Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Stewards/Elections 2022/Votes/Eptalon

< Stewards | Elections 2022
Warning

The 2022 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.

Eptalon

edit
ContentsYes • No • Neutral
  • Languages: de-N, en-5,fr-5, es-2, it-1, la-1
  • Personal info: (English)
    Hello there, I am Eptalon, I have been a user of Wikipedia since 2006 or so. My home Wiki is Simple English Wikipedia, where I hold admin rights, I am also a bureaucrat, a checkuser and an oversighter there. Aside from simple, I also edit English, French, and German Wikipedias from time to time. I have had contact with some of the smaller Wikis such as Alemannic, or Latin. I was a steward in the past, but quit for personal reasons. I want to try again, because I believe that with my near-native levels of English and French, as well as German, I can help Wikipedia as a whole. In Simple English Wikipedia I also saw my tasks as taking a meaningful decision, whether an article should be deleted or kept, to delete the various contributions which only contained meaningless graffitti, and to deal with users who are only here to cause trouble (reasonably: by blocking them or initiating a ban discussion). My task as an oversighter is to hide material that is insulting, or that reveals personal details of an editor (such as the real name behind a pseudonym). Personally, I think that Wikipedia isn't censored, and that editors should be able to deal with obscenities (especially if they have been reverted, and only show up in the edit history). As a Checkuser, I make sure that people don't vote several times (or that if they do, their vote is counted once, at most). Cross-wiki spam is a large problem, which needs to be dealt with globally. Paid editing can be hard to prove. Known torublemakers use different identities, only a checkuser can sometimes tell they are in fact the same user. I grew up on one of the smaller Wikis, and I believe it is time to improve the visibility and understanding of such wikis in the greater Wikimedia community. This community is made of many editors, from many different backgrounds. Being able to communicate with people from many different backgrounds is an enriching experience, where all profit. In short: I have been a steward in the past. I think it is time to nominate myself again.
  • Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2022/Questions#Eptalon


  Yes

edit
  1. Richardkiwi (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Old cows don't stop me to for vote 'Yes' Richardkiwi (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Novak Watchmen (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  Novak Watchmen (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ElBe (Eligible, checked by Zabe)2022 •  ElBe 1 | 2 | WP 15:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oaktree b (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bedivere (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  I'm not particularly convinced by the oppose votes, but I'm quite convinced by Eptalon's previous experience. I can't oppose. Bedivere (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Klein Muçi (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  Klein Muçi (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pppery (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  * Pppery * it has begun 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Snævar (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Snævar (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Arado Ar 196 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Arado Ar 196 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Predatorix (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  Predatorix (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ferran Mir (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Ferran Mir (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shizhao (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Shizhao (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
       LookingGlass (Not eligible, checked by Ferien) •  LookingGlass (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mustafdesam (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Mustafdesam (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
       Andyzweb (Not eligible, checked by Giraffer) •  Andyzweb (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryse93 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Ryse93 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Actorsofiran (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2022 •  Actorsofiran (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Bestoernesto (Eligible, checked by Hulged)2022 •  Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Luensu1959 (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  He was already a steward, thus he's got a lot of experience Luensu1959 (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mosbatho (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  Mosbatho (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jusjih (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Jusjih (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. F0x1 (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  F0x1 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Asav (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Asav (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Mndetatsin (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Mndetatsin (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Zabia (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  Zabia (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Luca.favorido (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  Luca.favorido (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ulubatli Hasan (Eligible, checked by Zabe)2022 •  Hasan (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Faendalimas (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Samatics (Eligible, checked by Hulged)2022 •  Samatics (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Des Vallee (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Des Vallee (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Quodvultdeus (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  Quodvultdeus (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Nurtenge (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  Nurtenge (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Kamma (Eligible, checked by MdsShakil)2022 •  Kamma (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. VKG1985 (Eligible, checked by Hulged)2022 •  VKG1985 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. O. Morand (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Merci pour cette présentation en français. Bon courage ! O. Morand (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Coffins (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2022 •  Coffins (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Bio06940 (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Bio06940 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No

