Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/CheckUser/Tiptoety

Tiptoety

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

Hello. For those of you who do not know me, I am Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and have been a member of Wikipedia for 2 years, 2 months, and 23 days making my first edit on the 2nd of May 2007.

I currently serve (and was the founder of) as a clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (I also served as a clerk at its predecessor Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser), where I have assisted with ~423 cases (the majority of which I closed myself). In serving as a clerk, one of my main responsibilities is endorsing or declining a request for CheckUser. In doing so, I have found that there were/are numerous times when I endorsed a case and it was left untouched by a Checkuser for 24 hours or more (my timezone is UTC-8 which is different than the majority of the current Checkusers). By me having access to the CheckUser tool I could assist in ensuring a fast response to request for CheckUser attention, which is important.

As of the 2nd of May 2008 I have served the project as one of its many administrators with approximately 13,000 administrative actions (verify), including over 4,000 blocks with the majority relating to incidents of sockpuppetry. As such, I feel that I am an active administrator whom would strongly benefit from the additional tool. Such instances would involve the blocking of underlying IPs in cases of rampant sockpuppetry, rangeblocks when appropriate, and checks for "sleeper" accounts. I am also a member of Wikimedia's OTRS team (verify) with access to en(f) as well as permissions where sensitive and private information is dealt with often. I feel that it is important to protect others privacy, and ensure that matters are handled with the utmost care. In volunteering at OTRS I have encountered multiple tickets which have required me to contact a CheckUser for assistance, which ultimately results in a slower response time. Should I be granted CheckUser access, it will assist me in my OTRS work and result in better ticket response times.

My philosophy on CheckUser is that it is a tool to be used to protect the project from disruption and to enable the creation of content by removing disruptive users.

As I am sure there will be a question around this, I will address it now. Each editor has their own philosophy on dealing with on-wiki threats of violence (TOV). Per the privacy policy (#6) , it states that CheckUsers may release the data of an editor "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." Because of this, I am not opposed to releasing the information of a specific user (should the situation warrant it) to another single user for the purpose of contacting law enforcement but will not release the information to the community at large as it serves no purpose and violates the person's privacy. I am also willing (and have done so in the past) to contact the authorities myself should the situation call for it (to reduce drama, and to protect the person in question).

Lastly, I would like to say that I am honored to have been selected by the committee to stand in this election, but note that there are other very qualified candidates standing and wish them the best of luck! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note from Supervising Arbitrator

With Tiptoety's permission, I have verified with his employer that, as a police cadet, he is not subject to reporting requirements that full-fledged officers assume when they take their oath. Specifically, they are not required or expected to report information that comes to them incidentally when participating at any level in an external website. Risker (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Tiptoety

• 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?

Hello Aitias, and thank you for the question. The answer to your question is a little harder than "yes" or "no". Every candidate standing in this election has been vetted by ArbCom, is trusted members of the community, and each have their own set of special skills to bring to the table. For me, I feel the skills I bring are my experience at WP:SPI (a process in part I created), and a history of dealing with sock-related issues. Because of this I am very familiar with the a wide range of sockmasters, their editing behavior, and spotting them, as well as how to deal with cases sockpuppetry and when to use the tool and when not to.

That said, do I feel I have more relevant experience? Yes. Am I more qualified? No, like I said before each person has something special to bring to the table. Tiptoety ^talk 02:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from iridescent (added 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): This will get mentioned at some point, so better to clear it up now. When you first joined Wikipedia, you were a police cadet; are you currently employed by (or volunteering for) any investigatory agency (state or private) and if so, do you see any potential conflict of interest and how would would you handle potential legal issues (credible threats, criminal defamation etc) which potentially fell under the jurisdiction of your force/company? – iridescent 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am affilianted with some form of law enforcement agency, though hope that does not sway people to support or oppose as it has very little relevance to my actions on-wiki. I will not mix my real life activities with my on-wiki ones, and will defer to other Checkusers, ArbCom, or the foundation should a potential conflict of interest arise. To answer the second part, no. I will not take any action in a situation where the TOV has taken place within the juristiction of said law enforcement agency (not without being told to do so by the foundation). I hope that clears things up, Tiptoety ^talk 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I really don't care for the way you try and tip-toe around this question. The correct answer would be more along the lines of-In the event of a conflict, my duties as a real life law enforcement official take precedence over those as a virtual volunteer for the WMF. If the conflict between the two cannot be satisfactorily resolved, then I would resign my official posts with the WMF, without hesitation. Sorry, but you lost my vote.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment R.D.H, I ask that you take a look at these two comments: [1], [2]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you TT. The first diff does not change my opinion at all, the second only shakes it slightly. Now if you had stated that a lot sooner...maybe...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Questions from SilkTork *^YES! 09:57, 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?

