at least an honour for me to be on this list with all these excellent candidates. Whomever you consider to be the best choice, I'll thank you for your participation in this election. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for DerHexer

  • Anyone trusted enough to be a stewart has my confidence as a checkuser oversight. Seriously, DerHexer does very good work on Wikipedia. He is demonstratably trustworthy. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • psst! this is for oversight, not checkuser. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks, but as you can see below, this thing is double-edged. — DerHexer  (Talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Whoops, fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No objections to Der Hexer's worthiness, but am opposing as he's already a Steward I would prefer that these capabilities be spread over different people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    This argument is reasonable for me, because although I was not asked if I want or have time to do this job before this election page has been created, it was my decision to participate since I've added my statement, so that I'll have to bear the consequences now. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See Short Brigade Harvester Boris. Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • DerHexer, I really do hope you won't take my vote personally and there are hopefully no hard feelings on your part; I certainly appreciate you and your work. However, I simply think you're not active enough on this project resp. your activity levels tend to be instable/infrequent. Also, the areas in which you are active are quite limited. — Aitias //  discussion 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Well, it should be clear as mud that I can't be as active attending university than having vacations. ;) I nevertheless understand your concerns [and was a bit surprised that en:wp's arbcom nominated me], but in my [and maybe their] opinion it's more important for oversights to be daily available via IRC and mail (which I am) and know/respect the policies (which I have to do since I'm a steward). During my last vacation I created de:wp's former largest articles de:Ilias (= Iliad) which prevented me from editing here as much as I want and wanted. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎#DerHexer. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Under these circumstances, of course … especially 2b: "when the subject has specifically asked for the <potentially libellous> information to be removed from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision". 2a and 3 should just be done on the advice of WMF. 1(a) disallows to oversight these edits you've mentioned above: The user itself has published these informations. 1(b) is a bit tricky: The user who made the edit could request the removal of his edit because he might have seen, that he has published informations "of public individuals who have not made that personal information public". But though he might have seen that he added these informations [or got mail from this person to remove them] it might not always be obvious for oversighters: The "public individual" should better request the removal [on its own], preferably via OTRS. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 16:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I realize your English isn't perfect, but that's not an issue for me (neither is mine but I try). Just want to make sure I understand you correctly:

If I make an edit and later ask for it to be oversighted, you would do it if:
(a) My edit contained personal info of another person (but not if it was only info about myself), or
(b) My edit was potentially libelous (would this include libeling myself, or is that possible? If so, how would you define it? Would it include an edit which other users might use as the basis for potentially libelous statements against me?)
(c) No other cases (except possibly if I ask OTRS or the "Wikimedia Foundation counsel" a.k.a. Mike Godwin to make the same request to you on my behalf).

Is this correct? — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

(a) preferably requested by the "other person" itself (via OTRS, IRC, mail). I wouldn't say that I'd never hide revisions which were made by the requestor itself. There might be a reason to do that. But it normally does not fit into the rules (which is why I've had to deny some of these requests yet on other wikis, consulting with my steward fellows).
(b) it's always difficult to distinguish attack from libelous edits, imo. If you'd be (groundless) accused of child abuse, raping or things like these, it'd be advisable to hide these revisions when you request it. If you've said those things about yourself it'd possible, too, though I don't see a reason to tell those things about oneself …
(c) OTRS (contrary to the "Wikimedia Foundation counsel") has, according to m:Oversight, no power to direct those things. It's, imo, just a suitable way to handle requests. If Mike says that one revision should be hidden, I should obey, no matter what I've said before. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Regarding (b): OK, so let's say for example that a user makes a significant content contribution to the zoophilia article, then other people accuse this user of engaging in animal sex, so the user asks for it to be oversighted, would you consider this an acceptable interpretation of policy? — CharlotteWebb 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No, the zoophilia edit shouldn't be hidden, whereas the accusation of engaging in animal sex could be hidden, being a libelous edit. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, in this particular case the accusations were made elsewhere on the Internet, but thank you for your clarification regarding the edit(s) which triggered the accusation(s). Sorry if I jumped to unfortunate conclusions due to your broken English or my own mental state, not sure which. I'll support for now, but may oppose later if other candidates surprise me with better answers (don't take it personally). — CharlotteWebb 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from B

Around a year ago, you and I had this interaction on your talk page. The article in question has now been deleted, but at the time it was completely unsourced and contained little other than personal anecdotes about the subject, including one piece of potential libel. When I left you a friendly reminder to make sure that when you revert a blanking, that you don't inadvertently restore libel, your reply puzzled me and seemed, to me, to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the importance of the BLP policy. My question is this: is there anything that you would have done differently if you were encountering the Dan Motuliak article today as it existed as of your 2007 edit? What, if any, of it do you believe should be oversighted? Thank you. -- B ( talk) 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that seems to be a very unsatisfying answer which I've given to you, but it's difficult for me to excuse this now. I might have not understood you properly because my answer seems the be beside the point so that I'm bit puzzled now, too. :-/ In normally perceive my errors and apologize, as you can see on my talk page (archives). Regarding you question: "Biographies of living persons" is one of our [and that does not only include en:wp] most important policies. Coincidentally I had to deal with a similar case today on de:wp via OTRS where another editor and I cleaned up an article which consisted of non-reliable sources. I've especially learned while dealing with OTRS how important WP:BLP and its equivalents are and would react now in a different way: I'd tell the IP to send a mail to the OTRS system where mail traffic can be filed and volunteers daily deal with such cases. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) P. S.: I'm not sure if I've understood "What, if any, of it do you believe should be oversighted?" properly. If any of its revisions would fit in these three categories, it should be oversight. reply
Regarding the question you aren't clear on, the point of it is to gauge your application of the policy applicable to the position you are seeking. If you were, right now, an oversighter and the request was made to oversight revisions that contained things like [3] and [4], what would you do and why? Regarding the rest of your answer, this article was so terribly bad that I don't even see a reason for the IP to contact OTRS - the article should have just been deleted or stubified on sight. -- B ( talk) 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Hmm, it seems to be a misunderstanding. I thought that you wanted a more general anwser than a case-related one … normally an IP should rather contact the OTRS than edit the article. That's what I wanted to tell. That'd be imo more promising, imho. In this case it is possible to add a (speedy) deletion template to or stubify this article [but that could be done by every user]. I would not delete it on my own, being involved in that case [whereas I generally prefer in such cases the four-eye principle]. Oversight actions are not justified with these edits as you can see on m:Oversight#Use: "Potentially libellous information [should just be deleted] when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be removed from the history". It could be possible that this IP was Dan Motuliak (as you argued for on my talk page), but I would even in this case recommend to the IP sending a mail to the OTRS where its mail address can be compared with Dans normal one. The article might get/be deleted during that time (as I said above). Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 10:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of DerHexer

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support Arakunem Talk 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support -- Avi ( talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Majorly talk 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. -- S [1] 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. — neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Support Prodego talk 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Noroton ( talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support Jauerback dude?/ dude. 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Davewild ( talk) 08:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. -- buecherwuermlein 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Stifle ( talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. لenna vecia 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support. -- Jo ( talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Little Mountain 5 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Captain panda 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Law shoot! 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. -- Oxymoron 83 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. arimareiji ( talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. The Helpful One 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support - shirulashem (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support -- Meno25 ( talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. - Philippe 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. CharlotteWebb 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 February 2009
  42. Support Jayen 466 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Support — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Seraphim ♥ 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support Trusilver 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Support -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support - MBK 004 14:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to DerHexer

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Everyking ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. rootology ( C)( T) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. — Aitias //  discussion 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. -- Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Spencer T♦ C 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- B ( talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. seresin (  ¡? )  20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. A little strongly Secret account 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Xasodfuih ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

EdJohnston

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

I appreciate being considered for this role, and believe that everyone else on the list could do the job well too. I've been an active user on enwiki since September of 2006 and an admin since Feb. 2008. Before adminship, besides gnome and article work, I helped with informal mediation of a few messy conflicts. Since becoming admin I've spent considerable time at the 3RR board, WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and occasionally at the sockpuppet board. Due to my work at WP:COIN I've become aware of some of the issues around revealing personal identity. Since oversight requests could come from people inexperienced with Wikipedia, I imagine that oversighters are expected to have sympathy with the issues that new users could face. So this is in part a 'customer service' role.
The job of oversight seems likely to involve some judgment calls, where requests for removal may possibly conflict with policy. The fact that oversight decisions are made in private means that fewer people will be in a position to review what is done. I assume that oversighters who want to sound out others' opinions on any hard questions would ask on the oversight mailing list. (Posting your question at WP:AN for review would not be an option). EdJohnston ( talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for EdJohnston

  • Ed absolutely gets the importance of privacy and WP:OUTING, and knows when The Line has been crossed. He'll be an excellent Oversighter. Arakunem Talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Arakunem puts it well. I see no reason not to trust Ed. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think we all know that policy doesn't cover every type of situation that may arise, and sometimes policies conflict with each other. How would you handle requests for oversight that fall into one of these grey areas? That is to say, if policy is unclear on a matter, would you tend to interpret policy broadly or narrowly? Firestorm ( talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Since I've read nothing to the contrary, I assume that the community owns Oversight policy. Should the community become concerned about how oversight is being handled, they could open an inquiry. Without the give-and-take of actual discussion, and actual cases, it is hard to be sure what policy requires in borderline cases. I'd be unlikely to take on the role of the sole decider in a borderline case. If oversight-l is not a wide enough venue to get feedback, other ideas could be explored. Arbcom's opinion could be sought. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • So, what you're saying is that in a borderline case, you would consult others who have more experience in these matters? Just to make sure i'm parsing your response correctly. Firestorm ( talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, I'm seeing a need for the type of consensus that needs a 'discussion thread' to determine. For admin matters, the discussion thread can happen at WP:AN. For oversight, the discussion can't appear in public, so I think oversight-l is the appropriate venue. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Alright, that's good enough for me. I think you'll do a great job as an oversighter. Firestorm ( talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure why the candidate even needs the new tool since his admin-role area is mainly in the edit warring board. -- Caspian blue 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • See WP:COIN and it's associated talk page, where Ed is a fixture. All too often, COI is used by participants in edit wars to try to get their opposition removed. Many times, this also involves outing the other party to "prove" the COI exists. Oversight is a natural follow-on tool for such an admin to have. Arakunem Talk 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If it is not a bona-fide privacy issue, there ought to be a discussion somewhere before removing such an edit. If the user revealed his address or phone number, or something about his own life that most people wouldn't reveal, it might not be a hard call. Anything besides that, the opinions of others should be sought, perhaps on the oversight mailing list. If someone posts their email address, I've noticed that simply reverting the edit is often considered to be a sufficient response. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of things about one's own life that "most people wouldn't reveal". Aside from information which identifies the user (or makes it more easy to discern the user's identity or whereabouts), could you give some examples of other material you would be willing to remove? — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Offhand, I don't see WP:OVERSIGHT as mandating anything beyond personally identifying information. Can you think of anything else? The policy speaks of information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. I'm not trying to brainstorm anything, I'm specifically asking what you meant by "something about his own life that most people wouldn't reveal" which seems pretty open-ended, and the way you said "his own life" made me wonder if you had a specific user in mind. — CharlotteWebb 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry, that should have been 'his or her'. I was not thinking of any specific case. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Fine, back to original the question. There are literally thousands of details which "most people wouldn't reveal" about themselves. Real name and location are only a tiny subset of this. Where would you draw the line, and what standard would you use in balancing the letter of the policy with the safety concerns of the user who says "it was negligent of me to reveal this, please make it go away"? In which cases would you oversight without hesitation, or say "forget it", or just consider it on a case-by-case basis? — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sounds like this is moving toward a policy discussion. I'd be willing to discuss policy, but if your thinking is that current policy does not do enough to protect users who may possible be harasssed, then you'd need to persuade the community to change the oversight instructions. The phrase 'balancing the letter of policy with...' is the clue to me that you may actually want to change policy. (Oversighters are expected to follow policy, not make up the rules on their own). Clause 1 of WP:OVERSIGHT seems like it is most natural to read it narrowly (phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities). If I misunderstood your question, then please respond. If you have a specific policy change in mind, it should be discussed further. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You said "address or phone number, or something about [the user's] own life that most people wouldn't reveal", so I wanted to know what sort of personal information would be at the outer edge of your interpretation of policy as currently written. Sorry, I'm not trying to discuss a policy change. Actually when I said "the letter" I was alluding where it says "such as" followed by a paucity of examples, requiring the operator to estimate what other types of data would be comparable to these examples and thus removable based on "the spirit" of the policy. And, regardless of this, can you foresee cases where applicability of policy would be outweighed by genuine concern for the safety of the user? (I'm not concerned "normal deletion" would cut it in a serious case; apparently we have 1,623 admins—I'd personally be a fool to trust more than ten of them). — CharlotteWebb 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thinks clearly and is careful but decisive. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of EdJohnston

  2. Support Arakunem Talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. — neuro (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Noroton ( talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support. MER-C 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. — Aitias //  discussion 13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Davewild ( talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. SF3 (talk!) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Little Mountain 5 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Biophys ( talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. arimareiji ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. -- El on ka 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Giggy ( talk) 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. betsythedevine ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Versa geek 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Wasted Time R ( talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support-- BozMo talk 13:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Firestorm ( talk) 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Support☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Secret account 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support Rje ( talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support McJeff ( talk) 18:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to EdJohnston

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. RMHED . 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. rootology ( C)( T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Majorly talk 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Caspian blue 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Secret account 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- B ( talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Xasodfuih ( talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Tiptoety talk 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose, Dreadstar † 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Maxim (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Prodego talk 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

EVula

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

I have been an administrator on Wikipedia for more than two years. In that time, I've established an excellent track record of quickly and efficiently eliminating vandalism. I'd like to extend that to removing oversight-deserving edits. I'm familiar with the policies surrounding oversight, and have even made a few requests myself (which were always addressed quickly, but when dealing with personal editor information being exposed, faster is always better). I can easily be gotten hold of via email, IRC, or AIM, and my job keeps me tied to a computer (meaning that I'm able to jump on any requests regardless of what time it is, and I tend to work odd hours, depending on the project). I am over 18 and am already identified with the Foundation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for EVula

  • I stated both on his stewardship candidacy page and on his talk page that I would support his stewartship election were I to have suffrage. I certainly feel EVula has demonstrated the judgment necessary to handle the oversight right with care. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question: How can you use oversight in mainspace, when you have little mainspace activity? miranda 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Not the best way to make your point, when the answer is "Very easily". -- Deskana (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I addressed the question to EVula, but thanks for your comments. miranda 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • My current edit count via wannabe_kate is 28795. [5] Of those edits, 8981 are in the main article space; roughly 31% of my edits are in the main article space. Personally, I think that's a fairly good average; probably not the highest on Wikipedia, but article editing isn't some sort of "game" I need to win. Regardless of where the bulk of my edits lie, I don't think it has much bearing on removing copyright infringement, libel, or personal information quickly and quietly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I find that EVula has a long and varied history of all sorts of wiki-gnome work, both to articles and behind the scenes; rarely seeking drama or to draw attention to his contributions. Given that oversight is, pretty much by definition, a job that requires quiet discretion and generally receives little acknowledgement I think that his contribution pattern basically demonstrates exactly the attitude necessary... I can't personally see the relevance of large-scale mainspace contribution to the duties of an oversight. ~ mazca t| c 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Too much hats already. Besides, doesn't he be nominated himself for the 2009 steward election?-- Caspian blue 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply


  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Pretty much only if it contained personally identifying information (since I'd be surprised if someone purposefully posted libel or a copyvio and then contacted me about it, though I'd obviously oversight those, too). If someone accidentally posted under an IP (and it was clearly tied back to them), or wanted to remove their real name from their userpage, I'd consider those to be valid examples. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#EVula. Acalamari 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of EVula

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Strong Support — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Strong Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. Hermione 1980 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. BJ Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Kuru talk 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. rootology ( C)( T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Noroton ( talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Andre ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Davewild ( talk) 08:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Strong support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. ~ mazca t| c 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18.  GARDEN  11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Jack Merridew 12:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. — Jake Wartenberg 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Tex ( talk) 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. لenna vecia 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Majorly talk 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Richard 0612 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Hús ö nd 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Little Mountain 5 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Law shoot! 04:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Dreadstar † 06:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. arimareiji ( talk) 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Syn ergy 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Sam Blab 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Sticky Parkin 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. -- A Nobody My talk 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support. Bearian ( talk) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. - Philippe 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Yes - Royalguard11( T) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. -- chaser (away) - talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Strong Support -- Versus22 talk 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. David Shankbone 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Accounting4Taste: talk 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. CharlotteWebb 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Kennedy ( talk) 11:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Support Rje ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Strong Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Megaboz ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. -- Chasingsol (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Acalamari 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Enigma msg 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Support Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to EVula

  1. Oppose. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Chick Bowen 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. THE GROOVE 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. — neuro (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Useight ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Prodego talk 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Biophys ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. — Aitias //  discussion 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Caspian blue 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. seresin (  ¡? )  20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Secret account 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Xasodfuih ( talk) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Luna Santin

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

Oh, my. I had thought this might follow my October appointment to the checkuser role, somewhere down the road, but hadn't quite expected it to come so soon! Of the users likely to participate in this discussion, I imagine many of them will have seen me around the wiki over the past few years, and are already more or less familiar with what I do. To that end, I would prefer to offer my own record over any flowery statements. If the community feels I have the right mix of discretion and responsiveness for this role, I'd be honored to serve as best I'm able; if the community feels others are more suitable, or prefers to spread around these rights, I'm quite content to continue serving in my current capacity.

