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

VirtualSteve
Thank you to the Arbitration Committee for nominating me for this election. I also extend that gratitude to everyone who comes here to read and comment on my candidature.

For those that do not know me I have held an account on en.wiki for over 3 years 8 months and have held the administrator bit for over 2 years. I have never edited as an IP (except once or twice in the early days when I forgot to login) so my first edit was after I created my account. For the first couple of years or so here I edited various articles, assisted in a few GA's, DYK's etc and created a few new pages (about 320 or so). I also have accounts at a number of other wiki projects but most specifically at commons, where I have uploaded over 380 images. I still start the occasional new page, do some copy editing and certainly continue to upload images, however since becoming an Admin I have predominantly shifted my time to administrator tasks. I have done this because I consider the task of being a "professional" administrator to be an important function. I have found that the time difference living in Australia has been an asset to the project especially when editors are looking for more personal assistance - and my talk page and archives abound with calls from fellow editors for such help. I have travelled widely overseas, have no bias towards any country, religion or view-point, and I hope that people will agree that I am trustworthy, approachable and keen to assist. I tend to refrain from drama and prefer to provide relatively quiet support wherever and from whomever that request comes. When I don't know/can't find an answer I ask the advice of another editor.

I maintain two websites as a part of my real life work and the various related email accounts of my real life and my wiki email account are all pushed. As a result I am almost always available to address requests within a short time frame. As my record will attest I have edited continuously since my account was created and it is rare (unless I am travelling) that I do not log in to my wiki account continuously throughout the day - 7 days a week.

I understand the checkuser tool is a technical tool that can assist in curtailing disruption. Of course the result the tool provides will require technical and contextual interpretation and I promise at all times to do so to the best of my ability, whilst maintaining as much privacy for editors’ anonymity as possible. If the community and then the Arbitration Committee find that I am suitable for this task I will be honoured to assist - but at the same time I will understand if others here are considered before me. My best wishes then to all others in this election and once again thank you for coming here to provide your input.-- VS talk 04:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for VirtualSteve

 * Question from Aitias (added 00:02, 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?
 * Thanks for your question Aitias. I don't see this as a competition in terms of I'm better than this or that other candidate. I know the other candidates from their work on wiki and I admire them all.  As a part of the natural order of life we all have different skills, qualifications, qualities and behavioural characteristics however I am of the belief that each of us has one similar trait; being that we wish to serve the wikipedia community in at least this one extra way. Skills and therefore qualifications to do the task of checkuser already gained will be further learned along the way - qualities and behaviour on the other hand are items already shown to the community over our existing period of service.  I do not know if my qualities and behaviour are "better" or otherwise to the other candidates but I do know that I have displayed helpful, kind, and worthwhile qualities and behaviour at this project and I hope you and others will judge me worthy of a support comment based on my previous work and actions here.-- VS  talk 01:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions from SilkTork  *YES! 09:58, 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?