• 1. There are very few situations when CheckUser should be used to prevent disruption that has yet to be caused. Of the situations I can think of, the main one would be Grawp attacks (or similar attacks). Without sticking beans up my nose, there are times when it is more than obvious that an account is Grawp, and it should be blocked and checked right away, regardless of if the account has caused disruption yet.
• 2. Generally speaking, most sock-related issues can be solved without the need for CheckUser (WP:DUCK). I think that the most prevalent situation that only Checkusers could solve would be editors jumping IPs to evade blocks to vandalize articles, continue edit wars, or make other disruptive edits. In such situations, CheckUser would be needed to block the underlying IPs (depending on of they are dynamic or static), perform range blocks (only in severe situations), and/or block any open proxies the editor may be editing from.
• 3. I am of the mind that most situations should be handled on-wiki (for the purpose of transparency), and the Checkusers, administrators, and reporting users should be held accountable by the community for the actions they perform. That said, situations where there is a potential for very high drama (socks of functionaries) should be first dealt with in private (via ArbCom or the foundation), but ultimately should be discussed on-wiki. Also, situations involving potential libel, or real life harm should probably be kept off-wiki. Tiptoety ^talk 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Offliner (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC): What kind of evidence do you think is necessary before using the tool? Can you give an example on what kind of evidence would be enough for you to run a CheckUser without a prior SPI report, and what kind of evidence would not? If someone would approach you with only a personal suspicion (based on his knowledge of the sockmaster's behaviour) that an editor is a sockpuppet, without presenting objective evidence, what would you do? Offliner (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the question Offliner, and sorry for the delay in answering it. Generally speaking, the account would need to have made disruptive edits for a check to be ran on it, or a link made via editing patterns between it and other abusive account(s). Such editing patterns might include pushing a specific POV, reverting back to edits of blocked sockpuppets, editing times (which could be compared to other CheckUser evidence should one have been ran before), or distinct spelling/grammar similarities. (For specific examples feel free to look through my edits where I have endorsed or declined requests for CheckUser at WP:SPI). Evidence that would not justify a check being ran would be requests based upon a "general suspicion", or those where the requesting party is clearly using the SPI case to gain the upper hand in a dispute. There are of course of situations where judgment would need to be used. To answer your last question. Should an editor approach me and simply ask me to run a check based upon their knowledge of a certain sockmasters behavior I would not run one without viewing the evidence for myself. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Questions from Tony1:
  • (1) Can you provide examples of high-level administrative judgement in your role as an ArbCom clerk that suggest you have the appropriate skill-base for CU?

• Well, for the most part clerks work is simply "janitorial" in nature and commonly consists of enacting motions, opening and closing cases, cross posting notices, and tiding up where needed. But there does become situations where discretion and judgment must come into play, and the clerks as a whole must play referee (even if that means kicking someone off the court on occasion). I think a specific example involves SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs), whom was claimed to have been causing disruption at WP:ARBMAC2. As the clerk for the case, I decided the best approach would be to educate, inform, a gently warn the user instead of kicking him off the court completely (please see here for my message, and here for his response) While this may not be "high-level administrative action, I feel that it is just as much an administrators job to try and resolve disputes without the use of tools as it is to use the tools when necessary. The same would apply for my use of CheckUser.

• • (2) Do you think the current policy on alt accounts is too open? What is your view of the discussion that has been going on at Sock puppetry? Tony (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken note of your questions, and will answer them shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, yes. I would support curbing the policy to only allow users to use alt. accounts for the use of editing on public computers, or be required to disclose the account to ArbCom. Now that said, that is only my opinion. As a CheckUser my job would be to follow policy, and currently the policy is written in a way which is more lax on the use of alt. accounts. Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

Good question. :-) Take note that prior to this incident, there was little to no community input on how situations like this should be handled (the use of both CheckUser and 'crat powers in a discussion). That said, I probably would have contacted E-man directly (which Deskana did), but would have given him ample time to answer as the RFA was still new and had a while left to go. I would have requested input from other 'crats as well as Checkusers prior to me taking any action on-wiki. Now in retrospect, knowing what we know now I would have never mixed my role as a 'crat and CU and would have deferred to others to help. Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Questions from Caspian blue (18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

