Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Mailer diablo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mailer diablo[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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: [1] and [2]. 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[edit]

  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. Royalbroil 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. لennavecia 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. J.delanoygabsadds 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. MBisanz talk 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Húsönd 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. LittleMountain5 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. Synergy 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. Stephen 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. bibliomaniac15 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 -MBK004 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 Graham87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to Mailer diablo[edit]

  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. -Mask? 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 NobodyMy talk 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/February_2009_election/Oversight/Mailer_diablo&oldid=1089443521"