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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

J.delanoy[edit]

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Hey everyone!

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

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

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

Comments and questions for J.delanoy[edit]

  • Question from Aitias (added 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
    • I think I should be elected mostly for the reasons I outlined in my statement (sorry it was so late). I am very active on Wikipedia, I have a significant amount of experience dealing with sockpuppeteers, and I understand the technical aspects of the checkuser tool.
    • To answer the second part of your question, I think that all the candidates running for checkuser are probably qualified to use the tool. At least a majority (I assume) of the members of the Arbitration Committee had to agree that the candidates were qualified before they extended a nomination. Considering that most members of the Arbitration Committee have access to the tool themselves, I think that their judgment would be sound. As to whether I am more qualified to use the tool than the others who are running, I am not sure how to answer that. Tiptoety definitely has more experience dealing with sockpuppets than I do. I haven't seen the other candidates enough to be able to make a good judgment. J.delanoygabsadds 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How old are you? ÷seresin 03:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions from SilkTork *YES! 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC) : 1. How would you judge when it is appropriate to use CheckUser to prevent disruption that a user has not yet caused? 2. What disruption might a user with multiple accounts cause in mainspace (rather than project space) that only a CheckUser could solve? 3. In your view which sensitive Checkuser requests should not go via WP:SPI?[reply]
  1. If I have a reason to believe that an account is related to another disruptive account, I would run a checkuser. For example, suppose that a particular puppeteer creates usernames which follow a definite pattern. I would probably checkuser a newly created account that matched the pattern.
  2. If a user has a dynamic IP, he or she could create an account, vandalize an article, and then when blocked, switch to a different IP, create another account and continue. An administrator by themselve probably could not solve sort of thing. The autoblocks being placed by their account blocks would be ineffective, and without knowing the IP range, they would be unable to target a rangeblock. A checkuser would be needed to determine what IP range should be blocked, and if the collateral damage would be too great. Another similar case would be if an administrator is considering hardblocking an IP or range due to repeated disruption. A checkuser could be needed to determine how much collateral damage the block would cause, and by extension, how long the block can be placed for.
  3. If there was significant evidence that an established user or an administrator was socking disruptively, I would say that a full SPI case would cause a lot of drama, and even if the checkuser returned negative, the allegations would probably tarnish the user's reputation for quite some time. In that case, I think that quietly running a checkuser and/or contacting the user privately if necessary would be the best way to handle it. I'm sure there are other cases which would be best handled privately, but I can't think of any specific examples. J.delanoygabsadds 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.delanoygabsadds 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) because you have sufficient SPI clerking experience. However, I'm bit surprised to know that you're just over the minimum bar on age.--Caspian blue 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section)A simple "per Durova" isn't really enough. J.delanoy is one of the hardest working Wikipedians I know in the area of vandal-fighting and generally defending the wiki. Firestorm Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) I don't want to be on the failbus. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Yes. Yesyes. Yesyesyes. Need I say more? Just in case... yes. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've trusted him online, met him more than once in person, and he's a great guy. Gave the best lightning talk (on how to use Huggle properly) at this past weekend's conference in New York, and made one of the most righteous blocks in Wikipedia history (see this and then this (which he didn't realize until I made a point of shaking his hand for it). Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Support Incredibly hardworking. Durova285 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Per Durova. NW (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment moved from vote section) Also per Durova. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (My oppose rationale.) I know he's dedicated and untiring to what he does but in my personal interactions with him I noticed a pattern of volatility - most of the time he's calm, but underneath seems to be an element of instability, or at least that was my perception of his two outbursts, which were of similar nature, though months apart; and apparently, I "disgust" him for saying this. (If this may seem out of context, basically it seems it's becoming a habit for j to attack me in PM to respond to something onwiki, unprovoked on IRC.) -- Mentifisto 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC):[reply]
    • (1) I have noticed that the checkuser position generally has a very low percentage of female-born people on it. Oversight and bureaucrat historically have been higher than checkuser, although right now I can't spot any female-born people on oversight either. Of course I obviously can't tell the gender of everyone on the list as if they don't hint it in their usernames, userpages, or are internet famous, then I don't know. However most of them are obviously men and it's been like that since Wikipedia began. Do you think there should be a higher percentage of female-born people on checkuser or do you think it's merely representative of high percentage of males on wikipedia as a whole?
    • (2) As a checkuser, what will you do in cases where someone is internet famous and they're impersonated. For instance, internet personality "Chris-chan" is very internet famous and there's always people impersonating him. On Wikipedia this happened a few months back where someone impersonated his wikipedia account to do bad edits, then the impersonator account was checkusered, and they found more bad users on the related IP and then they declared Chris-chan's account as a sockpuppet even though they were on unrelated ranges and only linked by activity because someone impersonated him. Then there was no investigation done to determine if the impersonator account was him or not. Chris-chan in particular has a lot of people impersonating him--such as this one guy with a beard on youtube--and so it's a good example of an internet celebrity that gets impersonated a lot. What will you do as checkuser to make sure people impersonating internet famous people don't get mixed up with the real people?
    • (3) Do you think the new checkuser nomination of public voting is better than the old system or not, and why?
1. Mostly, I think the reason there are less women in crat, OS, and CU positions is because there are simply not as many women editing as men. Also, from what I have seen, and from what I have gleaned from talking with various people, women are more likely to be trolled, harassed, and/or stalked than men, simply because they are women. Because of this, it would be less likely for a woman to reveal her gender than a man, which could make it appear that there are less women in these positions than there actually are. I don't necessarily think that there should be more or less people of either gender as bureaucrats, checkusers, and/or oversighters. On the other hand, I would vehemently oppose any proposal to set up quotas for how many males and females should be in these positions. If anyone is qualified and trusted for a position, they should be given access regardless of their gender. As far as I know, there are three women currently holding checkuser and/or oversight rights. (In case you didn't know, this issue is being discussed here.)
2. If the "internet-famous" person has a way for me to contact them, I would do so. I don't really see how this applies to checkusers though. No one goes around saying "Oh, this is my IP address". The checkuser tool would be completely and utterly useless for this, as practically everyone, even someone who is seriously famous in real life, would almost certainly be editing from a generic residential IP pool. The only thing it could possibly do would be to give an indication of which continent someone is editing from, (since that is how far I trust geolocation tools) which may or may not be remotely useful.
  Of course, if User:Obama is editing from an IP registered to
The Office of the President of the United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