1. How old are you?

   I am 18 years of age or older. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't want to be rude. But do you intend to give a real answer to this question? You're standing for CU my friend and there are very real-world implications associated with the tool that you are asking for. Giving a cheeky answer that you're over 18 is not sufficient in my opinion. -- Samir 04:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   I apologize. I did not intend for it to come across cheeky at all, nor did I mean any offense. As for my reason for not being more direct, it is for my privacy. I believe user privacy is very important, including my own. I hope that clears things up. Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The community is mindful of Essjay controversy or some former Checkusers' abuses/misuses of the tool because they abused the community trust by lying their identity or blocking their opponents for their POV pushing regardless of the fact that such abuses are unethical and violates COI. Since we do not have any "removing the bit system" except ArbCom, if you as a Checkuser witness such abuses by colleagues, what would you do for that and would you be wiling to publicize such issues to the community?

   Yes. Abusing the communities trust should not be protected, nor should anyone turn a blind eye to it. If I witnessed another functionary abusing his or her rights, I would immediately report their actions to ArbCom, and should it be an Arb I would contact another whom I trusted as well as Jimbo Wales. As an end result the abuse should be publicized to allow the community to review the evidence for themselves and voice their opinions. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• (comment moved from vote section) Regardless of whether you have not answered my latest answer, I support you because you have the far most SPI clerking experience among all the candidates. However, well, I can be swayed to abstain or oppose according to your answer later though.--Caspian blue 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• (comment moved from vote section) One of the most qualified candidates. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• (comment moved from vote section) Candidate is clearly one of the most qualified in the running. His experience as a clerk has been superb, and I can find no reason to oppose. Firestorm ^Talk 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: (1) In determining whether to support someone for promotion to such a trustworthy position, I think age is highly relevant. It is, of course, your choice ultimately, but I believe your candidature would be assisted by candidness in this respect. (2) I wish you were writing to a higher standard, or took more care to edit your posts. I think you would be in a position in which good administrative writing is required. Tony (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you; you have convinced me to support. Legal adulthood should be sufficient - it may not be necessary - and more is none of my business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tony1's comment #2 (about "good administrative writing "). - Hordaland (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a teenage boy. Who is excessively fond of law enforcement. To the point of posing as a cop on law-enforcement forums. And he does the bidding of certain untrustworthy senior admins. Not only do I feel he is not suitable for CU, I feel he is too inexperienced and erratic to be an admin. --Eric Barbour (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, great. Let's decide CU nominations on the basis of what Wikipedia Review says; especially since the facts here are that in 2007, he was a police cadet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Eric is misinformed, obviously but not unexpectedly. Tiptoety was a police cadet (note the crucial element of time, here) and is now a cop. And he is anything but erratic. He's also co-creator of the current SPI process and both well informed and active in the areas most relevant for a checkuser election. Nathan ^T 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Color me confused, then. Just below, he states he's on his "summer break", a phrase most often associated with school than with being a serving police officer, and as far as I'm aware, Oregon police departments typically don't employ part time police officers as something to do on their "summer break". I notice that Tiptoety himself hasn't confirmed or denied either way (though whether he should or not is a matter of opinion. Achromatic (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Nathan, as much as I appreciate you attempting to clarify the situation, you are wrong. Let me say this for all those on WR, I am not a full time Police Officer. I am affiliated with law enforcement, but like I said before: I do not see it, and will not allow it to conflict with my role as a Checkuser. Tiptoety ^talk 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I wondered about that briefly... Oh well. Trust me to describe someone else as misinformed, and then make an error of fact. But in any case, with respect to his criticism of your conduct and integrity, Eric remains misinformed. Sorry for sowing any additional confusion. Nathan ^T 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Apropos of anything else, Tiptoety, thank you - I appreciate the clarification. I can understand the desire to maintain privacy, but hope that you can also understand why it (ambiguity on the subject) may also be cause for concern.
• Comment: I have serious doubts about this editor being entrusted with more responsibilities. I had an altercation with him when he threatend to ban me over a single revert in a 24 hour period: User_talk:Betty_Logan#Quinten_Hann. The revert in question was in response to ongoing vandalism on the Quinten Hann article where the perpetrator had already been banned once - the vandalism simply involved removing referenced factual material and inserting unsourced fictious material so this was no editorial dispute. When I tried to bring it up with him I was rudely told to sling my hook, and he only admitted his mistake when another admin confronted him over it. I appreciate that sometimes people make mistakes when they are not up to speed in a situation, but he had no intention of addressing his error once I'd briefed him on the problem and I would say the willingness to revisit your decisions if more facts come to light is a requisite for a position which carries this responsibility. Not a suitable candidate I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• I feel you have too many hats, which is why I have opposed. Nothing personal. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Question from Mike.lifeguard 05:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC): Would you please make a (realistic) statement regarding your anticipated availability for handling checkuser matters?

