NawlinWiki

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

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, an active contributor since the spring of 2006, and an administrator since late 2006. Lately, I've been spending a lot of time dealing with serial vandals who create multiple accounts. In doing that, I've been relying on the assistance of checkusers (especially User:Alison, User:Thatcher, and User:Nishkid64), but I'd like to start pulling my own weight. Of course, I would be working with requests at WP:RFCU as well.

I'm familiar with WHOIS and other tools for identifying static and dynamic IPs, and am a pretty quick study as to any of the technical aspects of the process that I'm going to need to learn. I'm an adult and willing to identify myself to the Foundation. I have computer access most of the time, so I'll be able to deal with checkuser requests promptly. I will be careful to follow Wikipedia policies and to respect users' privacy in the use of the checkuser tools.

Finally, I agree with Lucasbfr that all the nominees here would be excellent choices. If it were up to me, I'd say that anyone on the list who gathers substantial support should be appointed. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for NawlinWiki

• One of Wikipedia's most active administrators. Deals with problems in a rational manner, and understands the CU process, which are pluses. However, his answer to the question above does not inspire confidence - there are times when circumstances related to privacy issues require checkusers to act in privacy. Therefore, I cannot support. Sorry, Nawlin. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For my reasoning, please see User:Tiptoety/CU-OV elections. Tiptoety ^talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've found his dealing with pagemove vandalism cleanup to be rather excessive and heavy handed: Doing unnecessary selective deletions on pages with hundreds of revisions to remove juvenile pagemove vandalism history entries and excessive semiprotection, semi-protecting articles for months, with indef move-protection after only 1 instance of pagemove vandalism and little or no normal vandalism. I'm somewhat worried he might use a similar heavy-handed approach to checkuser work. Mr.Z-man 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry. You're too heavy-handed in how you deal with certain issues - Alison ^❤ 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disappointed with the results here: see User:Acalamari/CU-OV February 2009#NawlinWiki‎ for my reasoning. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chergles

Are you willing to disclose all checkuser requests that are requested of you (such as if someone requests it by e-mail)? If not, are you willing to disclose all checkuser results that you run (either + or -, not the actual IP results)? If not, why the secrecy? Wouldn't these disclosure help assure people that there wasn't fishing going on? Chergles (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm willing to disclose all requests (in fact, the easiest way would be to announce that I won't take CU requests by email, just by talk page post or RFCU). Not so sure about the second one -- if, for example, I'm doing a sockpuppet investigation and I checkuser an account which turns out not to be related, I don't see why that needs to be posted publicly. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Daniel Case

This is more of a request, actually, should you get this tool (I am asking this of all candidates presently in the race, regardless of how things look for them succeeding): Will you, if making a checkuser-based block, put the name of the suspected sockmaster in the log when you do so? Often accounts with minimal or no edit history request unblock, singing the usual "I don't know who this person is; why is Wikipedia blocking me?" song. Being able to compare edit histories without necessarily having to run it by the checkuser who made the block saves us both a little time. That's all. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I would do that. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in support of NawlinWiki

2. Support--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. SupportBeeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support — Gavia immer (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Arakunem^Talk 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - Euryalus (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Mattinbgn\^talk 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Chick Bowen 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Majorly talk 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kuru ^talk 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support GlassCobra 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support LittleMountain5 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. WWGB (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support --B (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support --Deadly∀ssassin 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support -- prashanthns (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. --Bobak (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Philippe 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Deb (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Accounting4Taste:talk 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. A Nobody^{My talk} 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Chergles (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39.  GARDEN  23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support eug (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Modernist (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Acalamari 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to NawlinWiki

2. Oppose --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Gurch (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. BJ^Talk 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. RMHED. 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. THE GROOVE 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. — neuro^(talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Prodego ^talk 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Ironholds (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - Tiptoety ^talk 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Xclamation point 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. –xeno (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. --Conti|✉ 14:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Cenarium (Talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Tex (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose لennavecia 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Epbr123 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - Alison ^❤ 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. SF3 ^(talk!) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Caspian blue 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. shoy (reactions) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose Guest9999 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. miranda 01:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose -- Acps110 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Stephen 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Orderinchaos 10:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. 4I7.4I7 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Secret ^account 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose Rje (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Seraphim♥ 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose McJeff (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose Graham87 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]