 * Thanks SilkTork - I appreciate your stopping by with these three. I'll put my hand up for a first try at providing you with answers;
 * I'd be looking for reasonable plausibility . For example User:ImTrouble causes disruption and is blocked.  I come across another user account named User:NOImTrouble who either actually hasn't edited or hasn't been disruptive as yet - would I suspect a link and check IP's - Yes.  Another example; IP:98 765 432 1, IP:98 765 432 2, and IP:98 765 432 3 all provide seriously disruptive attack edits against our WP:BLP policy across a number of pages and which sees them all temporarily blocked. On the same article or articles I note a new account spring up reasonably soon after the blocking of the IP's and that account show some affinity with the attack edits (but of course does not attack or act disruptively else they would just be blocked) - would I suspect a link and check - Yes. I'd say there are probably many more examples that would see me acting with the checkuser tool so as to limit potential disruption but these are two that spring to mind.
 * Clever multiple account holders can disrupt mainspace (that is, content on the encyclopedia) including article talk pages by for example (inter alia);
 * (a) carefully manipulating content by multiple slightly dissimilar and seemingly legitimate editing so that an article, for at least some time, reaches a verified/verifiable standard but one that is UNDUE or POV etc;
 * (b) Use the same multiple account holder method for "reaching a biased level of consensus" at the article talk page, (this same process can spill into any attempts at mediation);
 * (c) Use a "tag-team" approach similar to "bad cop - good cop" so that one editor seemingly is making legitimate (but POV) edits and the other is making extremely disruptive edits - which if timed correctly (and via careful use of RFPP) could lead to an article being fully protected at the POV "good cop" stage for long enough to cause damage to wikipedia;
 * (d) Using a multiple account holder method to create and defend articles that slightly offend WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLP1E
 * (e) Using a multiple account holder method to enter and defend SPAM links in articles etc
 * Whilst a reasonable suspicion of sock-puppetry is always required only a checkuser action could more easily determine that these multiple accounts were held by the same IP address/es.
 * I cannot control what others place at SPI and then request a checkuser for. I can however control my activity as a checkuser as follows. I would not deal publicly with checkuser requests relating to suicide or threats of harm edits through the SPI process.  In most cases and so that I could initially deal with potential disruption by a "stop it or else" method I would not deal publicly with new SPA edits through a request at SPI but rather I would initially attempt to deal with these privately especially where the sock master account indicated to me that it was linked to an otherwise reputable account holder.  I would not publicly deal with requests that attempt to link a named account or accounts to edits that came from the publicised list of sensitive IP addresses or other IP addresses of a similarly sensitive nature.
 * If you need more information please let me know. Best wishes -- VS talk 12:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question from Aitias (added 15:08, 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 morning Aitias. I am not a bureaucrat however if I was placed in a position similar to Deskana I would have taken a different first step by initially contacting Enigmaman privately.  In that conversation I would have outlined to him that I was certain that someone had made edits from his computer (remember that initially we do not know that it is in fact Enigmaman who is making the edits). I would tell him that I had analysed the edits made by an IP from that computer and whilst they were not particularly controversial edits, it was my duty to disclose this fact; initially to him (because I wanted the project to retain him as an editor) but if necessary to disclose it to the wider community. I would ask Enigmaman how he would prefer to have the matter handled.  Deskana gave 2 options at the time (but he had not contacted Enigmaman before posting those options on the talk page).  Both of Deskana's options in general were valid but I would have provided a third option (if necessary suggesting all three for Engimaman to choose from - and including others that Engimaman might have come up with himself).  My third option would be that he voluntarily withdrew the current RfA citing personal reasons (thus keeping the situation between him and I) with the intention of waiting a month or three before resubmitting a request.  In the case of this option being chosen/accepted I would have used a polite form of the "stop it or else" method I detail above in my answer to SilkTork - indicating that I would at the next occasion of his accepting/submitting a RfA do another check and that I expected not to see any similar drive by IP edits.  If Engimaman refuted that he was the owner of the edits - given that I knew the content of the edits and could reasonably determine that they came from him; or if he refused to cooperate - including choosing my option three, I would take the first option already suggested by Deskana being (1) restart the RfA with a note about the IP edits.  If Enigmaman agreed that they were his edits but did not want to restart the RfA I would take a slightly different approach to the second option suggested by Deskana being (2)disclose the edits made by Enigmaman and allow others to consider them in relation to this RfA (I say slightly different because Deskana says he would disclose the IP, which I am taking literally, - which of course what would be done by referring to the edits but I would not in effect make the IP so public as to put it on the RfA talk page as a set of numbers).