Hi Mike. Thinking back, I probably should have addressed this in my nomination statement, but I guess this works too. Currently, I try my hardest to log on at least once a day to check my watchlist, SPI, and my talk page. Right now, I am only active for a few hours each day because I've been enjoying my summer break (yes, I actually do go outside ;) ). However, I am always available via email if there is an urgent need, as I forward my email to my phone. During other seasons I am far more active, putting in close to 6-9 hours a day, and I plan to continue to do so. I am also available on IRC when I am online.

Should I be gone for any extended period of time, I will make sure to place a message on my userpage so people will know to contact another Checkuser should they need assistance. Tiptoety ^talk 16:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Explanation: wanted to explain my opposition. While I think you are an otherwise excellent candidate, I feel that having a law enforcement officer in a position with access to protected data such as check-user is too great of a conflict of interest. Simply put, there is the potential for a situation where, despite your assurances that you would not participate, your superiors in your RL job would demand you use CheckUser to investigate a complaint. The risk of a conflict of interest leading to a privacy policy violation is too great. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is any help I give you my word that such conflicts of interest will not occur. Tiptoety ^talk 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Explanation II. This is one of those rare occasions in which I agree with Swatjester. I have no problem with you, but you're in a no win situation. If a COI arises and you put the interests of law enforcement over Wikipedia, you're acting inappropriately with regards to Wikipedia. If you put the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation over those of the law enforcement authorities, that's a horribly unbalanced set of priorities (as well as probably violating the "without fear or favor" part of your oath). – iridescent 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I think that Explanations I and II raise an absolutely fascinating issue, and one where we ought to think carefully, because how we end up voting on this has the potential to set precedent. We had best be careful, I think, in holding real-life jobs against editors when there is no instance of policy violation on site, on the assumption that violation is expected in the future. I can certainly imagine serious concerns about a nation where there are human rights issues about law enforcement, but that's hopefully not the case here. That being the case, there would be little point in law enforcement using CheckUser to obtain inadmissible evidence. Besides, there are plenty of other ways to subvertly track editors without Wikipedia's knowledge or involvement. And on the other side, WP:Checkuser and the meta privacy policy are pretty clear on how the tool can and cannot be used in this regard. So I end up on the side of applying AGF to conclude that we should not presuppose COI in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from SlimVirgin:

• Hi Tiptoety, you said above that you've contacted the authorities in the past when the situation on Wikipedia called for it. Can you give us examples of when you've done that, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello SlimVirgin. I don't have the diff, as I believe it was oversighted. The gist of the situation was an IP, making a credible suicide threat (time, location, how such act was going to be committed) to which I thought would be a good idea to quickly report, and then have removed. Tiptoety ^talk 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. There's likely still some trace of it somewhere. Can you say where and when it was posted (roughly), and also what came of it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Slim, its funny. I just spent about an hour searching through archives and came up with nothing. If I remember correctly, it was easily a year ago when the report was made. What I did come up with though, was an example of a time I did not report a "TOV" [3]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Regarding the suicide threat, there must be a trace of it, or a trace of your request to remove it. Perhaps you have an e-mail about it somewhere that would give you the date?