edit
  1. Rschen7754 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  The incident that lead to a nonconfirmation in 2012 (Stewards/Confirm/2012/Eptalon) is very poorly addressed. I can't say that I agree with the dewiki policy requiring additional logging for steward-performed checks - however the answers to the questions and the statement show a severe misunderstanding of what happened at best - and not being upfront with the voters as to what happened at worst. Not to mention that any steward should know better, as a matter of practical wisdom, than to perform checks on dewiki which is generally frowned upon on large wikis with adequate CUs. Plus, the lack of communication afterward. Rschen7754 14:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Martin Urbanec (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Eptalon was removed in 2012, because they didn't follow German CU policy and didn't communicate about it. In their statement, they said they "quit for personal reasons". I'm sorry, but that's not an appropriate description of what happened. I don't have issues with disregarding old mistakes, but not addressing one's mistakes properly is a big no-no for me. Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MF-Warburg (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  MF-W 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thingofme (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Few crosswiki activity and do not answer the 2012 confirm Thingofme (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KPFC (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  The answers to the 2012 incident don't give me the impression it would be prudent to elect you as a steward. KPFC 💬 14:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Majavah (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Majavah (talk!) 14:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JavaHurricane (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Besides the highly unconvincing answers to the questions asked, what makes me strongly oppose Eptalon's candidature is that I have seen them insensitively use an extremely racist term on the simplewiki's IRC channel: a behaviour that I, as a person of colour, honestly find absolutely appalling and disgusting. I feel that this behaviour indicates a lack of sensitivity, among other things, on Eptalon's part, which does not convince me that Eptalon will make a good Steward. Sorry but no; you should know better than using banned racist terms. JavaHurricane 14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JavaHurricane: Can you describe the "racist term"? When did this happen? Leaderboard (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leaderboard: the racist term in question is the horrifically undignifying word that begins with an 'N'. What I have seen in IRC seems to be the tip of the iceberg; I've seen Eptalon use the word to refer to people of colour, such as for example saying that a simplewp article needs the picture of a (you know the word). As far as I can remember, the statement was not out of malice; but Eptalon was quite aware that the term is a racist slur (he noted this during that conversation), and the fact that he used this term in spite of being aware of the meaning, that too repeatedly, suggests a horrifying lack of sensitivity that made me feel unwelcome on simplewp. Another incident that I distinctly remember is that Eptalon suggested creating articles on "racially-motivated violence" against the "white minority" (his words) in the US simply for NPOV reasons, as there were many articles on violence against people of colour by what he called as "supposedly white" police officers. This is unacceptable and undignifiying in my opinion. There are, I believe, other incidents which I am not aware of or cannot distinctly remember; but these two stand out in especial. Eptalon's behaviour is a major reason why I steer clear of simplewp; I don't feel welcome there for this reason. JavaHurricane 04:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eptalon: I want to hear your views on this. Leaderboard (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, referring to that word: SEWP has an article, where there used to be what I suppose was a cover or one of the illustrations of an early edition of a well-known work by Mark Twain. At some point, the image was removed; at the time, I asked to put back an illustration, as images are often helpful; I also made some suggestions on the respective talk page, but unfortunately, there are very few suitable images on Commons (most of them are unsuitable, because they use the term figuratively). Like with other words, usage and meraning change over time, so at the time Mark Twain wrote the book, the term did not have its current meaning.
    As to the second point: Probably a large number of policemen/policewomen in the US are white and to my knowledge, movements such as "Black Lives Matter" also protest against racially-moviated violence against non-whites. When these movements grow in importance, there's also criticism of people from within that community (some of which is listed at the BLM page). Depending on the situation, racism (and racially-motivated violence) can take very little to develop. So, as there are racist movement directed against non-whites (probably most), there may also be such movements directed against white people. Likely we find them in countries such as South Africa, which had an Apartheid regime for a long time. Some years ago, a colleague of mine, who was born and grew up in South Africa told me, that at that time (late 1990s/early 2000s), travelling to South Africa was a bad idea for white people. And if you look at the demographics of South Africa: Most are African, from the looks, between five and ten percent are of the population are white.