Aside from more obvious criteria, it may be worth factoring in when potential oversighters might be available, as far as timezones. How I'd fare in such a comparison, I don't know.

Whatever comes of this, thank you for your consideration. – Luna Santin ( talk) 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Luna Santin

  • Luna has demonstrated that he is a competent and trustworthy administrator and checkuser. I see no reason not to support him for oversight access. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In my experience, the candidate behaves inconsistently in an effort to keep the peace between different parties, rather than being prepared to take a principled stand [6], and hence fails the positions requirement - "Both positions require great trust, integrity, and reliability.". -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I believe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive465#Persistant misuse of the minor edit flag is the since-archived thread you linked in that diff, if anyone's interested in further reading. Not really sure how my behavior there indicates any of the shortcomings you've implied above, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Luna Santin

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. - ✰ ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. -- Avi ( talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. BJ Talk 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Khoi khoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. NeutralHomer • Talk • February 6, 2009 @ 01:38
  20. Majorly talk 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Terrillja talk 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Kuru talk 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. rootology ( C)( T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. miranda 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Prodego talk 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Glass Cobra 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Avruch T 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Noroton ( talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. DGG ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. John Reaves 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Orpheus ( talk) 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. 'Support : -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. MER-C 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Davewild ( talk) 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. -- M ask? 10:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Jack Merridew 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Strongest possible support — Aitias //  discussion 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Cenarium (Talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Guy ( Help!) 15:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. لenna vecia 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Andre ( talk) 15:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Richard 0612 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Hús ö nd 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. SF3 (talk!) 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support -- B ( talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Little Mountain 5 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Strong support - Alison ❤ 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Strong support - Dreadstar † 06:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. — CharlotteWebb 10:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. -- Oxymoron 83 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. shoy ( reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. The Helpful One 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. seresin (  ¡? )  20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Dmcdevit· t 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Erigu ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. —  TKD:: Talk 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. Strongly Support Edit Centric ( talk) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. – wodup – 10:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. 4I7.4I7 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Secret account 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. Sam Blab 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Sticky Parkin 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81. Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Sandahl ( talk) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84. - Philippe 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. Step hen 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  86. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. Yes - Royalguard11( T) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  88. -- Herby talk thyme 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  89. Strong Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  90. -- JRSP ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  91. — Dark talk 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  92. Yes. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  93. Support David in DC ( talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  94. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  95. Support Rje ( talk) 21:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  96.  GARDEN  23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  97. -- Caspian blue 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  98. Support - Tiptoety talk 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  99. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  100. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  101. Seraphim ♥ 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  102. McJeff ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  103. Support Trusilver 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  104. Support-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  105. Megaboz ( talk) 22:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  106. Support. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  107. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  108. Support - MBK 004 14:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  109. Support -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  110. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  111. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  112. -- Chasingsol (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  113. Acalamari 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  114. Support Graham 87 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Luna Santin

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog M. se fâche( woof!) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Mailer diablo

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

I have been an active contributor since November 2004, and received my admin responsibilities in March 2005 - more than 4 years' of experience here. Last year I have also began volunteering for OTRS, dealing with various e-mails and at times involving personal information that has to be dealt in a sensitive manner.
The Oversight tool is meant to utilized for purposes of protecting fellow editors, the encyclopedia, and the Foundation from harm as swiftly as possible. I am familiar with the oversight policy that is set by the Foundation, and aim to further the good of the encyclopedia and privacy of fellow editors with this additional responsibility. I will also do my part in the tool's check and balances of auditing fellow OSers' actions. My geographical location is in East Asia, which provides a unique timezone (+8 GMT) where I can cover the duties of others while they are sound asleep in Europe or the Americas.
I'm Mailer Diablo, I hope you will affirm your trust in me, and I approve this message! - 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Mailer diablo

  • Mailer Diablo is one of the few candidates in this election who has written a Wikipedia article to top-level standard, in his case, two: [7] and [8]. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I have a few doubts, but Mailer Diablo is a highly trustworthy administrator. He outlined a very good reason for supporting in his statement above - his geographical location should make him available at times when other oversights are not. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Location, location, location - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Dan. Giggy ( talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for your question. (1) Personal information is accidentally revealed (e.g. IP address exposed when not logged-in; Poor Man's Checkuser comes to mind), and the user has no intention of making it public in the first place. [clause 1] (2) A user posting personal information of another editor, clearly against his/her will for this information to be kept private, later regrets the action and asks for removal. [clause 1]. For any other circumstances, the request would be forwarded to oversight-l for further scrutiny by the Oversight team to determine if the request can be acceded to, in compliance with Foundation policy. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
So if I understand correctly, in the event that a user has intentionally volunteered personally identifying information, but wishes to redact upon realizing it was a stupid idea to do that, you would not make the decision on your own but ask your fellow overlookers to reach a consensus whether or not to remove the edit. Would they not be bound by the same policies and counter-policies as yourself? — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
But I would be correct to assume that you would not consider removing (nor ask other oversighters to consider removing) a non-identifying edit on the basis that it is embarrassing (possibly related to cultural taboos, and/or lending itself to aspersions about the author's personal life, etc.)? — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
(1) They are bound by the same set of policies. I presumed that you meant the request is made by the editor directly to my email or via IRC, I apologize if I misunderstood - Most requests would and should have formally gone to oversight-l anyway. I am for removal in most cases, but I would also want to be sure that it removal would be as intended - to protect the editor and not allow evasion of other policies. My belief is that 2/3/more pairs of eyes going through the request is always better than one; That why oversight users have the feature to check each other's work.
(2) I personally wouldn't remove the non-identifying edit because it would not be in the interest of the editor; its removal might instead bring more attention (此地无银三百两) to it. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
"nothing to see here, move along" indeed. Muy bien, hoy fingiré que entienda chino. Thank you for your responses. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Mailer diablo

  1. Support — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Avi ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Ty 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Majorly talk 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. rootology ( C)( T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Noroton ( talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Royal broil 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Sandahl ( talk) 04:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Ironholds ( talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Philosopher  Let us reason together. 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Support. MER-C 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Davewild ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. WWGB ( talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Giggy ( talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. -- Conti| ✉ 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Guy ( Help!) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Tex ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. لenna vecia 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. MBisanz talk 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Hús ö nd 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Cenarium ( talk) 22:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Little Mountain 5 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. I'm ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ and I approve this message! 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. 我是 戴樂華- 我核准這個信息！ Strong Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Law shoot! 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Support Graham Colm Talk 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. shoy ( reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Syn ergy 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. maclean 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Dekimasu よ! 08:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. seresin (  ¡? )  20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. —  TKD:: Talk 07:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. – wodup – 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Secret account 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Sam Blab 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support. Bearian ( talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Computerjoe 's talk 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Kusma ( talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Step hen 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Support Deb ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. -- Herby talk thyme 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. David Shankbone 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. CharlotteWebb 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. Approve message whatever the message is Chergles ( talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. Support Rje ( talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. -- Caspian blue 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. Shii (tock) 07:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. McJeff ( talk) 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Support - Just to be another flake in the snowball...-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81. Megaboz ( talk) 22:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Support - MBK 004 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. -- Chasingsol (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) approves this message. reply
  86. Acalamari 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. Support Graham 87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Mailer diablo

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Gurch ( talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. RMHED . 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Mr. Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. - M ask? 10:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. — Aitias //  discussion 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. -- B ( talk) 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- A Nobody My talk 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

MBisanz

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

Hi, my name is Matt and I've been a Wikipedian since 2004/2005, an active contibutor since 2007, and an admin since Feb. 2008. I'm very active on-wiki, via email, IRC, and even Skype from time to time. In my time, I've requested Oversight, usually by email, for personal information I run across and have been very active in deleting private information in the File talk: namespace.
I understand that many times the people seeking oversight may not be familiar with Wikipedia or may be in under a significant amount of stress. Being able to kindly explain what information I need from them (page name, etc) and relate to their concerns is as important a part of the job as clicking the HideRev button.
I have a firm understanding of the oversight policy an its purpose on Wikipedia (to redact non-public personal information). I further pledge to not use oversight in situations I am involved in (such as an RFA I commented in or a content RFC I filed) and to report misuse of the tool to the appropriate people (Arbcom).
For those interested, I have OTRS access, have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, and am an admin on Commons.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this process, and feel free to talk page, email, or smoke signal me with any questions you prefer not to place on this page. MBisanz talk 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments and questions for MBisanz

  • I like that some people are making an attempt to explain their opposition, since comments in the voting sections are restricted, but if you're going to comment up here can you try to provide something that other people would find useful? A simple "I don't trust him" doesn't help anyone understand your thinking. Avruch T 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not trying to make others understand my thinking, I'm just making a note on each case where I vote as to why this vote was made. In this case I opposed because I don't trust Matt. Giggy ( talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I say this with all the love in the world: Matt is a process wonk who I would trust to follow policy even if his mother's life hung in the balance. What more can you ask for in an oversighter? Wily D 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • A bit of common sense as well would be good. Majorly talk 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Are you suggesting their are times to Oversight or Checkuser outside of their extremely strict policies (examples if so, because I can't imagine it)? Because I thought that's what everyone with common sense has been fighting to get stoppped, including the Committee itself... rootology ( C)( T) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Blindly following policy can lead to problems, as can ignoring policy totally. I have no doubt in my mind MBisanz will be too strict with usage of oversight. Some might say better to be safe than sorry, and not use it, but I disagree. Majorly talk 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I mean, I don't think he'll ever make a bad oversight. In those cases he's unwilling to make what might be sensible oversights that don't rigidly fit with policy, there're always other oversighters. I might be uncomfortable with him as the only oversighter, but that's not what we're talking about. Wily D 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose after participation at patently abusive sockpuppet request. Alansohn ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) struck out by Alansohn ( talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not ready for the job yet.-- Caspian blue 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Has uncommonly good judgment. Is unfailingly civil. Is unfailingly dogged in seeking the right solution, on a case-by-case basis, according to policy. Perfection is impossible. Demonstrated excellence, over a broad swath of the wiki and in considerable depth, is exceedingly rare. It must be recognized and further empowered. David in DC ( talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply


  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There are only three I can think of off-hand. One, if a person was logged out and made an edit as an IP that was linked to their username, such as a comment in a threaded discussion (see the second sentence of point #1 at Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy). Two, if a minor posted personally identifiable information (such as their school, address, full name, etc) and later realized what a bad idea it was and asked for it to be oversighted. Three, if someone were to receive {{ Uw-pinfo}} or {{ Defwarn}} and notified me of the offending edits they made, I would oversight them not because they requested it, but because it was material that something that fell under the Oversight policy. Other than those cases, I would feel uncomfortable oversighting it myself and would ask the person to email the oversight mailing list for discussion among the other oversighters. I could see where an adult posts their name on say their userpage, later desires to be anonymous, and wishes it oversighted, but in my reading of Wikipedia:Oversight, I cannot clearly justify such a desire in line with policy, since the adult will have already made their identity public. Also, I should note that there is a discrepancy between {{ Defwarn}} and the text at File:HideRevision.png as to when to remove libelous edits, and were such a situation to arise, I would defer to point 2b of the Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy, which is controlling IMO. MBisanz talk 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll admit I was unfamiliar with the cryptically-named templates above, but at first glance they appear directed primarily (if not entirely) toward edits which pertain to other people, not oneself. I would have figured a user who had made an edit vile enough to merit these templates would not have much say in the matter, it would be oversighted or at least deleted regardless. It concerns me that would not [N.B. this word is the product of a brain-to-keyboard error, I'm really bad about this] decline to remove carelessly divulged personal info (name, location, etc.) just because the user is an adult. Then again if the info did not include the user's age, and they want it erased badly enough they could tell you they are a minor, you'd be none the wiser and it would unquestionably be the path of least harm (I trust you would not gossip about to anyone by saying "User:X told me they are a minor", whether or not you believed it to be true).
You can revise or clarify your position if you want. I'm in no big hurry. Just don't tell me what you think I want to hear, especially when you might have little idea what I'm actually getting at. I just want to know what your actual principles are. As for how the policies and the templates and the interface instructions are written, well… now I know where to look . — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well your question was about oversighting an edit at the request of the person who made the edit, so I included the unusual circumstance of someone (person X) making an edit about another person (person Y) and then person X realizing their error and emailing oversight.
As to your second point, a user asking for oversight of information they disclosed is fraught with gray areas. Why do they want it oversighted? Because it shows a conflict of interest to an article they edit? How long has it been public? Should an oversight oversight my name from my userpage, even though my public identity is well known? Is it part of an RTV that the community has opposed? Are there Arbcom restrictions at play that prevent a person from vanishing to a new account?
All of those are gray areas and if I were to encounter them, I would probably either kick it up to Arbcom to decide on or ask the oversight mailing list to discuss it, since there are so many degrees of permissibility. For instance, if I am doing my taxes and editing Wikipedia and accidentally past my social security number in the screen and click save, then yes I would agree another oversighter could oversight that edit. On the other hand, if my name is my username and I want an oversighter to remove it from my userpage, they probably shouldn't do it, since it isn't achieving the goal of protecting privacy. MBisanz talk 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well the SSN is an extreme case due to the potential for identity theft, which is a separate ball-game altogether. Impersonation and phony credit cards and whatnot are always a concern too, but they hadn't crossed my mind in this context, rather I was speaking of edits which reveal (or enable readers to ascertain) the user's real-life identity and/or location. In the event that a disgruntled (and I daresay unstable) fellow user has an online score they'd wish to settle in "meat-space", such information could continuously jeopardize a user's safety and livelihood the longer they remain visible. Actual examples have included crank calls aimed at getting people fired from their job, kicked out of their uni, divorced by their spouse, etc. plus various death threats and parking-lot stalking antics I'd rather not detail. People are generally more dangerous than we give them credit for (or than they give themselves) and I figure it's only a matter of time before somebody gets physically hurt or even killed due to a disagreement on Wikipedia. Such things have happened in other (comparatively trivial) online communities. I don't know whether the lack of truly grave incidents fresh in our minds stems from an incredible fluke or from a failure to report, but it really seems impossible when you do the math. This isn't about conflicts of interest or trying to hide that one is affiliated with the subjects they're editing (not that it should matter—all edits should be evaluated on their own merit "comment on content, not the contributor", etc. and let's forget that a user's self-disclosures could be bullshit, and might as well be ignored unless one's edits are truly disruptive). It's more about being able to sleep at night, even knowing there are people on the internet who hate you more than life itself. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There is no question that MBisanz is very intelligent and highly dedicated to Wikipedia. On the other hand he is still a rookie admin and needs to gain maturity and judgment. Someone noted that MBisanz is a "process wonk" and therefore suitable for the job. Well, yes and no. I get the impression that he views himself as some kind of "Special Counsel" like Kenneth Starr or Patrick Fitzgerald, a white-hat figure rooting out evil and corruption where he finds it. Except that no one appointed him to such a position. Examples of where he takes this approach too far can be found in the current "Date delinking" Arbcom proceeding. There, he vastly overstepped the bounds of the case, casting a net as wide as Lake Erie, dragging in wholly unrelated "civility violations" and accusing an editor in good standing of sockpuppeting when there were perfectly innocuous explanations for that editor's multiple accounts, that MBisanz could have found out easily by raising the issue in private with the editor beforehand.
I believe that MBisanz has the potential to become a fine admin one day and subsequently merit consideration for taking on additional responsibilities within Wikipedia, but not yet.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Just a comment that before I presented the evidence on the sockpuppetry accusation, I did seek, and was granted, permission from arbcom that a public presentation of the connecting evidence did not violate the privacy policy and was not an inappropriate addition of evidence. MBisanz talk 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Whilst I have not the slightest doubts about Matt's integrity or ability, I do believe that we would be better served if oversighters were people who were less active at AFD closure. Mayalld ( talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I really don't understand this at all. -- Deskana (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I added a separator as I do not think this has anything to do with our dialogue above. I believe Mayalld's concern is that highly privileged users may add a new dimension to the "delete with extreme prejudice"/"salt the earth" memes of AFD. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • The question has already been asked of me at my talk page. Charlotte sort of gets to the niggle that I had. Basically, I was questioning whether the person who effectively decides whether an article is deleted or not in a significant number of cases should also be deciding whether to very permanently delete some revisions. My thoughts were centred around a vague belief that we should avoid concentrating the deletion decision process in a single pair of hands, but my belief was tempered by a confidence that Matt would be a safe pair of hands if we did so. I suppose that when it boils down to it, I'm concerned in general about people who close a lot of AFDs oversighting, and wouldn't expect to see it often, but Matt is the exception to my concerns, and as such my vote may seem perverse. I promised to sleep on it, and have done so. My oppose isn't well founded, and I withdraw it. Mayalld ( talk) 07:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Trust, good judgment, and temperament are paramount qualifications for any grant of power here, as well as in the real world. Without those, all the other qualifications, such as experience, policy knowledge, technical ability, language—all of which are learnable—matter not. I know Matt and have no problem trusting him to do the right thing, including in those issues with a potential or perceived COI. I also believe he has the ability and experience needed. As to the policy/process vs. content issue; we can't collaborate on a project this massive without process, leavened with common sense and judgment, as one means to facilitate good content. — Becksguy ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of MBisanz