Also, my apologies if you've answered this already somewhere, but can you clarify what your relationship is with the IP address 63.105.27.175 (talk · contribs)? It was yours on February 6, 2007, where a post from that IP shows your e-mail address, [4] and you acknowledged it as yours on March 4, 2008. [5] In between those dates, there were some pretty dodgy edits from it e.g. this one on June 1, 2007, so I feel it's important to get an explanation from you. I wouldn't ask were it not for checkuser being sensitive and some of the edits so inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim, that was a shared IP that I used to edit through often, and was used before I ever had an account. After registering an account, I never used the IP and did not notice the abusive edits until I made that logged out edit. After reviewing the contributions I thought something must be up, and found out that others in my household had been using the IP to edit through abusively. As such, I contacted an Arbitrator (FT2 (talk · contribs)) and notified him of the issue (so as to avoid ones like this in the future), as well as had a discussion with the person making the edits. Because of this, the IP was blocked to avoid the other person from using it to edit. Please note, that I am no longer on that IP (as I had it changed). Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC) - Tiptoey, I understand that you do not wish to divulge the exact nature of your involvement with law enforcement for privacy reasons and I will not ask you to, however, assuming your are a police officer, reserve officer, or even a police cadet, I assume that you are bound by professional obligations to report or otherwise act on any criminal activity you may encounter, even when you are off-duty. As a WP admin and editor, you undoubtedly see instances of threats made against persons or property, and suicide threats. It seems to me that you are put in an unresolvable dilemma wherein you are, on the one hand, obligated by professional standards to act on (and pass on) any information you may have access to as an admin and checkuser, and, on the other hand, required to wait until the WMF allows you to forward information to the relevant authorities. Any thoughts on this dilemma?

Hello. Like I said in the thread above, I am not a full time police officer. That said, I am affiliated with law enforcement in a non-sworn position, and while I am held to a profesional standard there is no "must act" law or requirment surrounding my postion. I have been an administrator here for a little while now, and never once have I felt a COI between my role here and my RL position. I really hope people can take my word that my affiliation with law enforcement will not influence any decisions I would make as a CheckUser, or for that matter an administrator or editor. Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's say you become a "sworn" member of law enforcement in the future and are therefore subject to those professional standards. Assuming you agree that an unresolvable conflict exists between the professional obligations and you obligations to WP and the WMF, would you resign your checkuser status? I'm assuming that you aspire to become such, so this isn't an entirely hypothetical question. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That all depends upon how the community feels about the issue, and judging by the comments and opposes here it is clear they would not support a sworn LEO having access to the CheckUser tool. I would be willing to announce if/when I become a sworn member, and have an open discussion about if I should retain my access. Tiptoety ^talk 16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation has obviously caused some concern. Since you feel that the community "would not support a sworn LEO having access to the CheckUser tool", why not simply state now that you would resign as a checkuser in the event that you become a sworn officer? 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It seems reasonable for me to resign should I become sworn, and will do so. Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain - Tiotoety is a diligent, hardworking CU clerk, who has shown himself familiar with the technical and procedural aspects of the CU role, and who has ably assisted me from time to time. Were it not for the law enforcement angle I would be supporting. As it is I certainly have no desire to oppose, so I wanted to make this supportive statement. ++Lar: t/c 07:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• To clarify my Oppose. When I say I am not a fan of people like you, I don't mean it to be a personal attack. What I should've said is, the more power someone like you has, the more authority, the worse it is for everyone; thusly when I say I am "not a fan" you could say it is in fact the inevitable abuse of authority that I am not a fan of.

I dislike editing 'non-article' pages, but in this case I feel I have to go on record and say that allowing someone like User:Tiptoety to run amok on Wikipedia is a terrible idea in the hopes that people will pay attention. That said, it looks like it's a landslide, Tiptoety.

...Oh, look, I do not have the necessary whatevers to oppose this nomination. :) Thudworthy (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC): (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? (4) Oh and to add, Tiptoety, after reading your answer to SlimVirgin's question, well you believe if someone makes an internet threat to become an hero, that they should get the van to come and visit them? Isn't that a bit extreme. Now you said it was a credible threat and well I've seen occasional things on wikipedia where someone makes a threat, it seems fake, the user is blocked, and then there's an ANI thread where someone says they called the police. Still, do you think it's going a bit overboard as it could be completely fake? Or do you think Wikipedia has some legal liability if someone kills themselves after announcing it here and no one calls to get them vanned?

1) I feel that diversity is important, and that a strong group of both males and females is important as it brings a needed balance. This is more true with Oversight than CheckUser as there are more request for oversight from woman who feel they are being harassed, but still feel it is important to have woman in the roll of CheckUser (which, we do have a few).

2) This question is a bit hard, as decisions would need to be made on a case by case basis. That said, the role of a CheckUser is to read technical evidence and provide an accurate summary of the evidence. If the evidence suggest that the person being impersonated is in fact the sockmaster, than that is what is says. CheckUser is only half of the puzzle, and must not be used solely to decide if a user is socking or not. I feel that in such situations, I would check the behavioral evidence as well as the technical evidence before taking any action. And, if I thought the user was being impersonated, I would try my hardest to protect them.

