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

Mailer diablo

 * I have been an active contributor since November 2004, and received my admin responsibilities in March 2005 - more than 4 years' of experience here. Last year I have also began volunteering for OTRS, dealing with various e-mails and at times involving personal information that has to be dealt in a sensitive manner.


 * The Oversight tool is meant to utilized for purposes of protecting fellow editors, the encyclopedia, and the Foundation from harm as swiftly as possible. I am familiar with the oversight policy that is set by the Foundation, and aim to further the good of the encyclopedia and privacy of fellow editors with this additional responsibility. I will also do my part in the tool's check and balances of auditing fellow OSers' actions. My geographical location is in East Asia, which provides a unique timezone (+8 GMT) where I can cover the duties of others while they are sound asleep in Europe or the Americas.


 * I'm Mailer Diablo, I hope you will affirm your trust in me, and I approve this message! - 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Mailer diablo

 * Mailer Diablo is one of the few candidates in this election who has written a Wikipedia article to top-level standard, in his case, two:  and . Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a few doubts, but Mailer Diablo is a highly trustworthy administrator. He outlined a very good reason for supporting in his statement above - his geographical location should make him available at times when other oversights are not.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Location, location, location - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan. Giggy (talk) 14:05, 6 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 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. (1) Personal information is accidentally revealed (e.g. IP address exposed when not logged-in; Poor Man's Checkuser comes to mind), and the user has no intention of making it public in the first place. [clause 1] (2) A user posting personal information of another editor, clearly against his/her will for this information to be kept private, later regrets the action and asks for removal. [clause 1]. For any other circumstances, the request would be forwarded to oversight-l for further scrutiny by the Oversight team to determine if the request can be acceded to, in compliance with Foundation policy. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, in the event that a user has intentionally volunteered personally identifying information, but wishes to redact upon realizing it was a stupid idea to do that, you would not make the decision on your own but ask your fellow overlookers to reach a consensus whether or not to remove the edit. Would they not be bound by the same policies and counter-policies as yourself? — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But I would be correct to assume that you would not consider removing (nor ask other oversighters to consider removing) a non-identifying edit on the basis that it is embarrassing (possibly related to cultural taboos, and/or lending itself to aspersions about the author's personal life, etc.)? — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) They are bound by the same set of policies. I presumed that you meant the request is made by the editor directly to my email or via IRC, I apologize if I misunderstood - Most requests would and should have formally gone to oversight-l anyway. I am for removal in most cases, but I would also want to be sure that it removal would be as intended - to protect the editor and not allow evasion of other policies. My belief is that 2/3/more pairs of eyes going through the request is always better than one; That why oversight users have the feature to check each other's work.
 * (2) I personally wouldn't remove the non-identifying edit because it would not be in the interest of the editor; its removal might instead bring more attention (此地无银三百两) to it. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "nothing to see here, move along" indeed. Muy bien, hoy fingiré que entienda chino. Thank you for your responses. — CharlotteWebb 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fantastic user. I fully trust him. Computerjoe 's talk 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See [[User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009. Acalamari 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in support of Mailer diablo

 * 1) Support — Ed 17 (Talk /  Contribs)  00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Orderinchaos 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) '''Support -- Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Ty  01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; neuro (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  Majorly  talk  01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) rootology  ( C )( T ) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Noroton (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 13)  Royal  broil  03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Sandahl (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Ironholds (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. MER-C 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Davewild (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 22)  Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) WWGB (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Giggy (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) --Conti|✉ 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Stifle (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Guy (Help!) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Tex (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 30)  لenna  vecia  15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 32)  J.delanoy gabs adds  20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 33)  MBisanz  talk 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Hús  ö nd  21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Cenarium (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 38)  Little Mountain  5   23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) I'm ~ EDDY  (talk /contribs /<font color="Green">editor review ) ~ and I approve this message! 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) 我是戴樂華- 我核准這個信息！ Strong Support <font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai  <font color="#660000">talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Lawshoot! 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support <font color="#DF0001">Matt Yeager  <font size="3" color="#B46611">♫  <font color="#00AA88">(Talk?)  08:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) –Juliancolton <font color="#66666">Tropical  <font color="#66666">Cyclone  15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Graham Colm  Talk 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) shoy (reactions) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat  21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 47)  Syn  ergy 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) maclean 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Dekimasu よ! 08:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 51) seresin ( ¡? )  20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 52) Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 53) — TKD:: Talk  07:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) – wodup – 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Secret account 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 57)  Sam  Blab 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 58) Support. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 59) Computerjoe 's talk  20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 60) Kusma (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 61) Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 62) Stephen 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 63) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 64) utcursch | talk 02:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 65) Support Deb (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 66) -- Herby  talk thyme 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 67) <font color="navy" size="2">David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 68) Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 69) CharlotteWebb 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 70) Support.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 71) Approve message whatever the message is Chergles (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 72) Support Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 73) Support Rje (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 74) --Caspian blue 00:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 75) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 76) Shii (tock) 07:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 77) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 78) McJeff (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 79) Support - Just to be another flake in the snowball...--Cerejota (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 80) Megaboz (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 81) Support -Dureo (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 82) Support -MBK004 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 83) Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 84) --Chasingsol<sup style="color:darkblue">(talk)  19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) approves this message.
 * 85) Acalamari 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 86) Support Graham 87 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes in opposition to Mailer diablo

 * 1) Oppose-- Iamawesome800  Talk to Me   00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Gurch (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) RMHED . 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) -  M  ask? 10:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><font color="#20406F">Aitias   // discussion 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) --B (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) --A NobodyMy talk 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) --A NobodyMy talk 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)