    And to make it crystal clear: I am neither racist, nor homophobic. Eptalon (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As an active user on simplewiki, I am horrified to learn someone was made to feel unwelcome there due to their race by a member of our admin team. I can confirm the insensitivity was a problem on IRC a while back; not familiar with the other incident mentioned. --IWI (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JavaHurricane: What would you say in light of Eptalon's statement above? Leaderboard (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked up the figures, as of 2021, about 4.6 million people (out of 60 million) in South Africa were white (European ancestors, or Japanese, as I gather). And en:Racism_in_South_Africa has a section called "Racism against white people", so it does exist... Eptalon (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JavaHurricane, these things are both serious and relevant. It is not right that you were made to feel unwelcome. Can you provide links and diffs? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkfrog24: As it was all on IRC, it would be difficult for JavaHurricane to provide links and diffs for this situation. --Ferien (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien: Oh, I thought it was on both IRC and article talk pages. Yes, that would make it nearly impossible for JH to provide difs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JavaHurricane, I don't remember communicating with you on IRC, for quite some time. At what time approximately did these events take place? - Are we talking month, years, several years? - the last time I interacted at a steward re-confirmation was 10 years ago. Eptalon (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JavaHurricane: I am sorry for making you feel unwelcome, esp. since Simple English Wikipedia is a small project. Given that English is not my mother tongue, I probably misjudged how contentious the term really is. All people should feel welcome at any Wikipedia, no matter what their opinion, creed, skin color, or sexual orientation is. No mater what your opinion on me is, I cordially invite you to come edit Simple English Wikipedia; you won't see behavior bordering racism (or other discriminations) form me in the future (to the best of my abilities). Eptalon (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems a bit unusual to me to assume that the English word is any less contentious than the direct German analogue given you are a native speaker of German. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     23:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, the German one is no longer in common use. To be honest, I haven't seen it used in everyday speech in the last 20-30 years. Eptalon (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because it's also an obvious racial slur in German. The relevant dewiki article may be instructive in that regard. Blablubbs (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out, as I said above, it is no longer in common use (and apart from a children's song/counting rhyme, a palindrome, and perhaps a few names for sweets and drinks, it disappeared from the language). This has been the case since at least the mid-1980s. I will not provide links, as these are not relevant to the discussion, and they would be useful only to German speakers. Eptalon (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Eviolite (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  The characterization of a failed confirmation as "quit[ting] for personal reasons" does not inspire faith. Eviolite (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Firefly (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  firefly ( t · c ) 14:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tks4Fish (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Per Rschen and JavaHurricane. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contrib (he/him) 14:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SQL (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  SQLQuery me! 15:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Hulged (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  per Rschen7754. Hulged (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Zabe)2022 •  per Rschen and Martin. While I respect you as a person, I cannot overlook the concerns other voters brought up. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Zabe (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Everyone makes mistakes and with my question I gave you chance to address it. I'm sorry, but your awnser did not satisfy me at all; per Rschen7754 and Martin. Zabe (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Camouflaged Mirage (Eligible, checked by Zabe)2022 •  I am very sadden by this vote. Eptalon had been a good mentor for me in Simple and we had worked on several articles together. However, beyond Simple, I struggle to find any other activities that relates to the role of Stewards. In addition, the answers aren't that sufficient too. Thank you for running still and I still look forward to you contributing in Simple. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mirer (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Not only because of the CU-incident, but not communicating about it (back then and now ...) would be reason enough to oppose. Additionally I don't see a proper understanding of CU reasons and process out of your answers - especially not about the (maybe very own) process in de-wiki. Mirer (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Starship SN20 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Because of the CU-incident, not communicating about it. EVen now it was not communicated. I see no reason do think Eptalon being re-elected as a steward would go any better. Just that one incident, at this level, would be reason enough to oppose. Eptalon clearly does not have a proper understanding of CU reasons through his/her answers. It would be a big mistake to re-elect Eptalon. Starship SN20 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Infinite0694 (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  per Rschen7754 and Martin Urbanec Infinite0694 (Talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. GeneralNotability (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  GeneralNotability (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Praxidicae (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. DownTownRich (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  DownTownRich (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Blablubbs (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  Blablubbs (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ToBeFree (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  ToBeFree (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kadıköylü (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  Kadıköylü (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Giraffer (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Giraffer (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Nguyentrongphu (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  I have no problem with the incident 10 years ago. It has been 10 years, so let's move on. However, I'm opposing per JavaHurricane. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Daniuu (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Unhappy with the handling and the insights gained from the incident on dewiki that lead to their removal in 2012. They should clearly state what the incident learned them etc. Additionally, JavaHurricane's comment is also of particular concern. Daniuu (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. NightWolf1223 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  NightWolf1223 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Spicy (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Concerned about issues raised above and at simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_deadminship/Eptalon. Spicy (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ​I'm not sure what that request for de-adminship has to do with anything here, apart from the IRC comments, maybe. The community agreed that Eptalon was still suitable to be an admin and it has no impact whatsoever on his ability for stewardship. The main reason for the request was that Eptalon had readded a comment on a talk page that was, at best, completely unacceptable, but it was addressed by another editor already, 5 years ago, which I believe was the reason why Eptalon readded it. Could you explain a little more about how this actually relates to this election? --Ferien (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in getting into a debate here. I trust that other voters can read the page and come to their own conclusions. Spicy (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Spicy: Can you be specific about what issues in that RfDA you think are problematic? - We are talking about a comment on a talk page, left by an Ip editor, several years back, and adressed by another admin, at that time (also several years back). What I find more problematic is that at the time I was being accused of revisionism. Should a wikipedia not be able to handle the history of its pages, esp. if it is that far back? Eptalon (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mirji (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  unsuitable ɱ 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Operator873 (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Operator873 connect 20:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Gereon K. (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  --Gereon K. (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. DraconicDark (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  DraconicDark (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. CaptainEek (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Kusurija (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  --Kusurija (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Silver hr (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  Silver hr (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Miraclepine (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  ミラP@Miraclepine 01:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. ImprovedWikiImprovment (Eligible, checked by Sennecaster)2022 •  IWI (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Sennecaster (Eligible, checked by Hulged)2022 •  Per Spicy, Rschen, and Javahurricane. The reasons supplied are incompatible with how stewards are part of the global movement. Sennecaster (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Mtarch11 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Mtarch11 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Vincent Vega (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  Vincent Vega msg? 09:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. SHB2000 (Eligible, checked by Jianhui67)2022 •  SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Atcovi (Eligible, checked by Jonathan5566)2022 •  Unconvincing —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Asartea (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Asartea Talk (Enwiki Talk (preferred)) 12:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. MrJaroslavik (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Minorax (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Xaosflux (Eligible, checked by Minorax)2022 •  — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Drumingman (Eligible, checked by Minorax)2022 •  Drumingman (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Johannnes89 (Eligible, checked by Minorax)2022 •  Johannnes89 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. HouseBlaster (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  HouseBlaster (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Enkhsaihan2005 (Eligible, checked by Daniuu)2022 •  Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Morneo06 (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Morneo06 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. TheresNoTime (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Stjn (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Per JavaHurricane/Spicy. stjn[ru] 18:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Meiræ (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Ok, I do not like what I read here. Meiræ 18:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Toadspike (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  Toadspike (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Natuur12 (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  Natuur12 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Darkfrog24 (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  I have had a chance to read diffs on the Simple English Wikipedia that touch on the issue cited by JavaHurricane. There are some here. I note that this is not a vote for whether Eptalon should be desysopped or sanctioned but only whether E should be made steward. I vote no because if we AGF and view this in the kindest possible light, Eptalon recently failed to show that they could avoid the appearance of impropriety and hold themselves to the high standard we aspire to set for admins. If Eptalon didn't realize what they were saying was that bad, then they might, if made steward, accidentally embarass the project even while acting in good faith. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Darkfrog24, for that link; it is my RfDA, which was closed in March last year (2021), and is also mentioned above. I will perhaps permit myself a quick summary: after 58 oppose votes, we have probably gone through all the arguments there are, and we have seen that the most recent we can come up with (the RFDA) is about 11 months old. I do not blame it on anyone, but the other candidates running for election probably didn't go through such scrutity, as they are running for the first time. Would it not be in the interest of fairness that all candidates running for stewardship got the same treatment? If the current process is not able to cope with a controversial candidate running, and actually getting a fair chance of being elected, than this is not a problem of the candidate, but of the process. Thank you for your consideration. Eptalon (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a pleasure to work with, Eptalon. While steward elections are not exactly like elections in which candidates compete for a limited number of spots, I would not mind at all if the other candidates were also subject to careful scrutiny. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Extraordinary Writ (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Stwalkerster (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  stwalkerster (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. DanCherek (Eligible, checked by Daniuu)2022 •  DanCherek (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. *Youngjin (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  *Youngjin (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Taivo (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  per Martin Urbanec Taivo (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Steindy (Eligible, checked by Daniuu)2022 •  Steindy (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Bencemac (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  Bencemac (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Steinsplitter (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  68. NonsensicalSystem (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  NonsensicalSystem (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  69. SD hehua (Eligible, checked by Sennecaster)2022 •  SD hehua (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  70. AmandaNP (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  -- Amanda (she/her) 23:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Ajraddatz (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 •  – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Herbythyme (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Herby talk thyme 08:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Victor Schmidt (Eligible, checked by MdsShakil)2022 •  While I would normally consider a 10 year old incident stale, the circumstances in this case unfortunally force me to consider it. I am not particularely happy that the candidate summarieses a failed confirmation as resigned due to personal issiues, nor am I happy about the fact that the incident that lead to the nonconfirmation was a direct use of steward privileges. Together they're the dealbreaker, and should the concerns by JavaHurricane be accurate too, I doubt wether I will vote yes at a stewards election of this candidate at any time soon. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Guerillero (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 20041027 tatsu (Eligible, checked by Mykola7)2022 • . 20041027 𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓼𝓾（talk） 15:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  76. DaneGeld (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Sorry, but it's a no from me. Having read some of the comments on this thread concerning Java Hurricane and the issues which made them feel unwelcome, I don't feel comfortable putting you up as a Steward. I'm out. DaneGeld (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Fastily (Eligible, checked by MdsShakil)2022 •  FASTILY 01:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  78. ZI Jony (Eligible, checked by Hulged)2022 •  Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Agus Damanik (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  hiding previous removal information is not approriate for steward Agus Damanik (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Geraki (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  Geraki TL 15:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  81. David Wadie Fisher-Freberg (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  dwadieff ✉ 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Coffee (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  — Coffee // have a cup // 20:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  83. BrunoBoehmler (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  BrunoBoehmler (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Arccosecant (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2022 •  — csc-1 23:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  85. KajenCAT (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  --KajenCAT (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  86. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2022 •  Yikes. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     23:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  87. WikiAviator (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  WikiAviator (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Aca (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  Aca (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Ryse93 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Ryse93 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. L235 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  KevinL (aka L235 · t) 00:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  91. babegriev (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Babegriev (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Legoktm (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Per discussion at [1]. Legoktm (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Armbrust (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Armbrust (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Fenikals (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Fenikals (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Wilfredor (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wilfredor (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Zangala (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Zangala (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Yahya (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Rzuwig (Eligible, checked by Minorax)2022 •  Rzuwig► 12:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Tommy Kronkvist (Eligible, checked by Synoman Barris)2022 •  Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Dostojewskij (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Dostojewskij (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Bibliomaniac15 (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  bibliomaniac15 01:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  102. HMSLavender (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  103. AlvaroMolina (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  104. TonyBallioni (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  105. 