Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Daniel Case

Daniel Case

 * I am honored to be nominated for this responsibility and to be among such other well-qualified candidates for the job. The community will be well served by whoever wins.

I have been a registered editor for about four years now and an admin for a year and a half. I have become active on Commons, and I have accounts, all under this name, at Wikiquote and Wiktionary and the French Wikipedia, all of which I use from time to time. I am active in the newly-formed Greater NYC Wikimedia Foundation chapter.

I have learned to balance editing and admin work: the former primarily on National Register of Historic Places articles, the latter on AIV, UAA, CAT:RFU and DYK. I describe what I do as administering (I hate calling it "administrating") from the front, and only involving myself in the drama at the back when I have to. Oversight is an extension of that, with the caveat that it is quiet work done in the dark for what most of the community must trust is the best of reasons. I have no reservations about doing it.

Besides my experience and policy knowledge, I have several years' experience in journalism and the attendant practical awareness of U.S. defamation law (I wrote the articles about the two most recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., if you really want to look) which I believe would be helpful in making the judgement calls involved in oversight.

Thank you for your consideration and the best of luck to whoever is the community's choice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Daniel Case

 * What is your reasoning for choosing not to allowing email to yourself? There are some subjects and issues that need to be conveyed privately, in my view.  I thought that it was often part of administrator nominations that administrators should allow private access by email.  And, in a checkuser role, are you meaning to preclude ever allowing anyone to contact you with confidential information?  I don't understand prejudgement that no information can ever be confidential but important to discuss for some reason. doncram (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that Daniel has email enabled. Special:EmailUser/Daniel_Case. --JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that email interface. Then perhaps it has been available, but i have not known that all along.  However, I've contacted Daniel approximately 3 times during the last two years requesting email contact, and he never replied.  The effect has been to preclude contact and avoid the requested off-line discussion of matters which I never did state publicly.  Has email contact been possible all along then, and if so, why not direct me to it? doncram (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this was entirely a misunderstanding on my part, please disregard my question. doncram (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen Daniel Case around quite a bit, and I've always had a very positive impression of him. He is very responsible, trustworthy, and civil - one of Wikipedia's best administrators . He is worthy of our trust for oversight.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A good and trustworthy admin who isn't already wearing lots of hats. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really highly think of Daniel Case's contribution in general, especially his devotion for DYK. However when he proposed an infinite ban for Kurt Weber, the canvassing to one of editors who harassed the user really disappointed me a lot. Oversight should go to others who can keep cool other let behind personal feelings.--Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As with Lucasbfr standing for CU, Daniel Case is an excellent candidate for the permissions of oversight. Caulde  21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generic question: Under what circumstances, if any, would you oversight an edit at the request of the user who made the edit? — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For inadvertently revealing their IP or other information that could be used to identify them if they keep their identities a secret. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009. Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Daniel Case

 * 1) Support-- Iamawesome800  Talk to Me   00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Ty  01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) JayHenry (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash; neuro (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) rootology  ( C )( T ) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11)  Little Mountain  5   02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Noroton (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 14)  Royal  broil  03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) DGG (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support--  Tinu  Cherian  - 08:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Davewild (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) --Aqwis (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 23)  X  clamation point  12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 24)   Badgernet   ₪   12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support --Doug Coldwell talk 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) WWGB (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) — Aitias   // discussion 13:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 28)  لenna  vecia  15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Sure.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 31)  MBisanz  talk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 34)  Majorly  talk  15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support prashanthns (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) arimareiji (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) --Elonka 20:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Glass  Cobra  22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Protonk (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Jamie ☆<font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="blue">S93  16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support --Polaron | Talk 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) seresin ( ¡? )  20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ anaɢ (formerly Politizer) talk/contribs 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) – wodup – 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Support --Mblumber (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) Secret account 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 49)  Sam  Blab 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 51)  Caulde  21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 52)  - <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Philippe  22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 53) Stephen 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) Support --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) Support -chaser (away) - talk 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) <font color="navy" size="2">David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 58) Support <font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 59) Support Kingturtle (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 60) Support Rje (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 61) Support --Tikiwont (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 62) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 63)  iride scent  20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * 64) CharlotteWebb 14:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 65) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 66) Kralizec! (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 67) Elbutler (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 68) Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 69)  Enigma <font color="#FFA500">msg  23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 70) Support Graham 87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Graham 87 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to Daniel Case

 * 1) Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) RMHED . 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Rjd0060 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) --Caspian blue 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) ~ <font color="#F900">EDDY  (<font color="Green">talk /<font color="Green">contribs /<font color="Green">editor review ) ~ 00:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Lawshoot! 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Xasodfuih (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Acalamari 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)