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Strong support – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Avi ( talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. BJ Talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Mr. Z-man 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Khoi khoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Kuru talk 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Leave Sleaves 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. rootology ( C)( T) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Explodicle ( T/ C) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Bidgee ( talk) 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. DGG ( talk) 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. John Reaves 07:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Orpheus ( talk) 07:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Strong support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Strongest Support Fritzpoll ( talk) 09:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Patton t/ c 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Jack Merridew 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. — Jake Wartenberg 13:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. — Aitias //  discussion 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Wily D 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Guy ( Help!) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. لenna vecia 15:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Andre ( talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    -Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support -- ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support - Dreadstar † 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Richard 0612 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Hús ö nd 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Little Mountain 5 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Syn ergy 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Sarah 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    - Reallikeunreal ( talk) 12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Protonk ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. -- Oxymoron 83 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. arimareiji ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. The Helpful One 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Agathoclea ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support Guest9999 ( talk) 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Support David in DC ( talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Dmcdevit· t 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. – wodup – 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Support, per above. -- BozMo talk 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Sam Blab 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Support Alansohn ( talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Support Bearian ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. Step hen 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. David Shankbone 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. Dbiel ( Talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Support Mayalld ( talk) 07:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. Kennedy ( talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Support -- J.Mundo ( talk) 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Support CWii( Talk| Contribs) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84.  GARDEN  23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. Support Full confidence. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  86.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  @en.wb 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. Spencer T♦ C 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  88. Maxim (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  89. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  90. Support {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 16:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Becksguy ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  92. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  93. Support Graham 87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to MBisanz

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Chick Bowen 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Everyking ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Noroton ( talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Joe 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. JayHenry ( talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Grace Note ( talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Davewild ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Giggy ( talk) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Conti| ✉ 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Tex ( talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Majorly talk 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Strong oppose. Alansohn ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Alansohn ( talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. -- Caspian blue 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Sceptre ( talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. seresin (  ¡? )  20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Strongly Secret account 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Herby talk thyme 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Weak Oppose Mayalld ( talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) changed to support Mayalld ( talk) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Seraphim ♥ 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose- Dureo ( talk) 09:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 14:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. RxS ( talk) 17:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Enigma msg 22:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Alio The Fool 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn candidates

Dweller

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

I'm afraid a RL crisis prevented me withdrawing before the election began, as I had decided to do yesterday. I have agonised over this decision - some of those agonies can be seen at User:Rlevse's talk page.
The ArbCom nomination was a tremendous surprise to me and flattering, but I have three reasons for declining for now.
For one, my editing time is limited currently and I'd rather concentrate it on my Crat duties, as we're so short on Crats and, my first love, developing quality articles.
My second love is helping others, which is why it's a shame I'm withdrawing this time. I have a fierce desire to assist good faith editors (witness, for example, my work at the Ref Desks) and privacy issues are key to this, especially since becoming a Crat and helping with username changes, and because so much of my mainspace work is on biographies, where I've developed a finely tuned appreciation for WP:BLP issues. Perhaps a future occasion will have better timing for me.
Oh, and one other thing - there are some outstanding candidates on this page, so I don't feel a pressing community need to keep my hat in the ring.
For now, I thank ArbCom for their faith in me and apologise for wasting anyone's time by being late with this statement. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

Comments and questions for Dweller

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Tentatively oppose, awaiting statement - perhaps he forgot the elections begin today? Otherwise I trust him, but I need to know why he feels having oversight will benefit the project. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Allow me to publicly apologize for not recognizing your editing accomplishments in my recent comments on Wikipedia Review. If you were still running you would have my vote. Cla68 ( talk) 06:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Dweller

  2. RMHED . 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Majorly talk 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Mattinbgn\ talk

Votes in opposition to Dweller

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose JayHenry ( talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Chick Bowen 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. BJ Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. — neuro (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. rootology ( C)( T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Andre ( talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

Lar

I am being blackmailed by User:Proabivouac. There really is no other word for it. It started last year, when I refused to assist him with a block he had received, and has escalated. He's apparently shopping various insinuations around (as I have been told by more than one person who has received them or seen them). He's mailed me making threats, veiled, and not so veiled, and he has mailed my wife as well. He spread the material around during the recent arbitration case, and on February 7th, he tried to spread the same innuendo and rumor on this page.

I got a note yesterday from someone I trust that was contacted, relaying a threat (from Proabivouac, as before) that if I didn't drop out, Proabivouac was going to continue trying to publicise his allegations. I have not directly seen them myself but I have some inkling of what they are.

There is a lot of falsehood, innuendo and distortion in what he appears to be alleging. But the allegations are built around a grain of truth: I've met Wikipedians. I travel a lot, and I make it a point to meet as many people from my hobbies as I can. I did this in my LEGO hobby and I do it in this hobby too. That much is true. But his insinuations are damaging because they allege more than innocent meetings, because they add the whiff of scandal, and because one cannot prove the negative. I had hoped that with the conclusion of the recent arbitration case, that he would stop, but he has not.

I do not give in to blackmailers. However, while I think this nonsensical innuendo about my personal life is just that, nonsense, and has no real bearing on my ability to effectively carry out the oversight role on en:wp, as I already do on many other wikis, it erodes trust.

The position of oversight requires a great deal of trust. If a significant segment of the community does not have trust in an oversighter, whether the reasons for that are valid or not, the oversighter cannot be effective in their role. Alison changing her vote made me think long and hard about this. It is apparent to me that there are those I respect who do not have this trust, and I would rather not serve in this role if I do not have it from the vast majority of folk.

Trust in this role is paramount. Without it, the role is purely ceremonial and I have no interest in that, I didn't request the role to collect flags. Therefore, while I would like to thank everyone who supported or opposed me and everyone who took the time to comment, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration for en:wp oversight at this time. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

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

I expect most folk know who I am... I've been an en:wp admin since May 2006, an en:wp CU since August 2007 (also holding CU, by election, on Commons and Meta), a steward since December 2007 (I'm currently up for reconfirmation, by the way), and an oversighter on Commons since January 2008. ( Herby and I were the first, and we've subsequently lost Herby's services and added Raymond and Rama). I briefly held elected Oversight on Meta, but the community has since decided to allow all stewards to perform oversight as needed. I've performed oversights on many other wikis in my role as a steward as well.
I'm asking for oversight partly because I want to help out, time permitting (although I have a lot of other tasks I focus on as well, I know I will be able to help, especially with crosswiki matters) and partly because I think oversight of oversight is a good thing. On Commons, we implemented a "always review each other" policy, every request is shared with the other oversighters when (or before if it's at all unclear what the right thing to do is) it's handled and that has worked well. Perhaps en:wp is too big for telling every oversighter about every oversight as it happens, but some review is a good thing. The review panel proposed is goodness but more is better.
I believe I have the sensitivity and discretion necessary to be a good oversighter at en:wp, as I am elsewhere already. I hope you'll consider giving me your support. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Lar

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This was a hard nut for me. Lar is obviously trusted, IMO. However I supported Lar, because of his approach, and that I believe oversight is something that requires a calm balanced person, not taking actions too quickly, and sensitivity. Lar has it all. Having a cross-wiki oversighter, and previous experience makes me support. My only concern would be having too many tools, and not using them. Though Lar resigned as a Wikisource admin because of inactivity issues. All these factors up makes me want to support. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For what it's worth, Lar is one of the few candidates in this election who has actually spent some serious time writing a top-quality article. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Lar was one of the admins who was willing to touch WP:SRNC. Also being a steward, this reflects that he is more than qualified for the position. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The others above say it well. Lar is an obvious support for me - highly civil, responsible, and competent. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • General question: Don't stewards get automatic oversight privileges on -en, if an oversight or checkuser is not immediately available? miranda 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • No. Majorly talk 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Majorly is correct. More detail: It has to be temporarily flipped on using m:Special:UserRights. And it has to be an emergency. And unless there were no other stewards about who aren't "homed" here, and it was dire, it would not be me. The en:wp specific policy in this area was previously somewhat ambiguous, if I recall correctly, but it was properly tightened. As I said in my statement, I'm standing partly because there's a stated need that I think I can fill, and partly because I have Oversight just about everywhere else, but would like to explicitly have it on my home wiki, for the review purpose I gave. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing whatsoever against Lar, and I hope he doesn't take this personally, but I am opposing. He's already a checkuser and steward. As a matter of principle I'd rather have separation of powers, rather than a few who do everything. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • No I'm not at all offended that you're concerned about separation of powers, (you should talk to Commons:User:Marcus Cyron some time :) ). It's a valid concern although I don't see it as really pressing in this particular case, as I explained above, However since I think there are some very eminently qualified other candidates in the running... should the community decide they'd rather I didn't have OV, the wiki will still be OK and so will I. (I think it likely I will vote for all the other candidates, if only to show I'm in full support of their candidacies) Hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • As someone who has both CU and OS rights (normally!), it is a great help in some CU investigations to have OS rights. Indeed, I would give everyone who has CU the OS right for this very reason. I don't see them as separate roles but as complementary ones. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose due to excess number of roles. Lar knows what I think of him in general. Giggy ( talk) 10:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • And here I am. Sorry Lar - you know my opinion. You will be elected as Steward in some days. My vote will you're election here not prevent. And I understand it, you are a good man. But - you know. In my opinion you have enough power. Even the best of us could break under too much power. Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Before/if you are given the oversight facility, will you make an email address you will use solely for this purpose or for checkuser and admin purposes, as what was your previous email address is not secure for people to write to, as several people including the arbs themselves well know?:) Either that or make sure your current email address is no longer being checked/read, as you know it is or was? We shouldn't be dismissive of user's desire for privacy and confidentiality, so if you are elected to this, or even if you simply continue as a checkuser/admin, you should have an email address which isn't being checked by someone who hasn't been elected by the community and that those writing to you don't know may be reading what they think they are telling you privately. I'm not talking about the previous arbcom case, but in general. People writing to you in a checkuser or oversight capacity especially should be able to be as certain of this as is in the CU/Oversighter's power, that people's info isn't knowingly risking being read by someone they didn't think they were writing to, or who isn't in a similar level of elected/employed wikiauthority, at the very least. It's not too much to ask. :) Sticky Parkin 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I treat all WMF related matters with the appropriate level of confidentiality. Always have, always will. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • How about your wife, no offence to her, I can completely understand her reasons, but plenty of people know she can check your/what was your primary or sole email account whenever she wishes, and read any mails that reach there which she chooses to read. No offence to anyone but those sending you communications will not be expecting that it will be read by anyone else except other individuals in the wikihierarchy at the most. So please will you make an email addy solely for oversight, checkuser or admin matters as well as your other one, or in some other way remedy that situation so user's correspondence about oversight matters are more likely to be read solely by people they believe they're talking to about what might be very private details? Sticky Parkin 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • You know, asking about sending him very private details that his wife shouldn't see could be misconstrued... just saying. ^_^ arimareiji ( talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Lol, if you are joking ha ha :) but I don't think it's a matter to joke about when I was talking specifically about oversight and checkuser and that people should expect their private info to go only to the person who has been voted by the community to deal with it, and other wikihierarchy members on a need to know basis. The more leaks, regardless to whom, of such info, the more chance of the process not being secure. Sticky Parkin 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Sticky: My wife's honesty, integrity, and discretion are beyond reproach, and the aspersions you appear to be making are entirely unwarranted. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, in your opinion, but others may not share your opinion on that, and thus SP has a valid point. Giggy ( talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Whenever a community elects a married person, there is a certain level of trust they have to, unavoidably, extend. They have to trust that information doesn't get improperly disclosed. That's what it really comes down to. I have been married longer than some of the folk commenting here have been alive. I could set up a new email, but then the community would be trusting that I could keep that email a secret. And that's just not workable. We have a large number of folk who are married, folk who are in long term committed relationships, and the like, holding various roles with more responsibility than editor within WMF. Hundreds, if not thousands, across all the wikis, and they all are in similar situations. This same trust question exists for each and every one of them. If this community does not trust me, that is their perogative, and their right, and I will accept that decision. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In theory, Sticky has a point. But if Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, I damn sure hope it isn't the CIA either. ^_^ These aren't matters of national security we're talking about... they're matters of who edited what, when, why, and how many socks they were wearing at the time. If Lar ever has a CoI wrt this role in a matter that affects his wife, I have complete faith that he would recuse himself. I find it hard to imagine a case where more than that would be needed. arimareiji ( talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Separately, I vote to clone Lar. arimareiji ( talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Lar should not be striking out votes on his own nomination. Someone else should deal with any invalid votes. Everyking ( talk) 06:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I struck a support. I'll leave striking opposes to others but really, dinging me for striking a support? That's a bit of a stretch. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Lar is untrustworthy and two faced, hence my oppose. (as contrasted to the "love-in" above, from editors whose fawning over Lar is deeply concerning and who evidently have not done their homework on this, shall we say, "character".) Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Lar

  2. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Privatemusings ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Cla68 ( talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support -- Avi ( talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. Hermione 1980 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Ty 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. BJ Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Chick Bowen 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. -- S [1] 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Mr. Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Viridae Talk 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Majorly talk 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Kuru talk 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. rootology ( C)( T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Prodego talk 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Support Glass Cobra 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Avruch T 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Bidgee ( talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Noroton ( talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Joe 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. DGG ( talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support. Biophys ( talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. John Reaves 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support: -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Strong support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Strong support -- Herby talk thyme 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. — Ruud 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. — Jake Wartenberg 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. — Aitias //  discussion 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. -- Conti| ✉ 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Tex ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. لenna vecia 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. arimareiji ( talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. SF3 (talk!) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support -- B ( talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Little Mountain 5 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    RoscoHead ( talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    User does not have 150 mainspace edits prior to 31 January 2009 per requirements of election and thus is not eligible to vote. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Support - switching to 'oppose'. Sorry, Lar - Alison ❤ 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Support -- Dycedarg ж 03:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. CComMack ( t– c) 04:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. AniMate talk 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Geogre ( talk) 12:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. shoy ( reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Strong support. Has my esteem and trust. I like the idea of oversight of oversight. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Syn ergy 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Agathoclea ( talk) 00:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. Hobartimus ( talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Lar

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. RMHED . 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Everyking ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. — Sandahl ( talk) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Grace Note ( talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Giggy ( talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. -- Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. THE GROOVE 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Guettarda ( talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Davewild ( talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Regretfully -- Caspian blue 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose Sarah 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — CharlotteWebb 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. -- Oxymoron 83 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose - Alison ❤ 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Icewedge ( talk) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election&oldid=308512455"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and English Wikipedia community have developed a process for the vetting and election of CheckUsers and Oversighters. The governing policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections. The archived discussion is contained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments. Please note that as this is the first election of CheckUser and Oversight on the English Wikipedia, the policy may need to be tweaked in the future.

Both positions require great trust, integrity, and reliability. The applicable policies are: Wikipedia:CheckUser and Wikipedia:Oversight.

Election process
  • The February 2009 election will run for ten days, starting at 00:01 (UTC) on February 6 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on February 15, 2009.
  • For this election: there are 3 open CheckUser slots with 6 vetted candidates and 4 open Oversight slots with 7 vetted candidates.
  • Voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish and must have made 150 mainspace edits by January 31, 2009.
  • Current arbitrators and former arbitrators from within the past year may not vote.


CheckUser candidates

east718

Hi! I'm east718, and I've been an administrator on the English Wikipedia since 2007. I didn't plan on running in this election, but was drafted in late 2008 to stand in it. I'm pretty humbled that the Arbitration Committee has placed enough trust in me to consider me for the checkuser tool; if the community also chooses to do the same, I will not betray their trust.

Since early 2008, I have gained experience working behind the scenes with checkusers and helping them solve nasty cases involving long-term abusers, especially abusers who are intelligent enough to take steps to conceal themselves. A couple examples that jump to mind are myself and Dmcdevit working together for several months with the goal of removing a single person from the project who was using multiple accounts to abuse our consensus-based decision making process in an effort to insert pedophilia advocacy into articles; more recently, I have been assisting Rlevse with several cases that are difficult to crack without extensive technical and behavioral analysis.

My main contribution to the checkuser team would be bringing the broad technical skills that I have to the table and continue assisting other checkusers, but in a more effective manner with access to the tool myself. Sometimes, sockpuppets like Bassettcat or Archtransit fall through the cracks for months; I suspect that incidents like this would be isolated with more checkusers reviewing each others' work. I also intend on dabbling in WP:SPI and the Augean stables of countervandalism, since the tedium and repetition involved with the territory is not a problem for me.

I understand that checkuser is to be used only to prevent disruption—obviously, use of the tool to intimidate others or attempt to gain the upper hand in an editorial/internal dispute is verboten. I don't think you'll have to worry about that with me though: I respect all editors and their privacy, and I strive greatly to treat them in a professional manner. I have never abused my admin tools, and I have never attempted to use the bit as a bully pulpit.