 * -- VS talk 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up question from Aitias (added 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)): Many thanks for your detailed reply, VirtualSteve. In your response you have stated that your “third option would be that he voluntarily withdrew the current RfA citing personal reasons (thus keeping the situation between him and I) with the intention of waiting a month or three before resubmitting a request.” On second thought, can you see any possible problems with this option, e. g., could it be considered insincere towards the community or do you feel that this option is completely unproblematic?
 * A fair follow up question Aitias. My perspective is to step back initially from the situation of it being an RfA - so if in the case of me finding out that any good editor had momentarily lost perspective and edited inappropriately from their IP would I punitively deal with those actions?  Of course the answer is no - blocking policy prevents punitive action and going public with the detail before discussing with Enigmaman was (probably inadvertently) a punitive action.  Rather preventative action is required.  In this case Engimaman had edited some time ago - long after preventative action was required - but in Deskana's view not long enough between that action and the RfA.  Returning to the RfA then we add the importance of the sincerity and credibility of the editor applying for RfA.  If an action that could normally result in a block (such as socking) or indeed a block itself meant the absolute death of any future possibility of holding adminiship then a number of current administrators and editors could never pass that hurdle or retain the bit. Enigmaman had edited briefly by posting "drive by" somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments which Deskana stated weren't actually that bad. In the current case Deskana appeared to come to the conclusion that there was not enough gap between the IP edits and the RfA to ignore those edits. If I was placed in the same situation the third option then reduces the risk of losing an extraordinarily good editor; passes my concern that Enigmaman understands the importance of returning to appropriate editing; and maintains the privacy of the editor (a first checkuser "rule").  Would this be unproblematic? Not from the perspective of it meeting the opinions of all other editors, but should the editor return to IP editing from the point of my conversation with him to his next RfA then I am only faced with the problem of taking steps to block the editor. Finally if in the future (and I add this only to cover all bases) should the editor pass RfA and edit via an IP or sock - well that has happened already with others; has been dealt with and wikipedia still stands strong - so no real problems in the long run.
 * -- VS talk 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Question from Caspian blue (17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC))
 * 1) How old are you?
 * 2) Have you ever done assisting, clerking or filing sockpuppetry cases? If you didn't have any experience or only had several ones, why do you believe that the community would vote for you and trust you sudden determination to be a Checkuser?
 * Good morning to you too Caspian Blue. Thank you for your questions which I answer as follows;
 * (1) I am well over the age of majority in Australia - that is well over 18. You refer in your question above to the sudden determination to be a Checkuser so I also add, if you were not aware, that the process of gaining a nomination by ArbCom for these elections can take some months. In my own case it has taken since January this year (when I first indicated that I was interested in helping).  Arbcom prior to nominating editors for the position of checkuser elections seeks clarification as to age (and being over the age of majority).  Our real name and details are then further checked and confirmed absolutely,once/if we pass the scrutiny of the community. So yes I am well over 18 even though at times my mind tries to tell my body that that is not so. :)
 * (2) Yes I have assisted in numerous sockpuppetry cases. Predominantly in this area my work as an administrator completes such work through WP:Duck methods long before they are filed at SPI, however recent cases where duck style work also went to SPI include here, and here.  Cases where I have just been involved in the usual SPI work include here and here.  I do not "hang around" SPI on a day to day basis but I do deal with sock puppetry cases on a frequent and at times day to day basis via direct calls to my talk page and via private emails from editors expressing such concerns over multiple account holders.
 * -- VS talk 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent user and administrator, but I've just not seen enough experience around areas that involve checkuser. Not a huge deal, but this makes me a bit wary. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. Candidate is trustworthy, and that's all that should matter. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve has my full and complete trust and I have no hesitation in trusting him with the CU tools. Sarah 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * VS is a trustworthy candidate, and I tend to trust Australians. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * May I disabuse you now of your trust in anyone on the basis of their nationality? Please take it up on my talk page if you want more information. Tony   (talk)  11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent user, not apolitical power-grabber, not a PR stuntman who only goes to high-profile places where the adulatory crowds are  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony1, I was joking; I don't judge people on the basis of their nationality, I judge people on the basis of merit. In VirtualSteve's case, he seems to have internationalist views. I believe that he is a right man for CUship because he seems to have no bias towards people of any country. AdjustShift (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleased to hear it, Adjust: I'm taking myself too seriously, it seems. Tony   (talk)  07:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions from Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:49, 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?
 * An interesting set of 3 later multi-questions IPv6. I have provided brief(ish) answers, numbered in the order you provided them as follows:


 * 1) I honestly don't know the percentage of women versus men across the range of editor accounts on Wikipedia but I do know that the process of being nominated for election requires an expression of interest through ArbCom. I'd welcome more women (and indeed more of any wiki-minority group) to any position such as administrator, checkuser, oversight etc because I have a view that diversity creates and supports strength. From that perspective we may in fact just need more women to understand that they can nominate for these types of positions and then allow the community to consider their nomination - not on the basis of their social; gender; ethnic etc classification but on whether the meet the trust/skills/behaviour requirements for the position being sought.
 * 2) If I am supported for the position of checkuser I will generally deal with all requests firstly by determining if the requests meets the pemission requirements to examine user IP information and other server log data under certain circumstances, for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against actual and potential disruption and abuse. In other words whether the request relates to a "famous" person or not the first question is whether named and IP accounts are disrupting and abusing wikipedia  - if yes then the tool provides assistance in determining if two or more editors are editing from the same computer or IP range etc.  Of course it is possible to make a mistake in linking two editors but there are plenty of actions available to review each and every action by a checkuser and the subsequent actions taken by fellow administrators.
 * 3) I don't have a particular view either way as to how checkusers should be chosen. I've always been a team player and so the current process, which has been discussed and agreed to is the relevant current process at this time.  Like many other processes that seek support and oppose comments from the community the current process has its benefits and problems but I respect the right of editors to post their !vote - and whilst personally I sometimes see votes in one or the other column that on face value appear perplexing - I work overall from the perspective that my fellow nominees and I can only put our hand up and offer to support the community. I've done that and as I deal with checkuser type functions daily in the two real-life web-sites that I monitor - to my mind now the major question should be is VirtualSteve trusted enough by the community to be given this tool?  I think I am but heck the world is full of people with different views and that's fine with me, and if this is the process chosen to determine those views then that's fine with me too.  Thanks again.
 * -- VirtualSteve need admin support? 03:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of VirtualSteve

 * 1) Support. — Aitias // discussion  00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) --Aqwis (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Jehochman Talk 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) '''Jav er t I knit sweaters, yo!  05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) - Kevin (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Sarah 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) AdjustShift (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Euryalus (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --Fox1942 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election -  So Why  11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
 * 1)  Little  Mountain  5   15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) — Athaenara  ✉  17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Masonpatriot (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) RP459 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) BrianY (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Enigma  msg 06:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Orderinchaos 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Bilby (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17)  Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) (reasoning)  The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 21)  Aaroncrick   ( talk ) 10:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Aye  Phoe   talk   12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) See here. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Bduke 08:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Ysangkok (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 27)  At am a chat 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) ++Lar: t/c 07:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Icewedge (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) WJBscribe (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Stephen 08:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 33)  Axl  ¤ [Talk]  14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Calwatch (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) bonadea contributions talk 10:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Tiptoety  talk 05:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Saravask (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 39)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) snigbrook (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) -- L I C 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Hesperian 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Moral support. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 12:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) -  ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) The Real Libs-speak politely 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) –Moondyne 05:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Alio The Fool 14:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC).
 * 51) --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 53)  Lara  17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) Whitehorse1 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Support -- Stani Stani  22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- Stani Stani  22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to VirtualSteve

 * 1) Jamie  S93  00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  iMatthew  talk  at 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose--Caspian blue 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Prodego  talk 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Vicenarian  (T · C) 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) ( X!  ·  talk )  · @061  · 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  Peter Symonds  ( talk ) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Triplestop  x3  01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, not eligible, does not have 150 article edits before June 15. Risker (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~  Ameliorate ! 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) —  Σ   xplicit  05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Tony   (talk)  11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Herby  talk thyme 14:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) MuZemike 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you lack suffrage for this election, you do not have sufficient mainspace edits before the cut off.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Davewild (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) — Gavia immer (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Shappy   talk  22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Regretfully,  Pmlin  editor  15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
 * 6) NW  ( Talk ) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  Alex ' fusco ' 5  19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Res2216firestar 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Star Garnet (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11)  OhanaUnited  Talk page  19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) --<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Perfect  Proposal  02:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Joe (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Cynical (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">Steven Walling (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) 2help (message me) 04:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) --Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) --Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)