1ForTheMoney (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Teles (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  —Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 18:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
       Kpddg (Not eligible, checked by Superpes15) •  Kpddg (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Justus Nussbaum (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  Just N. (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Uncitoyen (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  per Rschen and Martin. --Uncitoyentalk 19:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  109. موسى (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  موسى (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Wugapodes (Eligible, checked by Uncitoyen)2022 •  Per JavaHurricane and Rschen. Wugapodes (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral

edit
  1. Tol (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Looking at the 2012 confirmation incident, I can't support the candidate, but given that it was nearly 10 years ago, I don't think it merits opposition either. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ferien (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  My experiences with Eptalon on simplewiki have been great. It has been good to work with him and he does a lot of great work there, there's no doubt about that. What puts me here is not the dewiki situation (that was 10 years ago) but the IRC situation addressed by JavaHurricane. I'll admit, I was not there for that so I cannot confirm or deny it, but it is concerning. There is also a bit of a lack of cross-wiki experience. However, they were a steward before. Eptalon would be a good steward and would be uncontroversial if elected and I think we should assume a little more good faith before jumping to a conclusion that Eptalon purposefully didn't mention it - they could have forgotten about the situation, which is likely because it was 10 years ago - and my opinion is that it's not a huge deal now because it was so long ago. There have been no issues with CU on simplewiki since then, at least not that I've seen. The problems here are the IRC situation mentioned by JavaHurricane and the lack of cross-wiki experience. Ferien (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thought about my vote a little more and at some points I was thinking I was going to oppose, others I was going to support so I'm still staying in neutral and I have some thoughts I wanted to add. I am leaning oppose because I was around for one situation on IRC where I don't think Eptalon was as sensitive as he could have been. This was not the sort of behaviour I would expect from a steward, even though that behaviour alone was not extremely insensitive. He wanted to add an image to this article. A few members replied saying it was completely unnecessary and I noted that there are images on the article on enwiki. In this situation (though I believe there was another that I was not involved in or even around for), it was never mentioned that the article needs the picture of a (you know the word). As I said though, more care could have been taken into the situation and I think now Eptalon has apologised, it is an area he will step away from in the future. I am still not quite sure why the RfdA situation is being bought up (someone will have to explain that to me if I have misunderstood this completely) but in that discussion there were three key points: Conduct on IRC, simple:Talk:Nazism and controversial admin actions. The conduct on IRC was already addressed here, including the situation I believe Naleksuh was talking about on the RfdA, and there was a conclusion/consensus on that RfdA (at least, looking back on it now) that Eptalon's readdition of the comments to simple:Talk:Nazism was acceptable because of the comments from Macdonald-ross that addressed the bad comments. As to the claim given that Eptalon is a Nazi, there was no evidence about that bought up there, and there was a consensus that he was not a Nazi so I don't think we should be paying attention to it. And the final problem bought up at that RfdA was the misuse of tools, and there were a few occasions where Eptalon closed RfDs in a certain way when there was not a clear consensus. However, I believe this was addressed very well by Gordonrox24 on that RfdA so I don't feel there's a need to talk about that here in any more detail. So what's the problem with the RfdA not bought up here already that is worth mentioning here? It's either not there or I've completely missed on it after !voting in it myself and reading it a few times through this evening and that's why I thought, and still do think, it's just unnecessary drama to bring it to this request for stewardship. I am still willing to overlook the dewiki situation because it was so long ago and so early in Eptalon's steward career. There is also a lack of recent activity in steward areas, which I don't think I can argue. Now, reasons to support: Eptalon was a steward before and while he doesn't have much cross-wiki experience, he has lots of CU and OS experience on simplewiki too. My reasons to support may be rather simple (simplewiki also...) but I think they are pretty big positives. I can't bring myself to oppose this request for stewardship and I also can't bring myself to support it either. I feel very strongly neutral on this... But one of the main reasons that I am definitely not opposing is because there is a human behind this candidacy and maybe we shouldn't be too strong. Remember, this is a candidate who has done lots of good work, particularly on the core articles of Simple Wikipedia, and has years of administrative experience. "Piling on" oppose votes and trying to dig out every