close
Jump to content

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/EPIC (2)

From Wikidata
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as successful. --Lymantria (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EPIC (2)

[edit]

Vote
RfP scheduled to end at 9 April 2026 12:35 (UTC)

Hello, I am pleased to present EPIC as an Oversight candidate. EPIC is a trusted and experienced WD and svwiki admin, Steward, as well as meta admin and Oversighter. Wikidata currently has 3 oversighters - with the large editing traffic we get, as well as IRL commitments of all OS team, I believe than a team of 4 OSers would be the sweet spot to maximize coverage, as well as allow discussions on borderline cases. EPIC, with the crosswiki experience and trust he has would make an ideal candidate for a multilingual project like us. At the same time, I believe that the reasons that led to his previous request failing (very fast rights progression, and no need for an extra oversighter) are resolved and no longer applicable. All in all, I believe he would be a good addition to the team. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Candidate acceptance statement: Thank you Konstantina, I am happy to accept. My time zone is UTC+1/UTC+2, and being a night owl I believe I could be useful during the night times, as well as working hours (depending on the day). Noting that I will be in Japan 30 March-13 April and my activity will likely be lower during that time, but it shouldn't affect my ability to answer potential questions here if and when needed. EPIC (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  1. BERJAYA Strong support as nominator. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BERJAYA Support -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BERJAYA Support highly trusted user and good candidate; just hope he doesn't stretch himself too thin. Ternera (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BERJAYA Support --Saroj (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BERJAYA Support. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BERJAYA Support Ainali (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BERJAYA Support --TenWhile6 20:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BERJAYA Support. --Wolverène (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BERJAYA Support. --IntensionalLogican (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BERJAYA Support - Mbch331 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BERJAYA Support—super nabla(🪰 msg) 10:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BERJAYA Support No concerns --Ameisenigel (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BERJAYA Support ! Sj (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  14. BERJAYA Support —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  15. BERJAYA Support would have supported last time as I'm really not concerned about the rate of rights gained, but now it's pretty much entirely clear. EPIC is a good steward, so I don't have concerns about them having OS. lp0 on fire () 08:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  16. BERJAYA Support --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  17. BERJAYA Support -- Ishtiak Abdullah (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  18. BERJAYA Support --Uschoen (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  19. BERJAYA Support -- Score Beethoven (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  20. BERJAYA Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  21. BERJAYA Support. Bencemac (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  22. BERJAYA Support Infrastruktur (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  23. BERJAYA Support --Fralambert (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  24. BERJAYA Support --Rzuwig► 11:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  25. BERJAYA Support -- Wooze★ 12:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  26. BERJAYA Support Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  27. BERJAYA Support --Epìdosis 21:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  28. BERJAYA Support Aqurs1 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  29. BERJAYA Support could even use another oversighter imo, especially with me being less active these days. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  30. BERJAYA Support MisterSynergy (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  31. BERJAYA Support--S8321414 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  32. BERJAYA Support. Madamebiblio (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • @DannyS712: I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, given that you cast the sole oppose !vote in the previous RfO for EPIC. ↠Pine (✉) 04:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EPIC: while I appreciate your volunteering, I have a concern regarding the previous RfO. In the comments there you seem to have made a questionable statement regarding the location of registered users, in this specific case, the time zones of Wikidata's oversighters at the time of that RfO. Granted that the previous RfO was from 2024, but can you describe how you came to formulate your previous statement and how you will reduce the risk of making similar errors when using advanced permissions such as suppression? There was a recent major incident where someone made a mistake. I realize that 100% prevention is impossible, but I'm interested in risk reduction during uses of advanced tools. Additionally, I'm troubled by the potential privacy implications of your previous statement, and would appreciate hearing you address that point. Thanks, ↠Pine (✉) 05:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I don't remember much about the last RfOS, but I hadn't mentioned anything in that end besides the mention that WD had no local oversighters in European timezones, based on information that was already publicly disclosed by the local OS. In that end, I do think some of the formulations in my last request may have sounded a bit odd (my English was a bit less advanced at the time), but I think and hope it came through that I take privacy very seriously and obviously would never disclose anyone's personal information. I intend to act in the same way and in accordance with the same policies I abide by as a steward and Meta-Wiki oversighter. Other than that I have 2FA enabled (as required for stews and OS) and as last time I don't intend to keep this right for longer than I am active here. I obviously understand that the community may be more careful around approving advanced rights holders after the WMF script incident this month, but us stewards did express our disappointment about the lack of due dilligence at the time, and in the end I think the WMF has learned to be more slow and careful around that type of user script loads. EPIC (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While existing tools does not divulge this, any person who is not statistically challenged can deduce when a contributor is active, and thereby their timezone unless they are a night-owl. Anything you post ever is public information, like it or not. Infrastruktur (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EPIC, Infrastruktur: The comments "we are currently missing a major time zone within the OS team, namely European times" and "none of the oversighters are located in European time zones, if I'm correct on that" could have been intended to be something like "no local oversighters have logged oversight actions on this project between UTC X and Y, and an analysis of user activities based on hundreds of users' infoboxes and categories of their user pages correlated with what time ranges in which they edit Wikidata suggests that these hours are peak UTC hours for European and/or African contributor activities." Focusing more on time ranges and public information I believe is less problematic from a privacy perspective than saying that no local oversighters are physically located in European time zones, although the real-world impact of such a statement may be limited given how large and populous the location under discussion is. By the way, some "European time zones" appear to include large sections of in Africa, so perhaps a better description would have been "European-Aftrican time zones." Excluding Africa from the analysis would not be a good idea. I'm concerned about EPIC's statements in the previous RFO, including the lack of mentioning Africa, but I would be more inclined to cast an oppose !vote in this candidacy if it was for a checkuser role where such analysis is much more important than for an oversight role. Also, I've seen EPIC doing some good work in the steward role, which is another reason that I'm not opposing. I appreciate EPIC volunteering to do more work than he's already doing well as a steward. ↠Pine (✉) 03:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Oversight/EPIC_(2)&oldid=2479841655"