As for the legal stuff, I'm an adult who's willing to identify with the foundation, and I'm not one of those careless people who think that they're not responsible for their actions on the internet just because they have a shield of pseudonymity. I have no problem with losing my own pseudonymity, and if my real name, employer, etc. are disclosed, I do not foresee it impacting my service to Wikipedia. I'm familiar with both the English Wikipedia's checkuser policy and the global checkuser and privacy policies, including the six "safe harbors" for releasing information derived from confidential system logs. While I have never been particularly enamored with the "rules" when it comes time to put in work for the encyclopedia, I plan on holding the aforementioned ones sacrosanct. The privacy of editors is nothing to trifle with.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and for any advice or comments you'd like to leave. — east718 | talk | 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for east718

This page is protected, probably to prevent early voting. Unfortunately, this also restricts editors from asking questions of me; if you wish to do so and cannot, please post it on my talkpage and I'll move it over here provided the arbs don't have a problem with it. — east718 | talk | 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not active enough IMO. Mr. Z-man 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm opposing primarily per Majorly and Acalamari. Also, I find that East occasionally lacks tact when dealing with dramatic incidents. Sorry, but I just don't believe he is quite suited for checkusership. No hard feelings, mate. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • East is extraordinarily technologically capable, and I've always found him to be trustworthy. Glass Cobra 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • East718 claims he has never abused admin tools; however, this is totally untrue. Almost a year ago, in collaboration with a now-banned editor, he decided, without any consensus or approval whatsoever from anyone, to add several thousand null revisions to the Main Page. This, as developer Tim Starling pointed out, was a complete abuse of tools, and he should have been desysopped for it. East718 also runs several unapproved admin bots. I shudder to think what plans he has for Checkuser, where most people can't see what he's getting up to.
  • Additionally, I find his attitude to be fairly smarmy. I don't consider him at all approachable for issues, and he would make a terrible Checkuser. Majorly talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Is the bullet above from you? Can you add diffs as relevant? Thank you. -- B ( talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly: see User:Acalamari/CU-OV_February_2009#East718. Acalamari 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Aren't you the one who was tag-teaming with Betacommand? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Dealt with them often, always seems objective and fair. -- Nate
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk)
  • Behavior in Nov–Dec 2008 suggests an uncareful approach to user privacy issues. — CharlotteWebb 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, I found him a few times and he was always fair -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I am opposing due to his use of unapproved admin bots.-- Rockfang ( talk) 01:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Synergy

Some dubious – discuss may feel you are too "behind the scenes" (taken from your statement). What assurances can you provide that you will be more open to discussion, or likely to be more active on-wiki? Syn ergy 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I am always open to discussion of my actions, and have always campaigned for more criticism of administrators' actions - without criticism of our behavior, how are we to become better at what we do? On-wiki discussion is strongly preferred by me to email/IRC/whatnot, unless there's a specific reason to avoid it, such as dealing with grave harassment of editors or discussing material that's governed by the privacy policy. (Or, just for idle banter in the vein of #wikipedia-en, which would be a misuse of project resources if it were on some talkpage.) In the two cases I mentioned, pedophilia advocacy has always traditionally been handled by ArbCom and admins working closely with them, and the sockpuppeteer that Rlevse was targeting is very intelligent and subtly disruptive (think Robdurbar or Archtransit). On-wiki discussion may not be prudent in the latter case because of both the privacy aspect, and the possibility of the sockpuppeteer catching on and changing their style up. I think these are acceptable instances where private conversation among a small group of admins or checkusers would be acceptable. My current six week long period of inactivity is involuntary and is because of computer downtime; I don't edit from work. I was averaging around 400 edits a month for 2008, it's up to you to decide if that's active enough. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Apologies. I meant specifically with respect to cases for which this tool would be requested, and not in general (i.e. WP:SPI). Syn ergy 01:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Question from Shalom

Dear East.718, I have a question regarding your checkuser candidacy, but I'm not sure how best to ask it because I'm not really supposed to be here anymore. So I'll just ask and let you decide how to answer it.

I am best known as Shalom Yechiel ( talk · contribs) and also used some other accounts. I did "right to vanish" last week and am no longer active. My concern relates to a comment you made at my RFA last summer.

Let me state (especially to certain others who may be reading this) that I'm not upset about your RFA vote, your opinion or anything like that. I emailed you afterward, you didn't respond and I left it there. You stated erroneously that I had vandalized Wikipedia during a previous RFA, but you were just parroting someone else's error so I'm not blaming you for that.

What concerns me specifically is this sentence: "Look at it this way: I have no doubt Shalom is a great guy and wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer, but at the same time I wouldn't consider employing him."

Now I understand the context: an RFA is comparable to a job application in that a candidate must be vetted for competence and trustworthiness, and you didn't feel it appropriate to support me. Taken out of context, or just taken literally, it could be read in a much more sinister way, that you might actually not employ me for a job based on my Wikipedia actions. If that's what you meant, then I have reason to wonder if you should be learning private information about users.

My current location can be determined from my IP address signed to this post, and if I can trust your userpage we live in the same U.S. state and we share a professional interest in science. It's not entirely inconceivable that our paths might cross off-wiki at some point in the future, and if that were to happen I would be happy to meet you. I'm just worried that, if I take you literally, you might reject a hypothetical job application to work at your structural engineering firm in 2014 because I vandalized Wikipedia in 2007. Keep in mind that my real name is out there, and other private information about me is available on the checkuser email list.

If this sounds too much like I'm just complaining about myself, I'll ask you a different question: would you employ Gregory Kohs to a position where he is professionally competent, or would you hold his Wikipedia exploits against him? What about other banned users, or other users who are not banned but got into trouble? Can you separate your private, confidential knowledge about users from any possible future real-life interaction you might have with them?

Thanks for reading the question, and I hope you will have a good response. 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Shalom. I'm going to focus mainly on your fear of retaliation... I'm afraid you just misunderstood. This is partly my fault since I didn't explicitly label my rhetoric as that, but what can I do now? The metaphor was for Wikipedia application only, in the sense that I would not hire a former vandal for a middle management position or security officer (a rough equivalent to an admin on enwp). I certainly wouldn't care about the hobbies of a potential colleague, - fucking around on Wikipedia in your spare time seven years ago isn't particularly concerning. Two other things to consider if your unlikely scenario ever pops up: 1/ it would be most immoral of me (not to mention probably illegal) to use privileged information from Wikipedia to make decisions on behalf of my firm, and 2/ I would recuse from making such a decision myself, since my perception of the applicant would be slightly colored.
Best of luck in college, and with whatever career path you decide to take. Send me mail if you'd like to chat or want advice on anything. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, East718. I was hoping you would answer something along those lines. I will not be voting in the elections, but you have answered my concern admirably. Good luck. 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from User:Sticky Parkin

Last year you were running a bot I think, I'm not sure if it was authorised, at least in about January/Feb last year, though it may have been later, I didn't keep up with what happened. What was your reason for running an unauthorised bot at the time, rather than getting it authorised? Do you have a rebellious streak, or feel the need to cheekily do things others who aren't in your clique might not know about? Sticky Parkin 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of east718

  2. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support Privatemusings ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. BJ Talk 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. THE GROOVE 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Glass Cobra 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. rootology ( C)( T) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Avruch T 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 07:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Jack Merridew 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. -- Nate 14 81 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Support لenna vecia 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. – Sarregouset (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Yup LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support - Tim meh ! 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support - Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ;) reply
  26. Dmcdevit· t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. -- Caspian blue 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Strongly Secret account 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support Bearian ( talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support-- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support - Showtime2009 ( talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Support - Iss246 ( talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to east718

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. RMHED . 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Majorly talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Acalamari 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Mr. Z-man 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose. Everyking ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose Prodego talk 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. miranda 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Little Mountain 5 02:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Noroton ( talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Joe 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. J.Mundo
  20. Oppose Ironholds ( talk) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Davewild ( talk) 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Weak oppose — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose -- Herby talk thyme 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose — Aitias //  discussion 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Stifle ( talk) 14:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Tex ( talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Welshleprechaun ( talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Sticky Parkin 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Spencer T♦ C 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. -- B ( talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Logos5557 ( talk) 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. CharlotteWebb 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Very weak oppose – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. shoy ( reactions) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Sceptre ( talk) 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Sandahl ( talk) 03:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Artichoker talk 16:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose.-- Crunch ( talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Opppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Step hen 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. —  TKD:: Talk 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose -- SimonD ( talk)
  52. Oppose - Philippe 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. FluffyWhiteCat ( talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. GRBerry 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Dlabtot ( talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. -- A Nobody My talk 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose Rje ( talk) 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58.  GARDEN  23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. McJeff ( talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose -- Rockfang ( talk) 01:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose - per tiptoey-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose Graham 87 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle

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

Here on en.wiki I have been an Administrator for close to six years and a Bureaucrat for close to five. In each of these capacities I consider myself fair-minded, level-headed and considerate. The integrity and success of Wikipedia is always at the root of my actions here.
Although I want to base my experience in Wikipedia on the tenets of making others feel welcome, creating a friendly environment, and forgiveness, I also accept the reality that a firm hand is necessary in disciplining people who won’t comply. Systems and policies are in place to deal with defiant people and hardcore vandals. I support the penalties issued by the community and/or ArbCom, and I do my part the help enforce them. For example, I have spent a great deal of time, research and energy over the past year to help contain the sockpuppetry charades of banned users Beh-nam, NisarKand and Tajik. Their relentless puppetry and edit wars sometimes occur faster than checkusers can keep up. I file appropriate reports, complete with evidence, and revert the edits in question. Through this experience I noticed that there was a need here for more checkusers – and that is what brings me here. I have the energy, the time, and the experience to be of use to Wikipedia in this regard.
I am familiar with the policies surrounding checkusers. I will not fish. I will not compromise privacy. If granted the responsibilities, I will use the tools only in extreme cases of disruption, sockpuppetry and vandalism. In regards to privacy and my potential interaction with personal information, I am a public school teacher. I am trusted with students’ mental and physical health status, criminal history and family situations. I review that information with complete respect to the individual and never compromise the information. Even though I would act as such on my own, I am actually bound by law to do so. I do not put myself or the school district at risk by compromising private information, and I will not put myself or WikiMedia at risk either. I respect privacy. I respect editors. I respect process. I respect policy. I have no history of abuse of power.
Thank you for your consideration. I welcome all comments and questions. I am happy to be a part of this process and to be working with you on Wikipedia. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments and questions for Kingturtle

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • A wiki-resume that could wrap around a city block. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My reason for opposition is, unfortunately, the same as Dan's support. "The reward for a job well done is three more jobs" is a philosophy that has served us terribly -- we have qualified candidates who do not have overfull plates. -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My opposition to Kingturtle is nothing in the slightest bit personal - all of my interactions with him have been very positive and he is an overall clueful and trustworthy editor. But occasionally I have some questions regarding his overall judgement when making a decision could prove to be unpopular - I feel he is a tad prone to "go with the flow", which I feel is undesirable for a checkuser (and a 'crat, but he has a fairly good eye for consensus so no problems here). Sorry, Kingturtle - nothing personal at all. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Very Strong Support. When I read about the position, KingTurtle was actually the first username that came to mind. KingTurtle has been an active administrator for some time who also aids in username migrations, so this would be a perfect addition to his user privileges. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk · contribs)
  • Too many hats, sorry. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not much experience in the field.-- Caspian blue 00:06, 7
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎#Kingturtle. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I will make every effort to make my CU activities transparent. There will be situations, though, in which privacy will trump publicity. Therefore, I am not willing to disclose publicly all my CU activities. In cases that I will not disclose publicly, I will certainly disclose to other CUs and/or ArbCom members. I will never take action without either the community, a CU or an ArbCom member knowing. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Mike R

What happened here [1]? Mike R ( talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

On 17 Jun 2008 2008 I emailed the ArbCom mailing list a letter requesting myself to become a CheckUser. I received an immediate response from a member informing me they received my request and were reviewing it, and to give them a few weeks. On 26 June 2008 Raul made the announcement you are citing, but I had never received word from anyone on ArbCom about such a decision or any other decision, before or after that announcement. I waited for an explanation or a decision, but I received no word at all from ArbCom. On 8 Dec 2008 I sent another letter of request to the ArbCom mailing list. This time I received a reply, and I entered into the process that brings me to this election today. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is useful to leave a paper trail. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Kingturtle

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support. Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support -- Avi ( talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Cla68 ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. Everyking ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Little Mountain 5 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Noroton ( talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Very Strong Support. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk · contribs)
  11. Joe 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Strong support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Davewild ( talk) 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Weak support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — Aitias //  discussion 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. -- Conti| ✉ 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. لenna vecia 15:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Andre ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Support Tim meh ! 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. 4I7.4I7 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Secret account 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Edit Centric ( talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Menti fisto 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support - Philippe 22:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Support Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Support Deb ( talk) 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support -- Sigma 7 ( talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support -- Kinston eagle ( talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Support — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Support Rje ( talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support Trusilver 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. CharlotteWebb 10:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support - AdjustShift ( talk) 14:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support Graham 87 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Kingturtle

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose — Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose JayHenry ( talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. RMHED . 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. BJ Talk 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Majorly talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Mr. Z-man 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose Prodego talk 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Grace Note ( talk) 08:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Cenarium ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Sorry. -- B ( talk) 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. -- Caspian blue 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. arimareiji ( talk) 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. shoy ( reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 04:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Step hen 06:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Oppose -- Saivash ( talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Ineligible to vote. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kylu

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

I have previously assisted checkusers here with cases, either helping compile contributions by different editors in an attempt to avoid having to use checkuser, or by checking IPs and ranges for various methods of avoiding scrutiny (TOR, open proxies, closed zombied machines).
I'm already familiar with the CheckUser tool itself from various non-WMF projects and assisting in its documentation and policy development. I have to admit that my approach to restricted access tools is a bit conservative: While I am a fan of transparency in the process, I'd prefer to expose as little checkuser-gleaned information as possible.
Thanks. :) Kylu ( talk) 02:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Kylu

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My reasoning (what in the world is wrong with explaining my vote below?): although she is less active at the moment, I have every confidence in her from past interactions. Even if she is not as active as others, this is an easy strong support because of the trust I have in her. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think she's going to be too swamped as it is with stewardship. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Don't really like the idea of dual positions let alone dual elections. Let's at the least add one job at a time shall we? -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Hah, I absolutely agree with disliking the dual elections. When I found out I was in this one, I wasn't happy with the timing. Kylu ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Kylu will soon become a steward, which is obvious at this point. Highly trustworthy and civil, Kylu has not shown me anything that leads me to doubt she will do a good job with the checkuser tool. Therefore, I am supporting. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Echo with the above. BTW, stewart =!steward. miranda 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Kylu is more of cross wiki person, who I think will be a great Steward, but less active on enwiki. Prodego talk 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • same rationale as Prodego.— Sandahl ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I tried to get Arbcom to appoint Kylu months ago. It's about time. Thatcher 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think this is a good idea, per Prodego. Giggy ( talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Seems to be the only candidate I fully trust with this tool. -- Charitwo ( talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I completely trust Kylu to use the CheckUser tools well and we don't have so many candidates for this post, so even though her activity on enwiki is not very high, I support. Cenarium ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • too many hats already (isn' t she going to be elected as a 2009 steward?)-- Caspian blue 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)(addendum) Oops, I see Thatcher's recommendation belatedly, and I was too quick for judging. -- Caspian blue 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Even though I see this as reduludent as stewards has checkuser access. Secret account 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Stewards are not supposed to perform local checks on a project where there are local checkusers. [2] This is such a project, so being a steward is not redundant with being a local checkuser. GRBerry 06:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#Kylu‎. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Checkuser requests that I perform will be either from a public forum (in which case they're already documented) or merely assisting another checkuser (in which case I consider the onus to be on the checkuser performing the check). In the event that there are other rules that are disclosed to checkusers from the ArbCom, I'll obviously perform under those as well.
Semi-relatedly, I would prefer to have a personal log of checkuser activities in my userspace, given allowance to do so, though I'd obviously limit it to my own checks and not post IPs or ranges, nor the names of non-matching users: If someone were to checkuser me against a vandal in pursuit of the vandal, I'd rather not have my name attached to them in any public way if I'm not guilty of it.
Lastly, the checkuser policy mandates having at least two checkusers per checkuser-having project to attempt to keep abuse limited. This is not an issue with this project, as we have quite a few users with checkuser rights, but instead we have a perception (valid or otherwise) that it's a power-centric clique. Why ask a clique to watch itself? Better to encourage adoption of a body like the WP:Review Board to do so instead.
While people enjoy being trusted, and it's nice to have such trust, you shouldn't be put into a position where that trust is required on your part, simply because there is no other alternative.
If you'd like a more detailed explanation, please let me know. Kylu ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds reasonable, sure. I've wondered at checkuser-performed blocks with, ah, less-informative block reasons myself. :) Kylu ( talk) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Kylu

  1. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Privatemusings ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Orderinchaos 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. BJ Talk 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Majorly talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Mr. Z-man 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Kuru talk 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Support – TheAE talk/ sign 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support J.delanoy gabs adds 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Support Little Mountain 5 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Noroton ( talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Joe 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Thatcher 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. PhilKnight ( talk) 04:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. John Reaves 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Davewild ( talk) 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Yes -- Herby talk thyme 09:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Jack Merridew 12:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 14:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. لenna vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support -- Charitwo ( talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Spencer T♦ C 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Cenarium (Talk) 22:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Support -- B ( talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Strong support - Alison ❤ 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Sarah 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Geogre ( talk) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Protonk ( talk) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support Captain panda 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. shoy ( reactions) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Tim meh ! 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Support▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Dmcdevit· t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Step hen 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Support Secret account 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Kusma ( talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Caspian blue 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. — Dark talk 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Support. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Support Saivash ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Ineligible to vote. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Lycaon ( talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Support Rje ( talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61.  GARDEN  23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Acalamari 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Apteva ( talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Support Graham 87 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Kylu

