The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed successful @ 25:2 with 92% supporting. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Eptalon

[change source]
Eptalon (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)


Statement

[change source]

Hello there, I know it looks bad, but I would like to propose myself as an oversighter; please note that I do not do this because I would distrust the other candidates, It took me a long time to think about it, some will probably see me as a hat-collector. I just do this in the hope that we get at least two successful candidates for oversight. Anyway, most probably know what I have been doing, for those that don't: I am a Checkuser, Bureaucrat and Admin here. I am over 18, and willing to identify towards the foundation; I have already done this to become CheckUser. So please spend a moment thinking about the other candidates, before voting for me. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination. --Eptalon (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[change source]

In general, oversight is used to permanently remove sensitive information from the logs. This includes information that should be considered personal to an editor; that might for example help locate that editor, like an e-mail address, street address, or phone number. Sometimes, it is also used to remove vandalism/graffiti that seems to include such information; It should be used is to remove what looks like false information about an editor, which puts that editor in a bad light. Finally, oversighters can remove a "username" from the logs, which will remove all the edits of that user (could probably be applied to the "Jew vandals", we have from time to time). I think that whether the usual graffiti ("XYZ was here", "Aaron is gay",...) falls under this rule is a point of dispute; and probably left open for the oversighter to decide, especially if the "Aaron" mentioned cannot clearly be assigned to an editor here. (Excuses, if we really have "Aarons": this is not coined to you, but used as an example). My take on this is that such graffiti can simply be deleted, if it cannot be matched with an editor. To sum it up: Anything that is not in itself damaging to an editor/group of editors, or that would reveal unwanted personal details about them must not be "oversighted". Also note, that the entries are not removed from the respective logs, they are simply "hidden" for most admins (who do not have the "oversight" flag turned on). Final note: If "Aaron" was a proud gay and openly said so on his userpage, the statement "Aaron is gay" would state the obvious, and no longer put him into a bad light, therefore not need to be oversighted (but those are probably thoughts too far removed from the original question). --Eptalon (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Even if you have several hats, I think you will be a fine oversighter. I fully trust you. Good luck. Barras || talk 11:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly support Pmlineditor  Talk 11:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support – Eptalon has always been one of the most-trustworthy users on the wiki. American Eagle (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. hmwithτ 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fr33kman talk 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No problem at all. Malinaccier (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No problems here. Razorflame 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Three is enough, and eptalon is part of the three I trust the most. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, obviously. My only problem is that if Eptalon was to leave, then the wiki would break down even more than when Creol left. —MC8 (b · t) 00:41, Monday August 10 2009 (UTC)
  12. I have worked with this user in the past, and he has demonstrated that he can be trusted with the tools. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. trusted user --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - no issues with this user yet. иιƒкч? 11:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--Chenzw  Talk  12:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --M7 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. -- Mentifisto 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support - very trusted and long term user. No problems at all :) - tholly --Talk-- 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Majorly talk 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. We need some actual oversighters, not more stupid drama. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. David0811 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - very trusted and long term user. (Doesn't mean that I think my vote is important for the decision.) --Cethegus (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support as above --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Chris 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Nothing personal, but would result in too much dependency on one editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if several users were given the tool. American Eagle (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We indent to give it to a minimum of 2 users and want all the 7 to pass. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More oversighters would be better than compared to giving one user all the powers. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sometimes comes across as those he thinks he owns the Simple project Soup Dish (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [source?]. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own the place; I just happen to be the one bureaucrat that took a decision, when User:Creol left; As pointed out to me by Barras many times, much has been done by stewards, with regard to oversight, in the last few weeks - It would therefore be good if we had a local team of oversighters. Since we need at least two of them, my candidacy should more be seen as a fallback option - If we can elect at least three other people (preferably only with admin flags, not crats/cu's...), we should do that. Note: I say three people, since I do not want to get into the situation again that the community needs to elect an oversighter in a hurry, so that it does not lose the other one. @Soup Dish: Please consider supporting at least one of the other five candidates, if you have not already done so. This is just to be constructive here - Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He supported other candidates. Barras || talk 12:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]
I have granted the flag since User:Djsasso and others confirmed this the request at meta . Mardetanha (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


More