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


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


Votes in support of J.delanoy[edit]

  2. Vicenarian (T · C) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shappy talk 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Martin451 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JamieS93 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. iMatthew talk at 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ &spades 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Caspian blue 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Majorly talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Prodego talk 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Durova285 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. NW (Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. (X! · talk)  · @061  ·  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Acalamari 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Firestorm Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Aqwis (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Res2216firestar 00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Chzz  ►  01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Triplestop x3 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Indented, user did not have 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15. Risker (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mixwell --Mixwell☞TALK☜STALK!!! 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ~ Ameliorate! 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. —Animum (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Timmeh 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Until It Sleeps Wake me 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Captain panda 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Becksguy (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. — Jake Wartenberg 03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. — Deontalk 03:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Nathan T 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Jehochman Talk 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. JavertI knit sweaters, yo! 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. — Σxplicit 04:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Law type! snype? 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. SoWhy 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Ironholds (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. ~fl 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. – B.hotep •talk• 07:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (rationale) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. AdjustShift (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Euryalus (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Theleftorium 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Drew Smith What I've done
  61. Willking1979 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. -- BigDunc 11:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Aditya (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. AGK 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Wknight94 talk 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Herby talk thyme 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. -- Tinu Cherian - 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong Support --4wajzkd02 (talk)
  75. LittleMountain5 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. MuZemike 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. JBC3 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Weak support. — Aitias // discussion 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Transity (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. RP459 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. --KrebMarkt 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. FASTILY (TALK) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. AniMatedraw 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Geoff T C 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. -shirulashem(talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. —MC10|Sign here! 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Recognizance (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. --Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Crowsnest (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Irunongames • play 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Aye ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. RJC TalkContribs 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Priyanath talk 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116.   JJ (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Marek.69 talk 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Pax85 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. -download ׀ sign! 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BejinhanTalk 10:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. ceranthor 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Chris (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Matt Zero (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. iridescent 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Pmlineditor 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. ~ mazca talk 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Alexfusco5 19:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. SBHarris 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. BrianY (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. ArakunemTalk 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Woody (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong Support--TitanOne (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 03:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Cubs197 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible , does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149.  Cargoking  talk  12:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. I'mperator 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. —df| 19:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. ummm YA — œ™ 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. RayTalk 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Ysangkok (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Atamachat 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. I Feel Tired (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Skier Dude (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Wayiran (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. —EncMstr (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. ++Lar: t/c 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support ≈ Chamal talk 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Jafeluv (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. --Giants27 (c|s) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strongly Support-SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support- Great editor. Airplaneman talk 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Malinaccier (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. StarM 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186.    7   talk | Δ |   21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. PerfectProposal 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. bonadea contributions talk 10:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Mblumber (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. βcommand 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. — CactusWriter | needles 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Stephen 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Graham87 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Unschool 05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Tiptoety talk 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Computerjoe's talk 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  200. -- Banjeboi 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. GDonato (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  202. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Cailil talk 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  204. wadester16 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support. I can't imagine a better qualified candidate. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Australian Matt (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  208. SBC-YPR (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  209. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  211. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  212. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Tiderolls 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Benscripps (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  216. hmwitht 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  218. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  219. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  220. snigbrook (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  221. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  222. —Terrence and Phillip 12:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  224. –Megaboz (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  226. AlexiusHoratius 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  227. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Steven Walling (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 11:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC) oops, I voted twice. Sorry.[reply]
  232. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  233. 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  234. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  235. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  236. wjematherbigissue 08:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  237. billinghurst (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Graham Colm Talk 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  239. kollision (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  240. –blurpeace (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Alio The Fool 14:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  242. - Ankimai (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  243. --Henry talk 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  244. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Tckma (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Seduisant (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  248. — JamesR (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Otterathome (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Fangfufu (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Support. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Lara 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Whitehorse1 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support --StaniStani  22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  256. BJTalk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  257. WJBscribe (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to J.delanoy[edit]

Oppose. — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Vote changed. — Aitias // discussion 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  1. ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 06:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  2. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Mentifisto 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election, you do not have sufficient mainspace edits before the cut off.--Tznkai (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Cynical (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Bishonen | talk 06:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/CheckUser/J.delanoy&oldid=1144518756"