  2. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. RMHED . 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. JayHenry ( talk) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Khoi khoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Prodego talk 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose — Sandahl ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Giggy ( talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. — Aitias //  discussion 13:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. seresin (  ¡? )  20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. OhanaUnited Talk page 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Lucasbfr

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

Hi :)
I have been a Requests for checkuser clerk since its reorganization in early 2007, and I'm now clerking on the new Sockpuppet investigations process. To clear up any confusion, RFCU clerks only helped with formatting cases, archiving them and helping users at the time. We were not allowed to comment on the merits of cases. Helping on the hundreds of cases that are processed each year (My edit count tells me that I edited more than 900 times the RFCU page) allowed me to get a fine grasp on the checkuser practices on Wikipedia. I am also an ORTS volunteer (despite unfortunately not being very active there), where we sometimes have to deal with sensitive or private information.
For the policy part, I have always been interested in the privacy issues involved on Wikipedia, and I value my and other people's privacy very highly. I have therefore always kept an eye on the foundation's privacy policy. I know very well that the project needs to protect itself from abuse, but not at any price. I would for example strictly follow the guidances on IP addresses.
Technically, I am a Computer Science Graduate and I have been using whois, rdns and nmap often enough when considering blocks and unblocks to believe I am able to read them.
Finally, I wanted to stress that I'll be happy to help out but I know all the users that are being considered today, and I know they are all trustworthy. I rest assured the people who will be appointed will be good choices, whatever the results.
Don't hesitate to ask questions! -- lucasbfr talk 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Lucasbfr

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

First of all I'd like to apologize, this reply is going to be a mess. There are 2 types of "private" requests:
  • most of them are sent because a CU is available at a given moment or because the they know about the situation already. These are not logged because the CU either doesn't have the time to fill the form after the request has been completed, or doesn't feel filling the paperwork a second time (a reason must be filled for every check) will help for later checks. I think we should find a way to properly log them (even if I'm sure I am not inventing a new concept here).
  • some are sensitive: checking a known user can be lead to uncomfortable situations whatever the CU result, or a legitimate check can lead to unexpected results. A check might also draw attention to a someone being harassed or simply give too much technical details to an abuser. Many check results are relevant to the community to better understand a dispute, but some results are asked out of mere curiosity (joke accounts, anyone?). If someone screwed up, is it necessary to send him in the arena where the plebe is waiting with stones in their hands and asking for blood ;)? If the matter can be resolved privately and we can all go back at writing the encyclopedia, everybody wins. I like Deskana's "I know what you did last summer" testimony at WP:CHECK.
Keep in mind that even for public requests, results are sometimes not disclosed to the requestor for the same reasons.
I understand that you're concerned about CheckUsers abusing the tool and going for fishing expeditions in the dark. Fishing is bad because people are entitled to their privacy as long as they don't break rules. However, I don't think this is something that happens a lot (CheckUsers don't run around checking legitimate accounts for fun, same as Administrators don't block people for fun). Keep in mind that checking a suspicious account (mostly SPAs I guess) to find the master is not fishing. However asking for disclosing all checks or all results will lead to less privacy for our users, not more.
A last thought: many people criticized Deskana for releasing CU results last month. The check was justified, however I'm not sure releasing the results was a net benefit to the project, in the end. -- lucasbfr talk 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Wow, that was a long reply... tl;dr version: logging more things is a good idea, but logging every check would lead to less privacy without much benefit for the project. -- lucasbfr talk 08:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I know that feeling (I remember digging through block logs trying to guess who was targeted)! This is a good practice for most of the blocks and I'll try to do it when I can. However I know CheckUsers sometimes want to block an IP without revealing whose it is, and I wish to err on the side of caution as much as possible when releasing IP ownership informations. I guess this is something where I'll need to find a balance if I'm elected. -- lucasbfr talk 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Lucasbfr

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Strong support -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Arakunem Talk 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Strong Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Orderinchaos 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support. Hermione 1980 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. -- Avi ( talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. BJ Talk 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Cla68 ( talk) 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Majorly talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Mr. Z-man 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. MER-C 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support Prodego talk 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support Little Mountain 5 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Noroton ( talk) 03:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support – Capricorn42 ( talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support Ironholds ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Orpheus ( talk) 07:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Davewild ( talk) 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. X clamation point 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36.  Badgernet   ₪  12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Strong support — Aitias //  discussion 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. -- Conti| ✉ 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Stifle ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Tex ( talk) 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. لenna vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Strong support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Hús ö nd 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. — Snigbrook 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Cenarium ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Absolutely -- Caspian blue 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Syn ergy 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Alefbe ( talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Yes OhanaUnited Talk page 05:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support -- DFS454 ( talk) 14:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. -- Oxymoron 83 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. shoy ( reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support The Helpful One 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Tim meh ! 04:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Caulde 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Glass Cobra 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Support -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. -- Kubigula ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Step hen 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog M. se fâche( woof!) 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Secret account 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Sam Blab 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. -- A Nobody My talk 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. Kusma ( talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. utcursch | talk 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. Support. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. So Why 08:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Support Paxse ( talk) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Support Rje ( talk) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81.  GARDEN  23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Seraphim ♥ 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84. McJeff ( talk) 18:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. Support - MBK 004 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  86. Kralizec! ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  88. Spartaz Humbug! 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  89. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  90. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  91. Enigma msg 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  92. Support Graham 87 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Lucasbfr

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Minor oppose WackoJacko ( talk) 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Apteva ( talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

NawlinWiki

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

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, an active contributor since the spring of 2006, and an administrator since late 2006. Lately, I've been spending a lot of time dealing with serial vandals who create multiple accounts. In doing that, I've been relying on the assistance of checkusers (especially User:Alison, User:Thatcher, and User:Nishkid64), but I'd like to start pulling my own weight. Of course, I would be working with requests at WP:RFCU as well.
I'm familiar with WHOIS and other tools for identifying static and dynamic IPs, and am a pretty quick study as to any of the technical aspects of the process that I'm going to need to learn. I'm an adult and willing to identify myself to the Foundation. I have computer access most of the time, so I'll be able to deal with checkuser requests promptly. I will be careful to follow Wikipedia policies and to respect users' privacy in the use of the checkuser tools.
Finally, I agree with Lucasbfr that all the nominees here would be excellent choices. If it were up to me, I'd say that anyone on the list who gathers substantial support should be appointed. NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for NawlinWiki

  • One of Wikipedia's most active administrators. Deals with problems in a rational manner, and understands the CU process, which are pluses. However, his answer to the question above does not inspire confidence - there are times when circumstances related to privacy issues require checkusers to act in privacy. Therefore, I cannot support. Sorry, Nawlin. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've found his dealing with pagemove vandalism cleanup to be rather excessive and heavy handed: Doing unnecessary selective deletions on pages with hundreds of revisions to remove juvenile pagemove vandalism history entries and excessive semiprotection, semi-protecting articles for months, with indef move-protection after only 1 instance of pagemove vandalism and little or no normal vandalism. I'm somewhat worried he might use a similar heavy-handed approach to checkuser work. Mr. Z-man 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry. You're too heavy-handed in how you deal with certain issues - Alison ❤ 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Disappointed with the results here: see User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#NawlinWiki‎ for my reasoning. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I'm willing to disclose all requests (in fact, the easiest way would be to announce that I won't take CU requests by email, just by talk page post or RFCU). Not so sure about the second one -- if, for example, I'm doing a sockpuppet investigation and I checkuser an account which turns out not to be related, I don't see why that needs to be posted publicly. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of NawlinWiki

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Arakunem Talk 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support - Euryalus ( talk) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support Mattinbgn\ talk 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Chick Bowen 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Majorly talk 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Kuru talk 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Support Glass Cobra 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support Little Mountain 5 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Support – Capricorn42 ( talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. ~ mazca t| c 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. WWGB ( talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Support - Wysprgr2005 ( talk) 14:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Support - -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support -- Regent's Park ( Rose Garden) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- B ( talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Support -- Deadly∀ssassin 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support -- prashanthns ( talk) 14:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. Bearian ( talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support - Philippe 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Support Deb ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support Accounting4Taste: talk 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support -- Sigma 7 ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. A Nobody My talk 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Support Chergles ( talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39.  GARDEN  23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support eug ( talk) 09:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support Modernist ( talk) 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to NawlinWiki

  2. Oppose -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. BJ Talk 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. RMHED . 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. THE GROOVE 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. — neuro (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Mr. Z-man 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose Prodego talk 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose Ironholds ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Davewild ( talk) 08:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. X clamation point 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. – xeno ( talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. -- Conti| ✉ 14:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Cenarium (Talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Tex ( talk) 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose لenna vecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose - Alison ❤ 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. SF3 (talk!) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Caspian blue 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. shoy ( reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose Guest9999 ( talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. miranda 01:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Step hen 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Orderinchaos 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. 4I7.4I7 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Secret account 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose Rje ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Seraphim ♥ 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose McJeff ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose Graham 87 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Versageek

Versageek ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
On the boring facts side:

  • I've been an active user here on en.wiki for close to two years now, and an admin for slightly more than one of those years. (for the curious, my account was created sometime in 2004). I've been an OTRS agent since May 2007. I've been an admin on en.wiktionary since Sept. 2006. I've been a checkuser on wikiHow for ~2yrs, and a checkuser on en.wiktionary for ~4 months. IRL, my work involves diagnosing network and connectivity issues - so I'm familiar with the technical networking tools.

My Views:

  • I view CheckUser as a technical tool to help stop disruption. Experience on other projects has taught me that all CheckUser tool output requires interpretation based on both technical knowledge & awareness of the context in which the disruption is occurring. Between my IRL experience with networking, my experience with the CheckUser tool on other projects, and the time I've spent here on en.wiki - I believe I have the ability to handle this sort of task in the this environment.
  • I consider myself conservative when it comes to user privacy, and I would certainly adhere to the WMF's privacy policies and the project's CheckUser policies. I identified to the Foundation when I became a CheckUser on en.wiktionary last year.
  • I'll admit up front that there are folks on this list who have far more experience with our SSP/RfCU/SPI processes. (er.. well, all of them do).. The amount of time I have to dedicate to the project is limited by normal, real-life commitments. I spend my time where I feel I can be most useful - and spending time at SSP/RfCU/SPI without access to technical tools didn't seem particularly useful to me. Should I be selected, I will shift my project time into CheckUser duties & away from other things.

In case it isn't obvious, I hate writing about myself.. I like to think I'm much better at answering questions. If you'd like to get a head start, my talk page is over here. Thanks in advance for your consideration. -- Versa geek 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Versageek

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • This 'secrecy' thing is a bit complicated..
One of the things which prevents all but the most determined of our dedicated sockmaster corps from evading detection is a bit of opaqueness in the CU process. We don't tell all of our behavioral or technical cues because doing so would allow the sockmasters to avoid giving those cues.
I think that the sort of limited public logging you suggest would create more drama than it would prevent.. If the requests/results were logged without being accompanied by the reasoning behind the request, it would be a source for constant speculation and if we log the detailed reasoning, it removes the opaqueness and makes the tool less effective.
That said, I think that MOST requests should be made & handled on-wiki. There are two types of requests I'd be willing to take off-wiki.. one would be checks to stop currently active blatant serial vandals (we all know how they behave!) , and the other would be a very long, complicated request. In the latter case, I would post a summary of the request & my results on wiki. In anycase I would keep a personal log of everything I ran & and the reasoning for running it - in case my actions were called into question at a later date. I have no objection to having any of my actions reviewed by someone - but for the reasons noted above, I don't think that public logging of all requests is the way to go at this point in time. -- Versa geek 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, barring any need for extraordinary measures, it's certainly the practical thing to do! -- Versa geek 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Versageek

  2. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. Hermione 1980 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Chick Bowen 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Majorly talk 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. BJ Talk 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. — neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Mr. Z-man 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Kuru talk 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. MER-C 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. rootology ( C)( T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. miranda 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support Little Mountain 5 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Joe 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Noroton ( talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Davewild ( talk) 08:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Yes -- Herby talk thyme 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. لenna vecia 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Alison ❤ 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Cenarium ( talk) 22:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. shoy ( reactions) 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Syn ergy 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support.-- Crunch ( talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Strong Support -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Glass Cobra 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support. - Ken g6 ( talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. + Corpx ( talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Dmcdevit· t 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Support -- Acps110 ( talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Step hen 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Secret account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Sam Blab 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Support. Bearian ( talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support - Philippe 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. Alefbe ( talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support Rje ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  @en.wb 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Support Spencer T♦ C 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Support - of course, Eric Wester ( talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Support Graham 87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Versageek

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    minor oppose Chergles ( talk) 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oversight candidates

Daniel Case

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

I am honored to be nominated for this responsibility and to be among such other well-qualified candidates for the job. The community will be well served by whoever wins.

I have been a registered editor for about four years now and an admin for a year and a half. I have become active on Commons, and I have accounts, all under this name, at Wikiquote and Wiktionary and the French Wikipedia, all of which I use from time to time. I am active in the newly-formed Greater NYC Wikimedia Foundation chapter.

I have learned to balance editing and admin work: the former primarily on National Register of Historic Places articles, the latter on AIV, UAA, CAT:RFU and DYK. I describe what I do as administering (I hate calling it "administrating") from the front, and only involving myself in the drama at the back when I have to. Oversight is an extension of that, with the caveat that it is quiet work done in the dark for what most of the community must trust is the best of reasons. I have no reservations about doing it.

Besides my experience and policy knowledge, I have several years' experience in journalism and the attendant practical awareness of U.S. defamation law (I wrote the articles about the two most recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., if you really want to look) which I believe would be helpful in making the judgement calls involved in oversight.

Thank you for your consideration and the best of luck to whoever is the community's choice. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments and questions for Daniel Case

  • What is your reasoning for choosing not to allowing email to yourself? There are some subjects and issues that need to be conveyed privately, in my view. I thought that it was often part of administrator nominations that administrators should allow private access by email. And, in a checkuser role, are you meaning to preclude ever allowing anyone to contact you with confidential information? I don't understand prejudgement that no information can ever be confidential but important to discuss for some reason. doncram ( talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    It appears to me that Daniel has email enabled. Special:EmailUser/Daniel_Case. -- JayHenry ( talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I was not aware of that email interface. Then perhaps it has been available, but i have not known that all along. However, I've contacted Daniel approximately 3 times during the last two years requesting email contact, and he never replied. The effect has been to preclude contact and avoid the requested off-line discussion of matters which I never did state publicly. Has email contact been possible all along then, and if so, why not direct me to it? doncram ( talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, this was entirely a misunderstanding on my part, please disregard my question. doncram ( talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've seen Daniel Case around quite a bit, and I've always had a very positive impression of him. He is very responsible, trustworthy, and civil - one of Wikipedia's best administrators . He is worthy of our trust for oversight. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • A good and trustworthy admin who isn't already wearing lots of hats. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I really highly think of Daniel Case's contribution in general, especially his devotion for DYK. However when he proposed an infinite ban for Kurt Weber, the canvassing to one of editors who harassed the user really disappointed me a lot. Oversight should go to others who can keep cool other let behind personal feelings.-- Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As with Lucasbfr standing for CU, Daniel Case is an excellent candidate for the permissions of oversight. Caulde 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
For inadvertently revealing their IP or other information that could be used to identify them if they keep their identities a secret. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Daniel Case

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Ty 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. JayHenry ( talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. — neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. rootology ( C)( T) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Little Mountain 5 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Noroton ( talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Royal broil 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. DGG ( talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support-- Tinu Cherian - 08:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Davewild ( talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25.  Badgernet   ₪  12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- Doug Coldwell talk 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. WWGB ( talk) 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. — Aitias //  discussion 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. لenna vecia 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Sure. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Majorly talk 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support prashanthns ( talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. arimareiji ( talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. -- El on ka 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Glass Cobra 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Protonk ( talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Jamie ☆ S93 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support -- Polaron | Talk 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. seresin (  ¡? )  20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Cla68 ( talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. – wodup – 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support -- Mblumber ( talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Secret account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Sam Blab 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Caulde 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. - Philippe 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Step hen 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support - chaser (away) - talk 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. David Shankbone 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Support Rje ( talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. iride scent 20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. CharlotteWebb 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Elbutler ( talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Enigma msg 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Support Graham 87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Daniel Case

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Law shoot! 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Xasodfuih ( talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