mistake from the past (e.g. even an RfdA where there was a very clear consensus to keep) is not the way we should be treating editors, even if one could say steward is a request where lots of scrutiny is needed, there is a human behind the screen and finding many mistakes people have made over a decade and putting all of them on one page for everyone to see is not healthy for anyone. --Ferien (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MdsShakil (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  MdsShakil (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hiàn (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  I'm not going to oppose, since I've had mostly positive interactions with Eptalon at simplewiki and I think it's pretty clear his experience has been a net positive on the project (albeit with some major concerns). I'm more concerned over a general lack of cross-wiki work since 2012. The community has changed much in the past 10 years and I'm seeing little involvement on Meta (and nothing addressed in the candidate statement) that would convince me of Eptalon's familiarity with the broader global community. Hiàn (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Bobherry (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  I have worked with them on simple english wikipedia before and they have been nice. However the above concerns do have power. Bobherry (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Miniapolis (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Miniapolis 02:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Brewster239 (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Brewster239 (T·C·CA) 08:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bedivere (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  Having initially supported Eptalon's candidacy, JavaHurricane's comments made me reconsider such support. I'm all against race supremacy discourses, being myself a person coming from South America, something even here we battle day by day. I'm not opposing since my previous exchanges with Eptalon have been courteous. Overall, I think they would do a fine job, given their previous experience, but using racist words, at this point in history, is way out of touch. Bedivere (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. EpicPupper (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  I am against judging people by their mistakes years ago, but Eptalon's less-than-reflective acknowledgement of their previous missteps (as referenced above) makes me unable to support. I encourage them to run in the future if they are able to demonstrate admission of their lapses, as I see no issues with experience. EpicPupper (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Snævar (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Moved own vote to neutral. Can't support an candidate with the behaviour listed in the deadminship request on simple in 2021 and the CU issue in 2012. If there was only was the 2012 incident, then maybe he might have learnt from it, but that is clearly not the case.--Snævar (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CptViraj (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  CptViraj (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bgrus22 (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  Bgrus22 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Wagino 20100516 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Iich1960 (Eligible, checked by CptViraj)2022 •  Iich1960 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dreamy Jazz (Eligible, checked by MdsShakil)2022 •  Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Horza (Eligible, checked by Johannnes89)2022 •  Besoin d'un steward avec des connaissances en français mais l'incident peut être problématique même s'il est ancien Horza (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Ameisenigel (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Ameisenigel (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Fehufanga (Eligible, checked by Martin Urbanec)2022 •  Fehufanga (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Wolverène (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Wolverène (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Uncle Bash007 (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  as a colored active wikipedia editor, I really go against any form of racism, however, Elapton has admitted it wasn't intentional and apologized for the error; it shows a kind of humanity. I therefore cannot say no to his claim, I consequently remain at the border. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Linedwell (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Linedwell [talk] 11:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Cyfraw (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  cyrfaw (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Mykola7 (Eligible, checked by Superpes15)2022 •  Mykola7 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Bluerasberry (Eligible, checked by Hulged)2022 •  I do not know what to make of the stated concerns. Bluerasberry (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. DePlusJean (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  DePlusJean (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. XR98 (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  XR98 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Rubin16 (Eligible, checked by Majavah)2022 •  rubin16 (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Centaur271188 (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Centaur271188 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tvcccp (Eligible, checked by Mtarch11)2022 •  Tvcccp (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Leaderboard (Eligible, checked by Giraffer)2022 •  My opinion mirrors that of Bluerasberry. You have a pretty good theoretical candidature. I wouldn't regard the 2012 issue as serious. I'm still having difficulty on the racism case - which could potentially be very serious but can also be easily overblown, and it doesn't help that JavaHurricane hasn't responded to my last query. This doesn't discount the fact that you did make some errors, though that in itself isn't grounds for opposition. Leaderboard (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Intothatdarkness (Eligible, checked by Ferien)2022 •  Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Des Vallee (Eligible, checked by 20041027 tatsu)2022 •  Des Vallee (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Dash77 (Eligible, checked by MdsShakil)2022 •  Dash77 (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/Elections_2022/Votes/Eptalon&oldid=22896860"