3) I like the new process, and if I recall correctly supported it being implemented. It is important for the community to have a say in who they elect.

4) I think each situation needs to be evaluated individually, and feel that no one TOV is the same. I agree that most are baseless threats, and do not need to be reported. But also feel that there are some that should be. And no, I do not think the foundation is legally responsible for the actions others take. Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is a distressing lack of straightfoward answers and candor. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• I hate to do this, but I think the law enforcement position is a COI. :( Atama^chat 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Absent additional information on the issue, the potential for COI is too great. There needs to be checks and balances on how this information is used. I respect your decision not to reveal this information - that decision is just incompatible with being a CU.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• voted as per iridescent et al. In addition you cite privacy reasons for not revealing the nature of your law enforcement work. As a CU you need to be beyond scrutiny, and not give vague answers in situations where a WP:COI could occur. Martin451 (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Statement by Tiptoety: I'm not sure that everyone has had a chance to read all my comments above, as a fair amount has been buried in large plots of text. Because of this, and the various opposes surrounding my position within the law enforcement community, I would like to clarify a number of points.

• I am not a full time Police Officer, but instead a uniform non-sworn member.
• Where I live (Oregon), there are no "must act" laws that govern my actions, nor are there any policies put in place by the agency I am associated with which require me to report potential criminal activity.
• I have never been in a situation where my actions on-wiki were influenced by my position with the police, and I do not see that changing. I am a bit saddened by the fact that people are passing judgment based upon my real-life situation when there is no instance of policy violation on site (see Tryptofish's comment above), instead of my on-wiki actions. That said, I do understand peoples cause for concern.
• I will agree to resign as a Checkuser, if/when I get hired as a sworn member, and seeing as that will at least be three years I do not see it being an issue within the near future.
• As for the issues of not being more upfront about my RL identity, it is not because I do not trust 99% of the community, or I have something to hide. It is the 1% I do not trust with that information, along with the fact that I am very well aware that the internet is not a safe place for private information. I will be (should I pass, which does not seem likely) identifying with the foundation. I have also provided my RL Police related position to the Arbitration Committee, and to a number of users whom I trust to keep such information private.

I hope the community can trust me here, and take my past service to the project into account. If someone has any specific concerns, my mail box is always open. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(comment moved from vote section) not even a good (read 'fair') Arbcom clerk. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care what Tiptoety does with his off-Wikipedia time or how old he is, and can even buy the argument that he needs to preserve his off-wiki privacy in regards to his evasive answers regarding his off-wiki activities. But per the following, I don't feel this user can be trusted with any higher on-wiki responsibility than he already has. I realize this incident happened two years ago, but the candidate's lack of candor in this matter is still distressing: his evasiveness regarding committing a copyright violation and this disingenuous response to my questioning the copyright issue. (Per my "Oppose" in his 2nd RfA, which is at #4). Though he seems merely power hungry and not likely to cause any real damage, I'd like to see some more maturity in this candidate, especially in the area of taking responsibility for and learning from his mistakes. Katr67 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Katr67. I think our antennas got tangled during my second RFA. My response (which can be found here) was not an attempt to take the blame away from myself, or to be evasive. I clearly stated that the content was added by myself (noting that my account was very new when I did so). Understand that I did not add the content with any malicious intent, but was simply unclear about Wikipedia's copyvio polices, and thought that changing the wording would suffice. When you left the comment on the articles talk page, I had no idea it was directed at me (hence my response). I hope you can assume good faith here, and pass off that mistake on my part as the mistake of a noob. Like you said, it has been two years since I made that edit, and I have obviously not made such a mistake since. As for the "power hungry" comment, I'm nor sure I agree. The only reason I want this tools is so that I can better serve the community with my sock related work.