DerHexer

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

Hello, I'm DerHexer! You might conclude from this text that I'm not a native English speaker. I started editing the German Wikipedia in September 2005, and became a sysop there in October 2006. Two months earlier, I had joined this project, and I became a sysop here in July 2007. Five months later I was elected as a steward. Being a steward, I had to deal with some oversight requests on different wikis—whether declining the request or carrying it out, so that I think that I'm a bit experienced with the role. But normally I fight vandalism, block open proxies and delete nonsense on many projects. That's why I made about 170,000 edits and 300,000 log actions (75,000 resp. 140,000 here on en:wp).
But in my opinion stats are not so important; an oversighter should be available via mail(ing list), IRC and preferably OTRS, and though my studies prevent me from editing here as I did some months ago, I'm daily available via these three communication systems for some hours. I would help out as much as I can if I were elected, but it's at least an honour for me to be on this list with all these excellent candidates. Whomever you consider to be the best choice, I'll thank you for your participation in this election. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for DerHexer

  • Anyone trusted enough to be a stewart has my confidence as a checkuser oversight. Seriously, DerHexer does very good work on Wikipedia. He is demonstratably trustworthy. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • psst! this is for oversight, not checkuser. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks, but as you can see below, this thing is double-edged. — DerHexer  (Talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Whoops, fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. :) Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No objections to Der Hexer's worthiness, but am opposing as he's already a Steward I would prefer that these capabilities be spread over different people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    This argument is reasonable for me, because although I was not asked if I want or have time to do this job before this election page has been created, it was my decision to participate since I've added my statement, so that I'll have to bear the consequences now. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See Short Brigade Harvester Boris. Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • DerHexer, I really do hope you won't take my vote personally and there are hopefully no hard feelings on your part; I certainly appreciate you and your work. However, I simply think you're not active enough on this project resp. your activity levels tend to be instable/infrequent. Also, the areas in which you are active are quite limited. — Aitias //  discussion 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Well, it should be clear as mud that I can't be as active attending university than having vacations. ;) I nevertheless understand your concerns [and was a bit surprised that en:wp's arbcom nominated me], but in my [and maybe their] opinion it's more important for oversights to be daily available via IRC and mail (which I am) and know/respect the policies (which I have to do since I'm a steward). During my last vacation I created de:wp's former largest articles de:Ilias (= Iliad) which prevented me from editing here as much as I want and wanted. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009‎#DerHexer. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Under these circumstances, of course … especially 2b: "when the subject has specifically asked for the <potentially libellous> information to be removed from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision". 2a and 3 should just be done on the advice of WMF. 1(a) disallows to oversight these edits you've mentioned above: The user itself has published these informations. 1(b) is a bit tricky: The user who made the edit could request the removal of his edit because he might have seen, that he has published informations "of public individuals who have not made that personal information public". But though he might have seen that he added these informations [or got mail from this person to remove them] it might not always be obvious for oversighters: The "public individual" should better request the removal [on its own], preferably via OTRS. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 16:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I realize your English isn't perfect, but that's not an issue for me (neither is mine but I try). Just want to make sure I understand you correctly:

If I make an edit and later ask for it to be oversighted, you would do it if:
(a) My edit contained personal info of another person (but not if it was only info about myself), or
(b) My edit was potentially libelous (would this include libeling myself, or is that possible? If so, how would you define it? Would it include an edit which other users might use as the basis for potentially libelous statements against me?)
(c) No other cases (except possibly if I ask OTRS or the "Wikimedia Foundation counsel" a.k.a. Mike Godwin to make the same request to you on my behalf).

Is this correct? — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

(a) preferably requested by the "other person" itself (via OTRS, IRC, mail). I wouldn't say that I'd never hide revisions which were made by the requestor itself. There might be a reason to do that. But it normally does not fit into the rules (which is why I've had to deny some of these requests yet on other wikis, consulting with my steward fellows).
(b) it's always difficult to distinguish attack from libelous edits, imo. If you'd be (groundless) accused of child abuse, raping or things like these, it'd be advisable to hide these revisions when you request it. If you've said those things about yourself it'd possible, too, though I don't see a reason to tell those things about oneself …
(c) OTRS (contrary to the "Wikimedia Foundation counsel") has, according to m:Oversight, no power to direct those things. It's, imo, just a suitable way to handle requests. If Mike says that one revision should be hidden, I should obey, no matter what I've said before. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Regarding (b): OK, so let's say for example that a user makes a significant content contribution to the zoophilia article, then other people accuse this user of engaging in animal sex, so the user asks for it to be oversighted, would you consider this an acceptable interpretation of policy? — CharlotteWebb 02:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No, the zoophilia edit shouldn't be hidden, whereas the accusation of engaging in animal sex could be hidden, being a libelous edit. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, in this particular case the accusations were made elsewhere on the Internet, but thank you for your clarification regarding the edit(s) which triggered the accusation(s). Sorry if I jumped to unfortunate conclusions due to your broken English or my own mental state, not sure which. I'll support for now, but may oppose later if other candidates surprise me with better answers (don't take it personally). — CharlotteWebb 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Question from B

Around a year ago, you and I had this interaction on your talk page. The article in question has now been deleted, but at the time it was completely unsourced and contained little other than personal anecdotes about the subject, including one piece of potential libel. When I left you a friendly reminder to make sure that when you revert a blanking, that you don't inadvertently restore libel, your reply puzzled me and seemed, to me, to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the importance of the BLP policy. My question is this: is there anything that you would have done differently if you were encountering the Dan Motuliak article today as it existed as of your 2007 edit? What, if any, of it do you believe should be oversighted? Thank you. -- B ( talk) 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that seems to be a very unsatisfying answer which I've given to you, but it's difficult for me to excuse this now. I might have not understood you properly because my answer seems the be beside the point so that I'm bit puzzled now, too. :-/ In normally perceive my errors and apologize, as you can see on my talk page (archives). Regarding you question: "Biographies of living persons" is one of our [and that does not only include en:wp] most important policies. Coincidentally I had to deal with a similar case today on de:wp via OTRS where another editor and I cleaned up an article which consisted of non-reliable sources. I've especially learned while dealing with OTRS how important WP:BLP and its equivalents are and would react now in a different way: I'd tell the IP to send a mail to the OTRS system where mail traffic can be filed and volunteers daily deal with such cases. Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) P. S.: I'm not sure if I've understood "What, if any, of it do you believe should be oversighted?" properly. If any of its revisions would fit in these three categories, it should be oversight. reply
Regarding the question you aren't clear on, the point of it is to gauge your application of the policy applicable to the position you are seeking. If you were, right now, an oversighter and the request was made to oversight revisions that contained things like [3] and [4], what would you do and why? Regarding the rest of your answer, this article was so terribly bad that I don't even see a reason for the IP to contact OTRS - the article should have just been deleted or stubified on sight. -- B ( talk) 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Hmm, it seems to be a misunderstanding. I thought that you wanted a more general anwser than a case-related one … normally an IP should rather contact the OTRS than edit the article. That's what I wanted to tell. That'd be imo more promising, imho. In this case it is possible to add a (speedy) deletion template to or stubify this article [but that could be done by every user]. I would not delete it on my own, being involved in that case [whereas I generally prefer in such cases the four-eye principle]. Oversight actions are not justified with these edits as you can see on m:Oversight#Use: "Potentially libellous information [should just be deleted] when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be removed from the history". It could be possible that this IP was Dan Motuliak (as you argued for on my talk page), but I would even in this case recommend to the IP sending a mail to the OTRS where its mail address can be compared with Dans normal one. The article might get/be deleted during that time (as I said above). Kind regards, — DerHexer  (Talk) 10:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of DerHexer

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support Arakunem Talk 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support -- Avi ( talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Majorly talk 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. -- S [1] 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. — neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Support Prodego talk 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Noroton ( talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support Jauerback dude?/ dude. 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Davewild ( talk) 08:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. -- buecherwuermlein 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Stifle ( talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. لenna vecia 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support. -- Jo ( talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Little Mountain 5 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Captain panda 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Law shoot! 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. -- Oxymoron 83 18:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. arimareiji ( talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. The Helpful One 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support - shirulashem (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support -- Meno25 ( talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. - Philippe 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. CharlotteWebb 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 February 2009
  42. Support Jayen 466 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Support — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Seraphim ♥ 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support Trusilver 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Support -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support - MBK 004 14:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to DerHexer

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Everyking ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Rjd0060 ( talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. rootology ( C)( T) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. — Aitias //  discussion 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. -- Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Spencer T♦ C 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- B ( talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. seresin (  ¡? )  20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. A little strongly Secret account 14:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Xasodfuih ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

EdJohnston

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

I appreciate being considered for this role, and believe that everyone else on the list could do the job well too. I've been an active user on enwiki since September of 2006 and an admin since Feb. 2008. Before adminship, besides gnome and article work, I helped with informal mediation of a few messy conflicts. Since becoming admin I've spent considerable time at the 3RR board, WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and occasionally at the sockpuppet board. Due to my work at WP:COIN I've become aware of some of the issues around revealing personal identity. Since oversight requests could come from people inexperienced with Wikipedia, I imagine that oversighters are expected to have sympathy with the issues that new users could face. So this is in part a 'customer service' role.
The job of oversight seems likely to involve some judgment calls, where requests for removal may possibly conflict with policy. The fact that oversight decisions are made in private means that fewer people will be in a position to review what is done. I assume that oversighters who want to sound out others' opinions on any hard questions would ask on the oversight mailing list. (Posting your question at WP:AN for review would not be an option). EdJohnston ( talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for EdJohnston

  • Ed absolutely gets the importance of privacy and WP:OUTING, and knows when The Line has been crossed. He'll be an excellent Oversighter. Arakunem Talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Arakunem puts it well. I see no reason not to trust Ed. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think we all know that policy doesn't cover every type of situation that may arise, and sometimes policies conflict with each other. How would you handle requests for oversight that fall into one of these grey areas? That is to say, if policy is unclear on a matter, would you tend to interpret policy broadly or narrowly? Firestorm ( talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Since I've read nothing to the contrary, I assume that the community owns Oversight policy. Should the community become concerned about how oversight is being handled, they could open an inquiry. Without the give-and-take of actual discussion, and actual cases, it is hard to be sure what policy requires in borderline cases. I'd be unlikely to take on the role of the sole decider in a borderline case. If oversight-l is not a wide enough venue to get feedback, other ideas could be explored. Arbcom's opinion could be sought. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • So, what you're saying is that in a borderline case, you would consult others who have more experience in these matters? Just to make sure i'm parsing your response correctly. Firestorm ( talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, I'm seeing a need for the type of consensus that needs a 'discussion thread' to determine. For admin matters, the discussion thread can happen at WP:AN. For oversight, the discussion can't appear in public, so I think oversight-l is the appropriate venue. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Alright, that's good enough for me. I think you'll do a great job as an oversighter. Firestorm ( talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure why the candidate even needs the new tool since his admin-role area is mainly in the edit warring board. -- Caspian blue 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • See WP:COIN and it's associated talk page, where Ed is a fixture. All too often, COI is used by participants in edit wars to try to get their opposition removed. Many times, this also involves outing the other party to "prove" the COI exists. Oversight is a natural follow-on tool for such an admin to have. Arakunem Talk 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If it is not a bona-fide privacy issue, there ought to be a discussion somewhere before removing such an edit. If the user revealed his address or phone number, or something about his own life that most people wouldn't reveal, it might not be a hard call. Anything besides that, the opinions of others should be sought, perhaps on the oversight mailing list. If someone posts their email address, I've noticed that simply reverting the edit is often considered to be a sufficient response. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of things about one's own life that "most people wouldn't reveal". Aside from information which identifies the user (or makes it more easy to discern the user's identity or whereabouts), could you give some examples of other material you would be willing to remove? — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Offhand, I don't see WP:OVERSIGHT as mandating anything beyond personally identifying information. Can you think of anything else? The policy speaks of information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. I'm not trying to brainstorm anything, I'm specifically asking what you meant by "something about his own life that most people wouldn't reveal" which seems pretty open-ended, and the way you said "his own life" made me wonder if you had a specific user in mind. — CharlotteWebb 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry, that should have been 'his or her'. I was not thinking of any specific case. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Fine, back to original the question. There are literally thousands of details which "most people wouldn't reveal" about themselves. Real name and location are only a tiny subset of this. Where would you draw the line, and what standard would you use in balancing the letter of the policy with the safety concerns of the user who says "it was negligent of me to reveal this, please make it go away"? In which cases would you oversight without hesitation, or say "forget it", or just consider it on a case-by-case basis? — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sounds like this is moving toward a policy discussion. I'd be willing to discuss policy, but if your thinking is that current policy does not do enough to protect users who may possible be harasssed, then you'd need to persuade the community to change the oversight instructions. The phrase 'balancing the letter of policy with...' is the clue to me that you may actually want to change policy. (Oversighters are expected to follow policy, not make up the rules on their own). Clause 1 of WP:OVERSIGHT seems like it is most natural to read it narrowly (phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities). If I misunderstood your question, then please respond. If you have a specific policy change in mind, it should be discussed further. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You said "address or phone number, or something about [the user's] own life that most people wouldn't reveal", so I wanted to know what sort of personal information would be at the outer edge of your interpretation of policy as currently written. Sorry, I'm not trying to discuss a policy change. Actually when I said "the letter" I was alluding where it says "such as" followed by a paucity of examples, requiring the operator to estimate what other types of data would be comparable to these examples and thus removable based on "the spirit" of the policy. And, regardless of this, can you foresee cases where applicability of policy would be outweighed by genuine concern for the safety of the user? (I'm not concerned "normal deletion" would cut it in a serious case; apparently we have 1,623 admins—I'd personally be a fool to trust more than ten of them). — CharlotteWebb 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thinks clearly and is careful but decisive. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of EdJohnston

  2. Support Arakunem Talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. — neuro (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Noroton ( talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support. MER-C 08:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. — Aitias //  discussion 13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Davewild ( talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. SF3 (talk!) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Little Mountain 5 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Biophys ( talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Support. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. arimareiji ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. -- El on ka 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Giggy ( talk) 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. betsythedevine ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Versa geek 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Wasted Time R ( talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support-- BozMo talk 13:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Firestorm ( talk) 12:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 22:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Support☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Secret account 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support Rje ( talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Support McJeff ( talk) 18:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to EdJohnston

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. RMHED . 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. rootology ( C)( T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Majorly talk 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Caspian blue 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Secret account 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- B ( talk) 23:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Xasodfuih ( talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Tiptoety talk 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose, Dreadstar † 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Maxim (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Prodego talk 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

EVula

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

I have been an administrator on Wikipedia for more than two years. In that time, I've established an excellent track record of quickly and efficiently eliminating vandalism. I'd like to extend that to removing oversight-deserving edits. I'm familiar with the policies surrounding oversight, and have even made a few requests myself (which were always addressed quickly, but when dealing with personal editor information being exposed, faster is always better). I can easily be gotten hold of via email, IRC, or AIM, and my job keeps me tied to a computer (meaning that I'm able to jump on any requests regardless of what time it is, and I tend to work odd hours, depending on the project). I am over 18 and am already identified with the Foundation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for EVula

  • I stated both on his stewardship candidacy page and on his talk page that I would support his stewartship election were I to have suffrage. I certainly feel EVula has demonstrated the judgment necessary to handle the oversight right with care. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question: How can you use oversight in mainspace, when you have little mainspace activity? miranda 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Not the best way to make your point, when the answer is "Very easily". -- Deskana (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I addressed the question to EVula, but thanks for your comments. miranda 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • My current edit count via wannabe_kate is 28795. [5] Of those edits, 8981 are in the main article space; roughly 31% of my edits are in the main article space. Personally, I think that's a fairly good average; probably not the highest on Wikipedia, but article editing isn't some sort of "game" I need to win. Regardless of where the bulk of my edits lie, I don't think it has much bearing on removing copyright infringement, libel, or personal information quickly and quietly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I find that EVula has a long and varied history of all sorts of wiki-gnome work, both to articles and behind the scenes; rarely seeking drama or to draw attention to his contributions. Given that oversight is, pretty much by definition, a job that requires quiet discretion and generally receives little acknowledgement I think that his contribution pattern basically demonstrates exactly the attitude necessary... I can't personally see the relevance of large-scale mainspace contribution to the duties of an oversight. ~ mazca t| c 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Too much hats already. Besides, doesn't he be nominated himself for the 2009 steward election?-- Caspian blue 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Contact me if you want a detailed appose. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply


  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Pretty much only if it contained personally identifying information (since I'd be surprised if someone purposefully posted libel or a copyvio and then contacted me about it, though I'd obviously oversight those, too). If someone accidentally posted under an IP (and it was clearly tied back to them), or wanted to remove their real name from their userpage, I'd consider those to be valid examples. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#EVula. Acalamari 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of EVula

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Strong Support — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Strong Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. Hermione 1980 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. BJ Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Kuru talk 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. rootology ( C)( T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Noroton ( talk) 03:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Andre ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Davewild ( talk) 08:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Strong support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. ~ mazca t| c 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18.  GARDEN  11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Jack Merridew 12:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. — Jake Wartenberg 13:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Tex ( talk) 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. لenna vecia 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Majorly talk 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Richard 0612 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Hús ö nd 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Little Mountain 5 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Law shoot! 04:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Dreadstar † 06:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. arimareiji ( talk) 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Syn ergy 23:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. – wodup – 10:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Sam Blab 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Sticky Parkin 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. -- A Nobody My talk 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support. Bearian ( talk) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. - Philippe 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Yes - Royalguard11( T) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. -- chaser (away) - talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Strong Support -- Versus22 talk 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. David Shankbone 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Accounting4Taste: talk 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. CharlotteWebb 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Kennedy ( talk) 11:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Support Rje ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Strong Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Megaboz ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. -- Chasingsol (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Acalamari 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Enigma msg 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Support Graham 87 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to EVula

  1. Oppose. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Chick Bowen 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. THE GROOVE 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. — neuro (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Useight ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Prodego talk 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Biophys ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. — Aitias //  discussion 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Caspian blue 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 09:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. seresin (  ¡? )  20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Secret account 14:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Xasodfuih ( talk) 01:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Luna Santin

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

Oh, my. I had thought this might follow my October appointment to the checkuser role, somewhere down the road, but hadn't quite expected it to come so soon! Of the users likely to participate in this discussion, I imagine many of them will have seen me around the wiki over the past few years, and are already more or less familiar with what I do. To that end, I would prefer to offer my own record over any flowery statements. If the community feels I have the right mix of discretion and responsiveness for this role, I'd be honored to serve as best I'm able; if the community feels others are more suitable, or prefers to spread around these rights, I'm quite content to continue serving in my current capacity.

