Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/CheckUser/J.delanoy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:27, 29 July 2009

J.delanoy

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

Hey everyone!

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

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

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

Comments and questions for J.delanoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(comment moved from vote section) Support Incredibly hardworking. Durova²⁸⁵ 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(comment moved from vote section) Per Durova. NW (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(comment moved from vote section) Also per Durova. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of J.delanoy

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shappy ^talk 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Martin451 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JamieS93 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
iMatthew ^talk at 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Caspian blue 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego ^talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova²⁸⁵ 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(X! · talk) · @061 · 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—harej (talk) (cool!) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acalamari 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firestorm ^Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Aqwis (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Res 2216 firestar 00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz ► 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Triplestop x3 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mixwell --Mixwell^{☞TALK☜^STALK!!!} 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Them From Space 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~ Ameliorate ! 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Animum (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim meh 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain panda 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becksguy (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Jake Wartenberg 03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Deon^talk 03:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan^T 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman ^Talk 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Σxplicit 04:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law_{type! snype?} 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Why 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~fl 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Closedmouth (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

– B.hotep •talk• 07:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdjustShift (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leftorium 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Smith What I've done

Willking1979 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- BigDunc 11:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight94 ^talk 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Tinu Cherian - 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Little Mountain 5 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBC3 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. — Aitias // discussion 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griffinofwales (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jdrewitt (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davewild (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MLauba (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masonpatriot (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RP459 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--KrebMarkt 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Ipatrol (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate^draw 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff ^T ^C 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-shirulashem^(talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Ched : ? 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—M C 10|Sign here! 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizance (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowsnest (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irunongames • play 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath ^talk 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JJ (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marek.69 ^talk 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pax85 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-down load ׀ sign! 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinhan Talk 10:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ceranthor 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Zero (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iridescent 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmlin editor 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Fox (arf!) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~ mazca ^talk 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexfusco⁵ 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S B H arris 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrianY (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to J.delanoy

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

➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 06:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Fox1942 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is not allowed to vote in this election - So Why 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
— Gavia immer (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 # '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:green">Stwalkerster</span>]] [&nbsp;[[User talk:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]&nbsp;]</font>''' 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 # [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
+#[[User:BrianY|BrianY]] ([[User talk:BrianY|talk]]) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Votes in opposition to J.delanoy ====
@@ Line 184: / Line 185: @@
 #:--[[User:Fox1942|Fox1942]] ([[User talk:Fox1942|talk]]) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) <small>(Vote indented as user is not allowed to vote in this election - '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))</small>
 # <span  style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
-#[[User:BrianY|BrianY]] ([[User talk:BrianY|talk]]) 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)