I hope this helps clear things up, Tiptoety ^talk 23:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. I don't care about the copyright violation. I didn't even mention the copyright violation on the article's talk page, SGGH did. You were the only editor who added substantive content to the article between when you created it on May 9, 2007 and May 30, when SGGH started removing the copyright violation (I did some clean up during that time frame), and then on May 30 you said the person who added the copyrighted content should be more careful. Shortly thereafter, SGGH pointed out that you are the one who added the copyrighted material. All this leads me to one or more of the following conclusions: You have a frightfully bad memory--in other words, you copied and pasted the content into the article from the agency's website and then forgot you did it (less than a month afterward), you are unable to check an article's edit history to see who might have added the copyrighted content, and/or you were trying to pretend it wasn't you who committed the copyright violation ("the person who is directly copying from the source needs to be more carefull [sic]"). Also, since this article is very important to you, I assume you would have added it to your watchlist, and you would have known who else worked on it. (Though perhaps you were new and did not know about watchlists.)

Again, lots of people make the mistake of copying and pasting content when they are new editors, that is not what the issue is here. As for your comments today, I can only conclude that: you are frightfully bad at following a talk page thread, you are continuing to evade the issue, compounding your original dishonesty, I am having trouble expressing myself, and/or you have some sort of cognitive disability. The last conclusion is not meant to be be disrespectful. I have AD/HD, and sometimes I make errors in cognition myself. In any case (inability to follow a thread, dishonesty, or issues of memory or cognition that aren't being managed), these are all concerning in someone who wishes to be a CheckUser. Let me put it plainly as I can. The answer I was looking for is either, "Yes, I lied and tried to make it look like it wasn't me who copied and pasted material into that article. I know better now and here is proof my increased honesty and maturity...<example given>." or "Wow, I am such a space cadet, I didn't even realize it was me who copied and pasted that material into the article. I can see how you could conclude I was being evasive, but here is an example of my honesty and integrity...<example given>." (Note that being a space cadet myself, no slur is implied in that statement.)

Perhaps I am not being clear enough. I'd invite other editors to help me get my point across more clearly or tell me I am being entirely unfair. Katr67 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my vote of Weak oppose - I feel that there is the possibility of a COI as you have affiliations with law enforcement - as someone mentioned above, if you put WMF first, you are neglecting your responsibilities with regard to law enforcement; if you put law enforcement first, you are neglecting your responsibilities to WMF. So I am unable to vote in your favour, even though I feel you would do a good job in the cases with no COI involvement. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fail to understand

I am not directing this at anyone person in particular but want to say that I fail to understand the amount of fear of the police on here. It is the local police, not an intelligence agency. Wikipedia is not a place for drug trafficking or racketeering so the police have no interest. Furthermore I think that a lot of people here are computer illiterate. An ip check does NOT give name and address or anything of the sort. It ONLY gives an approximate location (which is often wrong as internet companies often use proxies for customers) and thus there are no privacy concerns and this police issue is a red herring. The only people who can track person is the ISP, which in most if not all Western Countries requires a Court Order. Also common sense I feel would dictate that if someone was on here to "feed ip" info out for sinister reasons to say the police or have a sinister agenda, they are not going to announce their affiliations on their talk page. Sadly however, I think that this is a successful effort by a bunch of banned users who congregate on the likes of wikipedia review to get even with a check-user who has served the wikipedia community well and helped myself out speedily and efficiently when dealing with abusive sockpuppets.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses can serve as a powerful investigative tool. While one may not be able to determine a location for a particular user, they can tangibly link people together (same IP may indicate a relationship between two people) or link multiple internet sessions together (same IP may indicate same person). I don't fear the police. In fact, most of the time they do a fantastic job. I do desire some sort of checks an balances when it comes to private user information (including a user's IP address). If a police department wants the information, they should ask for it and justify the request.

It is not inconceivable that Tiptoey may come across a situation where using CheckUser may provide a useful lead in a case s/he's associated with. There may even be a time/life sensitivity where accessing CheckUser is nearly irresistable (i.e. child abduction, dangerous felon, etc). It would be difficult to determine whether Tiptoey (or anyone else) is using the information for this purpose or not.

I just think it is good policy from a Wikipedia Foundation standpoint, not to give police employees direct access to personal information such as IP addresses. That does not lessen Tiptoey's contributions to the project in any way.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But only a powerful investigation tool if an ISP is court ordered to release info! Linking together two people as one is what a sock investigation does, as you admit it does not reveal any personal info which only the ISP can release via a court order. You gave an extremely unlikely scenario of a dangerous felon and child abduction on wikipedia (which would still require a court order to the ISP to release info) to support opposing tiptoey. Also why would you oppose the police becoming involved in a child abduction case or a dangerous felon (which would still require a court order to release personal info from ISP for an ip)? So basically what we have here is a long list of opposing votes by people who were computer illiterate who freaked out thinking that an ip address can "track them down" propagated by banned users on wiki review website. This is the sense that I am getting. Can anyone give a valid basis for this opposition to tiptoey based on being affiliated loosely to the police?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Tiptoety

1. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong support. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Shappy ^talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
5. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
6. JamieS93 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Absolute yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
8. --Caspian blue 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Strongly. iMatthew ^talk at 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
12. NW (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
13. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
14. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
15. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Majorly talk 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Firestorm ^Talk 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
18.  Chzz  ►  01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Triplestop x3 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
21. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
22. ThemFromSpace 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
24. —Animum (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Noroton (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
26. — Jake Wartenberg 03:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Nathan ^T 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Timmeh 03:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Jehochman ^Talk 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Nevard (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
31. — Σxplicit 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Law _{type! snype?} 06:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Offliner (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
37. SoWhy 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
38. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Aye ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
40. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
41. --Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
43. LittleMountain5 15:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
45. MuZemike 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Regretfully changing to oppose per discussion above — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

49. Masonpatriot (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
50. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
51. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
52. --Ipatrol (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Strong support. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
54. — Ched :  ?  21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
55. - Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
56. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Crowsnest (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
61. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
62. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Priyanath ^talk 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
65. BrianY (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Pax85 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Becksguy (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
68. ceranthor 12:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
71. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
72. Pmlineditor 15:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
73. PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
75. Res2216firestar 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Alexfusco⁵ 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
77. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
78. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
79. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
80. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
81.  Cargoking  talk  12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
82. Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
83. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
84.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
85. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
86. Strongly; see here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
87. Definately — œ^™ 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
88. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
89. Justin talk 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
90. Ysangkok (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
91.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
92. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
93. —EncMstr (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
94. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
95. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
96. --Versageek 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
97. Strong support--Giants27 (c|s) 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
98. Strong support - Dreadstar † 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
99. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
100. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
101. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
102. Malinaccier (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
103. Stephen 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
104. PerfectProposal 02:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
105. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
106. Killiondude (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
107. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
108. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
109. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
110. GDonato (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
111. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
112.  – iridescent 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Support (and oppose struck) on the proviso he resigns if he becomes a sworn officer of any kind.
113. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
114. Gökhan 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
115. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
116. hmwitht 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
117. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
118. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
119. MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
120. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
121. —Terrence and Phillip 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
122. –Megaboz (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
123. AlexiusHoratius 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
124. Steven Walling (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
125. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
126. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
127. Strong support. Bms4880 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
128. Biophys (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
129. Weak support. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
130. Strong support. Igny (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
131. 2help (message me) 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
132. Strong support. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
133. Strong support. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
134. Support —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
135. Support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
136. Lara 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
137. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC) vote changed following assurances that he would resign if he becomes a sworn officer of any kind.
138. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
139. Support --StaniStani  22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
140. BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to Tiptoety

2. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Antandrus (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
6. JayHenry (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Skinwalker (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Kingturtle (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Javert^talk 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
11. AdjustShift (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Tony (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

13. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
14. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Drew Smith What I've done
16. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
17. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
18. *** Crotalus *** 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
20. SBHarris 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Achromatic (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Thekohser 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
26. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

     – iridescent 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Struck on the proviso he resigns if he becomes a sworn officer of any kind.

27. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Skinny87 (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Star Garnet (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
30. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Friday (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Atama^chat 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Unitanode 00:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Prodego ^talk 06:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
36. ThuranX (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Crafty (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thudworthy (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, you are ineligible to vote in this election. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

37. Mike R (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
38. WJBscribe (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
39. Synchronism (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
40. Sorry. McJEFF ^(talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Enigma^msg 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Struck on the proviso he resigns if he becomes a full-time officer.

42. Cxz111 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
43. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
44. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
45. --Calwatch (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
46. miranda 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    MurfleMan (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC) - Voted indented - I have insufficient edits to vote. Still a moral oppose, though. MurfleMan (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

47. Joe (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
48. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
49. -- Martin451 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
50. -- TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
51. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Poltair (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
54. Cynical (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
55. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
56. Boud (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    Protonk (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

57. Andy Walsh (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
58. See above comment--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
59. snigbrook (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
60. Katr67 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
61. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
62. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
63. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
64. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
65. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
66. Alio The Fool 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Vote changed following more consideration -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

67. Whitehorse1 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
68. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (changed from support)