Aside from more obvious criteria, it may be worth factoring in when potential oversighters might be available, as far as timezones. How I'd fare in such a comparison, I don't know.

Whatever comes of this, thank you for your consideration. – Luna Santin ( talk) 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Luna Santin

  • Luna has demonstrated that he is a competent and trustworthy administrator and checkuser. I see no reason not to support him for oversight access. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In my experience, the candidate behaves inconsistently in an effort to keep the peace between different parties, rather than being prepared to take a principled stand [6], and hence fails the positions requirement - "Both positions require great trust, integrity, and reliability.". -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I believe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive465#Persistant misuse of the minor edit flag is the since-archived thread you linked in that diff, if anyone's interested in further reading. Not really sure how my behavior there indicates any of the shortcomings you've implied above, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Luna Santin

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. - ✰ ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. -- Avi ( talk) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. BJ Talk 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Khoi khoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. NeutralHomer • Talk • February 6, 2009 @ 01:38
  20. Majorly talk 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Terrillja talk 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Kuru talk 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. rootology ( C)( T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. miranda 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Prodego talk 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Glass Cobra 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Avruch T 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Noroton ( talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. DGG ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. John Reaves 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Orpheus ( talk) 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. 'Support : -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. MER-C 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Davewild ( talk) 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. -- M ask? 10:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. X clamation point 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Jack Merridew 12:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Strongest possible support — Aitias //  discussion 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Cenarium (Talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Guy ( Help!) 15:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. لenna vecia 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Andre ( talk) 15:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Richard 0612 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Hús ö nd 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. SF3 (talk!) 21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support -- B ( talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Little Mountain 5 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Strong support - Alison ❤ 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Strong support - Dreadstar † 06:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. — CharlotteWebb 10:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. -- Oxymoron 83 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. shoy ( reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. The Helpful One 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. seresin (  ¡? )  20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Dmcdevit· t 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Erigu ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. —  TKD:: Talk 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. Strongly Support Edit Centric ( talk) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. – wodup – 10:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. 4I7.4I7 12:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Secret account 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. Sam Blab 17:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Sticky Parkin 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81. Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Sandahl ( talk) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84. - Philippe 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. Step hen 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  86. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. Yes - Royalguard11( T) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  88. -- Herby talk thyme 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  89. Strong Support Mayalld ( talk) 16:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  90. -- JRSP ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  91. — Dark talk 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  92. Yes. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  93. Support David in DC ( talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  94. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  95. Support Rje ( talk) 21:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  96.  GARDEN  23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  97. -- Caspian blue 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  98. Support - Tiptoety talk 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  99. Support -- Tikiwont ( talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  100. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  101. Seraphim ♥ 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  102. McJeff ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  103. Support Trusilver 04:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  104. Support-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  105. Megaboz ( talk) 22:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  106. Support. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  107. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  108. Support - MBK 004 14:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  109. Support -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  110. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  111. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  112. -- Chasingsol (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  113. Acalamari 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  114. Support Graham 87 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Luna Santin

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- John ( Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog M. se fâche( woof!) 12:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Mailer diablo

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

I have been an active contributor since November 2004, and received my admin responsibilities in March 2005 - more than 4 years' of experience here. Last year I have also began volunteering for OTRS, dealing with various e-mails and at times involving personal information that has to be dealt in a sensitive manner.
The Oversight tool is meant to utilized for purposes of protecting fellow editors, the encyclopedia, and the Foundation from harm as swiftly as possible. I am familiar with the oversight policy that is set by the Foundation, and aim to further the good of the encyclopedia and privacy of fellow editors with this additional responsibility. I will also do my part in the tool's check and balances of auditing fellow OSers' actions. My geographical location is in East Asia, which provides a unique timezone (+8 GMT) where I can cover the duties of others while they are sound asleep in Europe or the Americas.
I'm Mailer Diablo, I hope you will affirm your trust in me, and I approve this message! - 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Mailer diablo

  • Mailer Diablo is one of the few candidates in this election who has written a Wikipedia article to top-level standard, in his case, two: [7] and [8]. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I have a few doubts, but Mailer Diablo is a highly trustworthy administrator. He outlined a very good reason for supporting in his statement above - his geographical location should make him available at times when other oversights are not. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Location, location, location - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Dan. Giggy ( talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for your question. (1) Personal information is accidentally revealed (e.g. IP address exposed when not logged-in; Poor Man's Checkuser comes to mind), and the user has no intention of making it public in the first place. [clause 1] (2) A user posting personal information of another editor, clearly against his/her will for this information to be kept private, later regrets the action and asks for removal. [clause 1]. For any other circumstances, the request would be forwarded to oversight-l for further scrutiny by the Oversight team to determine if the request can be acceded to, in compliance with Foundation policy. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
So if I understand correctly, in the event that a user has intentionally volunteered personally identifying information, but wishes to redact upon realizing it was a stupid idea to do that, you would not make the decision on your own but ask your fellow overlookers to reach a consensus whether or not to remove the edit. Would they not be bound by the same policies and counter-policies as yourself? — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
But I would be correct to assume that you would not consider removing (nor ask other oversighters to consider removing) a non-identifying edit on the basis that it is embarrassing (possibly related to cultural taboos, and/or lending itself to aspersions about the author's personal life, etc.)? — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
(1) They are bound by the same set of policies. I presumed that you meant the request is made by the editor directly to my email or via IRC, I apologize if I misunderstood - Most requests would and should have formally gone to oversight-l anyway. I am for removal in most cases, but I would also want to be sure that it removal would be as intended - to protect the editor and not allow evasion of other policies. My belief is that 2/3/more pairs of eyes going through the request is always better than one; That why oversight users have the feature to check each other's work.
(2) I personally wouldn't remove the non-identifying edit because it would not be in the interest of the editor; its removal might instead bring more attention (此地无银三百两) to it. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
"nothing to see here, move along" indeed. Muy bien, hoy fingiré que entienda chino. Thank you for your responses. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Mailer diablo

  1. Support — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  2. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Avi ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Ty 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Majorly talk 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Cla68 ( talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. rootology ( C)( T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Noroton ( talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Royal broil 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Sandahl ( talk) 04:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Ironholds ( talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Philosopher  Let us reason together. 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Support. MER-C 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Davewild ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. Support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. WWGB ( talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Giggy ( talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. -- Conti| ✉ 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Guy ( Help!) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Tex ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. لenna vecia 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. MBisanz talk 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Hús ö nd 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Cenarium ( talk) 22:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. — C.Fred ( talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Little Mountain 5 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. I'm ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ and I approve this message! 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. 我是 戴樂華- 我核准這個信息！ Strong Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Law shoot! 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. Support Graham Colm Talk 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. shoy ( reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Syn ergy 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. maclean 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Proofreader77 ( talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Dekimasu よ! 08:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. seresin (  ¡? )  20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. —  TKD:: Talk 07:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. – wodup – 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Secret account 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. Sam Blab 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support. Bearian ( talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Computerjoe 's talk 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Kusma ( talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Step hen 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Support Deb ( talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. -- Herby talk thyme 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. David Shankbone 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. CharlotteWebb 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. Approve message whatever the message is Chergles ( talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. Support Rje ( talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. -- Caspian blue 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. Shii (tock) 07:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. McJeff ( talk) 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Support - Just to be another flake in the snowball...-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81. Megaboz ( talk) 22:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Support - Dureo ( talk) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Support - MBK 004 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. -- Chasingsol (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) approves this message. reply
  86. Acalamari 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. Support Graham 87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Mailer diablo

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Gurch ( talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. RMHED . 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Mr. Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. - M ask? 10:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. — Aitias //  discussion 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. -- B ( talk) 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- A Nobody My talk 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

MBisanz

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

Hi, my name is Matt and I've been a Wikipedian since 2004/2005, an active contibutor since 2007, and an admin since Feb. 2008. I'm very active on-wiki, via email, IRC, and even Skype from time to time. In my time, I've requested Oversight, usually by email, for personal information I run across and have been very active in deleting private information in the File talk: namespace.
I understand that many times the people seeking oversight may not be familiar with Wikipedia or may be in under a significant amount of stress. Being able to kindly explain what information I need from them (page name, etc) and relate to their concerns is as important a part of the job as clicking the HideRev button.
I have a firm understanding of the oversight policy an its purpose on Wikipedia (to redact non-public personal information). I further pledge to not use oversight in situations I am involved in (such as an RFA I commented in or a content RFC I filed) and to report misuse of the tool to the appropriate people (Arbcom).
For those interested, I have OTRS access, have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, and am an admin on Commons.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this process, and feel free to talk page, email, or smoke signal me with any questions you prefer not to place on this page. MBisanz talk 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments and questions for MBisanz

  • I like that some people are making an attempt to explain their opposition, since comments in the voting sections are restricted, but if you're going to comment up here can you try to provide something that other people would find useful? A simple "I don't trust him" doesn't help anyone understand your thinking. Avruch T 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not trying to make others understand my thinking, I'm just making a note on each case where I vote as to why this vote was made. In this case I opposed because I don't trust Matt. Giggy ( talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I say this with all the love in the world: Matt is a process wonk who I would trust to follow policy even if his mother's life hung in the balance. What more can you ask for in an oversighter? Wily D 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • A bit of common sense as well would be good. Majorly talk 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Are you suggesting their are times to Oversight or Checkuser outside of their extremely strict policies (examples if so, because I can't imagine it)? Because I thought that's what everyone with common sense has been fighting to get stoppped, including the Committee itself... rootology ( C)( T) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Blindly following policy can lead to problems, as can ignoring policy totally. I have no doubt in my mind MBisanz will be too strict with usage of oversight. Some might say better to be safe than sorry, and not use it, but I disagree. Majorly talk 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I mean, I don't think he'll ever make a bad oversight. In those cases he's unwilling to make what might be sensible oversights that don't rigidly fit with policy, there're always other oversighters. I might be uncomfortable with him as the only oversighter, but that's not what we're talking about. Wily D 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose after participation at patently abusive sockpuppet request. Alansohn ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) struck out by Alansohn ( talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Not ready for the job yet.-- Caspian blue 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Has uncommonly good judgment. Is unfailingly civil. Is unfailingly dogged in seeking the right solution, on a case-by-case basis, according to policy. Perfection is impossible. Demonstrated excellence, over a broad swath of the wiki and in considerable depth, is exceedingly rare. It must be recognized and further empowered. David in DC ( talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply


  • Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There are only three I can think of off-hand. One, if a person was logged out and made an edit as an IP that was linked to their username, such as a comment in a threaded discussion (see the second sentence of point #1 at Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy). Two, if a minor posted personally identifiable information (such as their school, address, full name, etc) and later realized what a bad idea it was and asked for it to be oversighted. Three, if someone were to receive {{ Uw-pinfo}} or {{ Defwarn}} and notified me of the offending edits they made, I would oversight them not because they requested it, but because it was material that something that fell under the Oversight policy. Other than those cases, I would feel uncomfortable oversighting it myself and would ask the person to email the oversight mailing list for discussion among the other oversighters. I could see where an adult posts their name on say their userpage, later desires to be anonymous, and wishes it oversighted, but in my reading of Wikipedia:Oversight, I cannot clearly justify such a desire in line with policy, since the adult will have already made their identity public. Also, I should note that there is a discrepancy between {{ Defwarn}} and the text at File:HideRevision.png as to when to remove libelous edits, and were such a situation to arise, I would defer to point 2b of the Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy, which is controlling IMO. MBisanz talk 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll admit I was unfamiliar with the cryptically-named templates above, but at first glance they appear directed primarily (if not entirely) toward edits which pertain to other people, not oneself. I would have figured a user who had made an edit vile enough to merit these templates would not have much say in the matter, it would be oversighted or at least deleted regardless. It concerns me that would not [N.B. this word is the product of a brain-to-keyboard error, I'm really bad about this] decline to remove carelessly divulged personal info (name, location, etc.) just because the user is an adult. Then again if the info did not include the user's age, and they want it erased badly enough they could tell you they are a minor, you'd be none the wiser and it would unquestionably be the path of least harm (I trust you would not gossip about to anyone by saying "User:X told me they are a minor", whether or not you believed it to be true).
You can revise or clarify your position if you want. I'm in no big hurry. Just don't tell me what you think I want to hear, especially when you might have little idea what I'm actually getting at. I just want to know what your actual principles are. As for how the policies and the templates and the interface instructions are written, well… now I know where to look . — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well your question was about oversighting an edit at the request of the person who made the edit, so I included the unusual circumstance of someone (person X) making an edit about another person (person Y) and then person X realizing their error and emailing oversight.
As to your second point, a user asking for oversight of information they disclosed is fraught with gray areas. Why do they want it oversighted? Because it shows a conflict of interest to an article they edit? How long has it been public? Should an oversight oversight my name from my userpage, even though my public identity is well known? Is it part of an RTV that the community has opposed? Are there Arbcom restrictions at play that prevent a person from vanishing to a new account?
All of those are gray areas and if I were to encounter them, I would probably either kick it up to Arbcom to decide on or ask the oversight mailing list to discuss it, since there are so many degrees of permissibility. For instance, if I am doing my taxes and editing Wikipedia and accidentally past my social security number in the screen and click save, then yes I would agree another oversighter could oversight that edit. On the other hand, if my name is my username and I want an oversighter to remove it from my userpage, they probably shouldn't do it, since it isn't achieving the goal of protecting privacy. MBisanz talk 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well the SSN is an extreme case due to the potential for identity theft, which is a separate ball-game altogether. Impersonation and phony credit cards and whatnot are always a concern too, but they hadn't crossed my mind in this context, rather I was speaking of edits which reveal (or enable readers to ascertain) the user's real-life identity and/or location. In the event that a disgruntled (and I daresay unstable) fellow user has an online score they'd wish to settle in "meat-space", such information could continuously jeopardize a user's safety and livelihood the longer they remain visible. Actual examples have included crank calls aimed at getting people fired from their job, kicked out of their uni, divorced by their spouse, etc. plus various death threats and parking-lot stalking antics I'd rather not detail. People are generally more dangerous than we give them credit for (or than they give themselves) and I figure it's only a matter of time before somebody gets physically hurt or even killed due to a disagreement on Wikipedia. Such things have happened in other (comparatively trivial) online communities. I don't know whether the lack of truly grave incidents fresh in our minds stems from an incredible fluke or from a failure to report, but it really seems impossible when you do the math. This isn't about conflicts of interest or trying to hide that one is affiliated with the subjects they're editing (not that it should matter—all edits should be evaluated on their own merit "comment on content, not the contributor", etc. and let's forget that a user's self-disclosures could be bullshit, and might as well be ignored unless one's edits are truly disruptive). It's more about being able to sleep at night, even knowing there are people on the internet who hate you more than life itself. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There is no question that MBisanz is very intelligent and highly dedicated to Wikipedia. On the other hand he is still a rookie admin and needs to gain maturity and judgment. Someone noted that MBisanz is a "process wonk" and therefore suitable for the job. Well, yes and no. I get the impression that he views himself as some kind of "Special Counsel" like Kenneth Starr or Patrick Fitzgerald, a white-hat figure rooting out evil and corruption where he finds it. Except that no one appointed him to such a position. Examples of where he takes this approach too far can be found in the current "Date delinking" Arbcom proceeding. There, he vastly overstepped the bounds of the case, casting a net as wide as Lake Erie, dragging in wholly unrelated "civility violations" and accusing an editor in good standing of sockpuppeting when there were perfectly innocuous explanations for that editor's multiple accounts, that MBisanz could have found out easily by raising the issue in private with the editor beforehand.
I believe that MBisanz has the potential to become a fine admin one day and subsequently merit consideration for taking on additional responsibilities within Wikipedia, but not yet.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 14:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Just a comment that before I presented the evidence on the sockpuppetry accusation, I did seek, and was granted, permission from arbcom that a public presentation of the connecting evidence did not violate the privacy policy and was not an inappropriate addition of evidence. MBisanz talk 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Whilst I have not the slightest doubts about Matt's integrity or ability, I do believe that we would be better served if oversighters were people who were less active at AFD closure. Mayalld ( talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I really don't understand this at all. -- Deskana (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I added a separator as I do not think this has anything to do with our dialogue above. I believe Mayalld's concern is that highly privileged users may add a new dimension to the "delete with extreme prejudice"/"salt the earth" memes of AFD. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • The question has already been asked of me at my talk page. Charlotte sort of gets to the niggle that I had. Basically, I was questioning whether the person who effectively decides whether an article is deleted or not in a significant number of cases should also be deciding whether to very permanently delete some revisions. My thoughts were centred around a vague belief that we should avoid concentrating the deletion decision process in a single pair of hands, but my belief was tempered by a confidence that Matt would be a safe pair of hands if we did so. I suppose that when it boils down to it, I'm concerned in general about people who close a lot of AFDs oversighting, and wouldn't expect to see it often, but Matt is the exception to my concerns, and as such my vote may seem perverse. I promised to sleep on it, and have done so. My oppose isn't well founded, and I withdraw it. Mayalld ( talk) 07:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Trust, good judgment, and temperament are paramount qualifications for any grant of power here, as well as in the real world. Without those, all the other qualifications, such as experience, policy knowledge, technical ability, language—all of which are learnable—matter not. I know Matt and have no problem trusting him to do the right thing, including in those issues with a potential or perceived COI. I also believe he has the ability and experience needed. As to the policy/process vs. content issue; we can't collaborate on a project this massive without process, leavened with common sense and judgment, as one means to facilitate good content. — Becksguy ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of MBisanz

  2. Support-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Support Willking1979 ( talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Strong support – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Support — Gavia immer ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Support -- Euryalus ( talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Avi ( talk) 00:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. BJ Talk 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Mr. Z-man 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Khoi khoi 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Kuru talk 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Leave Sleaves 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. rootology ( C)( T) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Explodicle ( T/ C) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Bidgee ( talk) 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. DGG ( talk) 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. John Reaves 07:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Orpheus ( talk) 07:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Strong support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. Strongest Support Fritzpoll ( talk) 09:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Patton t/ c 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Jack Merridew 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. — Jake Wartenberg 13:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. — Aitias //  discussion 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. Wily D 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Guy ( Help!) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. لenna vecia 15:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. Andre ( talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    -Support - Scarian Call me Pat! 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support -- ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. Support - Dreadstar † 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. Richard 0612 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Daniel Case ( talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. Hús ö nd 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Little Mountain 5 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. Support - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Syn ergy 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Sarah 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    - Reallikeunreal ( talk) 12:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election.-- Tznkai ( talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. Support - Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 12:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. Protonk ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. -- Oxymoron 83 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. arimareiji ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. The Helpful One 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. Agathoclea ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. Support Guest9999 ( talk) 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/ contribs 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Support David in DC ( talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. Dmcdevit· t 03:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. – wodup – 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Support, per above. -- BozMo talk 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Sam Blab 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Support Alansohn ( talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Support Bearian ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  73. Step hen 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  74. David Shankbone 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  75. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  76. Dbiel ( Talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  77. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 07:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  78. Support Mayalld ( talk) 07:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  79. Kennedy ( talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  80. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  81. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  82. Support -- J.Mundo ( talk) 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  83. Support CWii( Talk| Contribs) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  84.  GARDEN  23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  85. Support Full confidence. -- Cerejota ( talk) 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  86.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  @en.wb 19:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  87. Spencer T♦ C 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  88. Maxim (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  89. Kralizec! ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  90. Support {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 16:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Becksguy ( talk) 16:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  92. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  93. Support Graham 87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to MBisanz

  2. Gurch ( talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. RMHED . 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Chick Bowen 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Everyking ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. Noroton ( talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Joe 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. JayHenry ( talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Grace Note ( talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Davewild ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Giggy ( talk) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Conti| ✉ 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Tex ( talk) 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Majorly talk 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Strong oppose. Alansohn ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Alansohn ( talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. -- Caspian blue 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Sceptre ( talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. seresin (  ¡? )  20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Strongly Secret account 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Herby talk thyme 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Weak Oppose Mayalld ( talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) changed to support Mayalld ( talk) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. Seraphim ♥ 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose- Dureo ( talk) 09:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 14:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. RxS ( talk) 17:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Enigma msg 22:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Alio The Fool 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn candidates

Dweller

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

I'm afraid a RL crisis prevented me withdrawing before the election began, as I had decided to do yesterday. I have agonised over this decision - some of those agonies can be seen at User:Rlevse's talk page.
The ArbCom nomination was a tremendous surprise to me and flattering, but I have three reasons for declining for now.
For one, my editing time is limited currently and I'd rather concentrate it on my Crat duties, as we're so short on Crats and, my first love, developing quality articles.
My second love is helping others, which is why it's a shame I'm withdrawing this time. I have a fierce desire to assist good faith editors (witness, for example, my work at the Ref Desks) and privacy issues are key to this, especially since becoming a Crat and helping with username changes, and because so much of my mainspace work is on biographies, where I've developed a finely tuned appreciation for WP:BLP issues. Perhaps a future occasion will have better timing for me.
Oh, and one other thing - there are some outstanding candidates on this page, so I don't feel a pressing community need to keep my hat in the ring.
For now, I thank ArbCom for their faith in me and apologise for wasting anyone's time by being late with this statement. -- Dweller ( talk) 06:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

Comments and questions for Dweller

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Tentatively oppose, awaiting statement - perhaps he forgot the elections begin today? Otherwise I trust him, but I need to know why he feels having oversight will benefit the project. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Allow me to publicly apologize for not recognizing your editing accomplishments in my recent comments on Wikipedia Review. If you were still running you would have my vote. Cla68 ( talk) 06:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Dweller

  2. RMHED . 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Majorly talk 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Mattinbgn\ talk

Votes in opposition to Dweller

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose - Tiptoety talk 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose JayHenry ( talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Chick Bowen 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. BJ Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. THE GROOVE 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. — neuro (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Mr. Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. rootology ( C)( T) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Andre ( talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

Lar

I am being blackmailed by User:Proabivouac. There really is no other word for it. It started last year, when I refused to assist him with a block he had received, and has escalated. He's apparently shopping various insinuations around (as I have been told by more than one person who has received them or seen them). He's mailed me making threats, veiled, and not so veiled, and he has mailed my wife as well. He spread the material around during the recent arbitration case, and on February 7th, he tried to spread the same innuendo and rumor on this page.

I got a note yesterday from someone I trust that was contacted, relaying a threat (from Proabivouac, as before) that if I didn't drop out, Proabivouac was going to continue trying to publicise his allegations. I have not directly seen them myself but I have some inkling of what they are.

There is a lot of falsehood, innuendo and distortion in what he appears to be alleging. But the allegations are built around a grain of truth: I've met Wikipedians. I travel a lot, and I make it a point to meet as many people from my hobbies as I can. I did this in my LEGO hobby and I do it in this hobby too. That much is true. But his insinuations are damaging because they allege more than innocent meetings, because they add the whiff of scandal, and because one cannot prove the negative. I had hoped that with the conclusion of the recent arbitration case, that he would stop, but he has not.

I do not give in to blackmailers. However, while I think this nonsensical innuendo about my personal life is just that, nonsense, and has no real bearing on my ability to effectively carry out the oversight role on en:wp, as I already do on many other wikis, it erodes trust.

The position of oversight requires a great deal of trust. If a significant segment of the community does not have trust in an oversighter, whether the reasons for that are valid or not, the oversighter cannot be effective in their role. Alison changing her vote made me think long and hard about this. It is apparent to me that there are those I respect who do not have this trust, and I would rather not serve in this role if I do not have it from the vast majority of folk.

Trust in this role is paramount. Without it, the role is purely ceremonial and I have no interest in that, I didn't request the role to collect flags. Therefore, while I would like to thank everyone who supported or opposed me and everyone who took the time to comment, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration for en:wp oversight at this time. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.

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

I expect most folk know who I am... I've been an en:wp admin since May 2006, an en:wp CU since August 2007 (also holding CU, by election, on Commons and Meta), a steward since December 2007 (I'm currently up for reconfirmation, by the way), and an oversighter on Commons since January 2008. ( Herby and I were the first, and we've subsequently lost Herby's services and added Raymond and Rama). I briefly held elected Oversight on Meta, but the community has since decided to allow all stewards to perform oversight as needed. I've performed oversights on many other wikis in my role as a steward as well.
I'm asking for oversight partly because I want to help out, time permitting (although I have a lot of other tasks I focus on as well, I know I will be able to help, especially with crosswiki matters) and partly because I think oversight of oversight is a good thing. On Commons, we implemented a "always review each other" policy, every request is shared with the other oversighters when (or before if it's at all unclear what the right thing to do is) it's handled and that has worked well. Perhaps en:wp is too big for telling every oversighter about every oversight as it happens, but some review is a good thing. The review panel proposed is goodness but more is better.
I believe I have the sensitivity and discretion necessary to be a good oversighter at en:wp, as I am elsewhere already. I hope you'll consider giving me your support. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments and questions for Lar

  • For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This was a hard nut for me. Lar is obviously trusted, IMO. However I supported Lar, because of his approach, and that I believe oversight is something that requires a calm balanced person, not taking actions too quickly, and sensitivity. Lar has it all. Having a cross-wiki oversighter, and previous experience makes me support. My only concern would be having too many tools, and not using them. Though Lar resigned as a Wikisource admin because of inactivity issues. All these factors up makes me want to support. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For what it's worth, Lar is one of the few candidates in this election who has actually spent some serious time writing a top-quality article. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Lar was one of the admins who was willing to touch WP:SRNC. Also being a steward, this reflects that he is more than qualified for the position. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The others above say it well. Lar is an obvious support for me - highly civil, responsible, and competent. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • General question: Don't stewards get automatic oversight privileges on -en, if an oversight or checkuser is not immediately available? miranda 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • No. Majorly talk 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Majorly is correct. More detail: It has to be temporarily flipped on using m:Special:UserRights. And it has to be an emergency. And unless there were no other stewards about who aren't "homed" here, and it was dire, it would not be me. The en:wp specific policy in this area was previously somewhat ambiguous, if I recall correctly, but it was properly tightened. As I said in my statement, I'm standing partly because there's a stated need that I think I can fill, and partly because I have Oversight just about everywhere else, but would like to explicitly have it on my home wiki, for the review purpose I gave. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing whatsoever against Lar, and I hope he doesn't take this personally, but I am opposing. He's already a checkuser and steward. As a matter of principle I'd rather have separation of powers, rather than a few who do everything. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • No I'm not at all offended that you're concerned about separation of powers, (you should talk to Commons:User:Marcus Cyron some time :) ). It's a valid concern although I don't see it as really pressing in this particular case, as I explained above, However since I think there are some very eminently qualified other candidates in the running... should the community decide they'd rather I didn't have OV, the wiki will still be OK and so will I. (I think it likely I will vote for all the other candidates, if only to show I'm in full support of their candidacies) Hope that helps. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • As someone who has both CU and OS rights (normally!), it is a great help in some CU investigations to have OS rights. Indeed, I would give everyone who has CU the OS right for this very reason. I don't see them as separate roles but as complementary ones. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose due to excess number of roles. Lar knows what I think of him in general. Giggy ( talk) 10:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • And here I am. Sorry Lar - you know my opinion. You will be elected as Steward in some days. My vote will you're election here not prevent. And I understand it, you are a good man. But - you know. In my opinion you have enough power. Even the best of us could break under too much power. Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Before/if you are given the oversight facility, will you make an email address you will use solely for this purpose or for checkuser and admin purposes, as what was your previous email address is not secure for people to write to, as several people including the arbs themselves well know?:) Either that or make sure your current email address is no longer being checked/read, as you know it is or was? We shouldn't be dismissive of user's desire for privacy and confidentiality, so if you are elected to this, or even if you simply continue as a checkuser/admin, you should have an email address which isn't being checked by someone who hasn't been elected by the community and that those writing to you don't know may be reading what they think they are telling you privately. I'm not talking about the previous arbcom case, but in general. People writing to you in a checkuser or oversight capacity especially should be able to be as certain of this as is in the CU/Oversighter's power, that people's info isn't knowingly risking being read by someone they didn't think they were writing to, or who isn't in a similar level of elected/employed wikiauthority, at the very least. It's not too much to ask. :) Sticky Parkin 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I treat all WMF related matters with the appropriate level of confidentiality. Always have, always will. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • How about your wife, no offence to her, I can completely understand her reasons, but plenty of people know she can check your/what was your primary or sole email account whenever she wishes, and read any mails that reach there which she chooses to read. No offence to anyone but those sending you communications will not be expecting that it will be read by anyone else except other individuals in the wikihierarchy at the most. So please will you make an email addy solely for oversight, checkuser or admin matters as well as your other one, or in some other way remedy that situation so user's correspondence about oversight matters are more likely to be read solely by people they believe they're talking to about what might be very private details? Sticky Parkin 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • You know, asking about sending him very private details that his wife shouldn't see could be misconstrued... just saying. ^_^ arimareiji ( talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Lol, if you are joking ha ha :) but I don't think it's a matter to joke about when I was talking specifically about oversight and checkuser and that people should expect their private info to go only to the person who has been voted by the community to deal with it, and other wikihierarchy members on a need to know basis. The more leaks, regardless to whom, of such info, the more chance of the process not being secure. Sticky Parkin 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Sticky: My wife's honesty, integrity, and discretion are beyond reproach, and the aspersions you appear to be making are entirely unwarranted. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, in your opinion, but others may not share your opinion on that, and thus SP has a valid point. Giggy ( talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Whenever a community elects a married person, there is a certain level of trust they have to, unavoidably, extend. They have to trust that information doesn't get improperly disclosed. That's what it really comes down to. I have been married longer than some of the folk commenting here have been alive. I could set up a new email, but then the community would be trusting that I could keep that email a secret. And that's just not workable. We have a large number of folk who are married, folk who are in long term committed relationships, and the like, holding various roles with more responsibility than editor within WMF. Hundreds, if not thousands, across all the wikis, and they all are in similar situations. This same trust question exists for each and every one of them. If this community does not trust me, that is their perogative, and their right, and I will accept that decision. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In theory, Sticky has a point. But if Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, I damn sure hope it isn't the CIA either. ^_^ These aren't matters of national security we're talking about... they're matters of who edited what, when, why, and how many socks they were wearing at the time. If Lar ever has a CoI wrt this role in a matter that affects his wife, I have complete faith that he would recuse himself. I find it hard to imagine a case where more than that would be needed. arimareiji ( talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Separately, I vote to clone Lar. arimareiji ( talk) 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Lar should not be striking out votes on his own nomination. Someone else should deal with any invalid votes. Everyking ( talk) 06:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I struck a support. I'll leave striking opposes to others but really, dinging me for striking a support? That's a bit of a stretch. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Lar is untrustworthy and two faced, hence my oppose. (as contrasted to the "love-in" above, from editors whose fawning over Lar is deeply concerning and who evidently have not done their homework on this, shall we say, "character".) Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in support of Lar

  2. Support - Tiptoety talk 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Support Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. Privatemusings ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Cla68 ( talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Support -- Avi ( talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. Hermione 1980 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. Support Ty 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. BJ Talk 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Chick Bowen 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Support - Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. -- S [1] 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. Mr. Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. Viridae Talk 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Majorly talk 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Rschen7754 ( T C) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Kuru talk 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  24. rootology ( C)( T) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  25. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  26. Prodego talk 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  27. Support Glass Cobra 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  28. Avruch T 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  29. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 02:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  30. Bidgee ( talk) 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  31. Noroton ( talk) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  32. Joe 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  33. DGG ( talk) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  34. Support. Biophys ( talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  35. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  36. Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  37. Support -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  38. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  39. John Reaves 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  40. Support: -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  41. Strong support — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  42. Strong support -- Herby talk thyme 09:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  43. -- S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  44. Support, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  45. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  46. — Ruud 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  47. — Jake Wartenberg 13:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  48. — Aitias //  discussion 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  49. -- Conti| ✉ 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  50. Guy ( Help!) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  51. Tex ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  52. لenna vecia 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  54. arimareiji ( talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  55. MBisanz talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  56. SF3 (talk!) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  57. Support -- B ( talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  58. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  59. Little Mountain 5 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    RoscoHead ( talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    User does not have 150 mainspace edits prior to 31 January 2009 per requirements of election and thus is not eligible to vote. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Support - switching to 'oppose'. Sorry, Lar - Alison ❤ 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  60. Support -- Dycedarg ж 03:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  61. CComMack ( t– c) 04:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  62. AniMate talk 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  63. Support Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  64. Geogre ( talk) 12:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  65. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  66. shoy ( reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  67. Strong support. Has my esteem and trust. I like the idea of oversight of oversight. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  69. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  70. Syn ergy 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  71. Agathoclea ( talk) 00:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  72. Hobartimus ( talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Votes in opposition to Lar

  2. Oppose-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  3. Gurch ( talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  4. RMHED . 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  5. Everyking ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  6. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  7. — Sandahl ( talk) 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  8. Grace Note ( talk) 08:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  9. Giggy ( talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  10. -- Aqwis ( talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  11. -- Marcus Cyron ( talk) 13:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  12. THE GROOVE 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  13. Guettarda ( talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  14. Davewild ( talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  15. Regretfully -- Caspian blue 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose Sarah 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  17. — CharlotteWebb 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  18. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  19. -- Oxymoron 83 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  20. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  21. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose - Alison ❤ 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  23. Icewedge ( talk) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This candidate has withdrawn from this election. No more votes please.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election&oldid=308512455"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE