Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 11

	2004 \| 2005
	2006 \| 2007
	2008 \| 2009
	2010 \| 2011
	2012–20
	2021
	2022–

Muluka Ahmed

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.

Speedy closed. [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATING COMMENT HERE -- NOMINATOR'S SIGNATURE WITH TIMESTAMP

Stats

Links for Muluka Ahmed: Muluka Ahmed (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

@Muluka Ahmed: I think this nomination may have been made in error. The position of bureaucrat is a fairly powerful one, and not one that will be granted to members of the Wikinews community without significant trust and experience. If you're interested in contributing to Wikinews, please do check out Wikinews:Writing an article and Wikinews:Style guide! --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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.

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.

TUFKAAP

Inactive for at least two years since 16 July 2021 (last edit). No recorded log since March 2021. Twice notified about inactivity; no response yet. Per WN:PEP, should be de-sysopped. --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Links for TUFKAAP: TUFKAAP (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

Comment: For what it's worth, they've continued to edit at enwiki as recently as this morning. Heavy Water (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure how this counts. But thanks for the reminder, so I sent a message there. George Ho (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I've been away from Wikinews for a long while, I'm just busy in real life. Wikinews isn't like Wikipedia, since most articles are written mostly by one person with minor edits made by others. At least, that's it's always been to me. Wikipedia currently fits my workflow better in my busy life. I should note I was contacted by someone from the Foundation recently about the Wikinews Facebook account and trying to regain access to it because currently it is posting semi-NSFW videos using the Stories feature. Granted, I never had access and I think the person who had access was Brian McNeil, who as we know is sadly no longer with us. I will abide by whatever this RfP proposes, however, I don't think I should be de-sysopped for what it's worth. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will take action on this before May 15th. Please leave up for now.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two days after the said date. What action shall you take then? George Ho (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely swamped IRL, but have not forgotten about this. I intend to take action this week.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if my count is accurate, it looks like 4 for de-sysop and 3 to keep. Taking action now. I appreciate this person's past contributions and they are 100% welcome to re-engage with this project in the future, but they have been notable absent here for quite a long time.-Bddpaux (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted a Steward at Meta to have this person de-sysop'd/admin'd -- let's let the wheels turn.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing at m:SRP. Where did you make the contact? MathXplore (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paul made a request at a user talk page in Meta. I just now requested the desysopping formally. George Ho (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But when you don't count the people who, from what I can see, clearly don't have the experience to have suffrage on a request like this on en.wn, there's a 2–2 tie (although, obviously, determination of consensus requires considering more than just raw numbers). Heavy Water (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Desysop Thanks for what you've done, but it seems like you've moved on. No prejudice against reapplying if/when life makes you available for service here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PeP is both something the community can choose to apply, with discretion and common sense, and a measure to prevent compromised admin accounts or admins unaware of now-significantly changed policy, not a punitive one for simple inactivity. It shouldn't be taken as "better revoke any permissions as soon as the letter of these requirements is met." TUFKAAP is active elsewhere, so the security argument is moot; and I'm aware of no significant changes in customs regarding the use of admin tools in the past two years. Additionally, I think what SVTCobra said at Special:Diff/4730161 about having a shortage of admins makes sense. I'd add, for context about what was meant by "[ceasing] to be familiar with current practice": When drafting PeP and pushing for it to become a policy in 2012, Pi zero and Brianmc specifically expressed a desire to utilize it to revoke the permissions of those who either became reviewers very early on (i.e., about mid-2008 through 2009), when the standards for publishing were much lower, or left for the fork and were aware of Wikinews standards, but openly stated they had a complete lack of care about such, and even which site they were on. Heavy Water (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is your general view about PeP, right? I don't see how this view helps us trust this admin to use the tools any longer. To clarify, why must your reluctance to enforce PeP and (supposed) shortage of admins be one of reasons to support this person as an admin? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my view on enforcing PeP on TUFKAAP, and it's in line with my general view on enforcing PeP when the problems, listed above, that motivated the creation of PeP aren't present, especially at a time like this. As for the rest of your comment: WTF? I don't comprehend at all. Much of my vote was dedicated to explaining why those reasons make me inclined to oppose desysopping. I think one of the things you're saying is "you are reluctant to enforce PeP, but that should not matter, as it is policy." If it was like the review policy, you'd be right, but I go back to the first sentence of my vote, where I said PeP is "something the community can choose to apply, with discretion and common sense." Heavy Water (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now recall you said practically the same thing to SVTCobra when he objected to your suggestion Gopher65 be desysopped, George. Heavy Water (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, you have your reasons to oppose desysopping this person. Are they the same reasons to support this person as an admin? If so, I'd be flabbergasted, but whatever if the direction of the community heading toward your way. I have plenty of reason to oppose this person as an admin any longer, but if my reasons aren't enough for you, then... *sigh* George Ho (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing desysopping is equivalent to supporting the admin remaining an admin, so yeah, they're the same reasons. Heavy Water (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what are your views about this admin besides PeP? George Ho (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they served well. I mean, I've never interacted with them, so I wouldn't really know, but. Heavy Water (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not interacted much with this person either, and I honestly can't say much about this person's hard work. However, the past is the past. No reason to hold on the past too long in the present, is there? George Ho (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Seeing that the admin in question has been inactive for years, is active on the English Wikipedia, has been pinged there, and still doesn't care enough to engage here. Pecopteris (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't care"? Why do you infer bad faith? TUFKAAP may well be too preoccupied in real life to respond here. But I find it highly unlikely someone with eighteen years' work on this project "doesn't care" about a request to desysop them. (To clarify, I'm not asking you to AGF — we have a guideline of never assuming good faith or bad, but drawing reasoned conclusions.) Heavy Water (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to lack of sysop on this project. Lemonaka (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the sufficient reason to preserve this inactive admin's tools? George Ho (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, such reasons can be sufficient once the community agrees to that. On the other hand, I do not recognize any Wikimedia projects with such agreements. MathXplore (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, but waiting for stewards regular check. Lemonaka (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note) According to m:Admin_activity_review#Please_note and Wikinews:Permission_expiry_policy#Introduction, local policy (Wikinews:Permission_expiry_policy) will be prioritized. Therefore, there will be no stewards regular check until our admins go to m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access (Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Policy#Requests_for_removal_of_permissions). Please let me know if I'm wrong. MathXplore (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am satisfied by the response of the user above. --Bedivere (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note) According to Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Policy#Requests_for_removal_of_permissions, no anonymous IP or new accounts will be allowed to vote. MathXplore (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I want to note it was me who voted actually. Have removed the IP. It's true I don't have any other edits right now but that might change, so I don't mind if you don't take this vote into the count. --Bedivere (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the vote corrections. According to Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Policy#Requests_for_removal_of_permissions, our bureaucrats will count the votes. MathXplore (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see inactivity alone as a reason to desysop when we already have a dearth of active admins. Leaving advanced privileges intact leaves the possibility they could come back and immediately lend a hand with maintenance tasks. Having said that, it would be great if @TUFKAAP could use their famous block hammer at WN:AAA. They may not want to write articles and that's fine. There are plenty of pages to be deleted^{(a specific need here)}, vandals to be blocked, etc. ツ Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 00:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RemoveDoesn't have to be viewed as some horrible thing. If this person wishes to plug back in down the road, that can absolutely be considered.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Leaderboard (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A rationale would be nice, honestly. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: actually didn't see the need for one here as others have explained why before (i.e, inactivity). Leaderboard (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No clear consensus - after ten months of voting, the balance appears to be four in favour of removal and three against. Although the policy is for these votes to take place, there has to be clear consensus before removal can take place. [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:27, 27 May 2024 (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.

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.

Closing as withdrawn. —RockerballAustralia contribs 06:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bddpaux (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship (2)

Stats

Links for Bddpaux: Bddpaux (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Comment I am withdrawing this request. Any Administrator: Take action. Close this as withdrawn.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

I was nominated to be a 'Crat in July 2021, which I accepted. Then, last year I kind of retired, but now I'm back! Wanting to develop some stuff around here. I don't want this project to die. If I can get a few votes, I am told this will be fast tracked.--Bddpaux (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no signature, I am assuming the 'Strong Oppose' is from Cromium. I neither retract NOR regret one word of what I put on that User's Talk page. Hardly DAYS AGO, he was chomping to fast track my Nomination for 'Crat-- but after he BLEW UP a minor error on my part, has now chosen to spin it negatively towards me. Yes, I moved a hair quicker than I should have on a RfP for a Reviewer -- 100% guilty. The entire thing could've been salvaged. But he has done a stellar job of running off a person who might've been an excellent Reviewer -- a bit on the eager side, but the person held much promise. Today is the first WORD of him accusing me of being rude. 99.8% of the time, I never try to be rude -- playful, maybe -- and black text on a white screen doesn't always convey that very well. That is a true and factual statement; I try to handle new reporters etc. very gently and try to pull new ones into the fold -- I don't have much of a tool kit to make that happen, mind you. I will continue to focus on good journalism here. In less than 72 hours, I've been accused of: being emotional, 'begging' and a pinch of other things. Then, (remember: We are ALL VOLUNTEERS HERE) took a sizable tongue lashing for not deleting Talk pages on articles when I delete them. Possibly, I might've missed that reminder on the mentoring I never received as a new Administrator. I will continue to get the news, report the news, Review the news and carry out Administrator duties to the best of my ability here, however the chips may land. I am here. I have been here for 16 years. I believe in what happens here. I believe in the goodness of Citizen Journalism and I know there are some good people here trying to do good things. And: I will continue trying to learn and improve my skills while making a positive impact on this project.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your contributions, but I don't think you have to brag about your accomplishments and experience, do you (unless you were trying to correct facts, right?)? This implies potential arrogance and lack of humility, IMO, but I could be wrong. Oh, and speaking of your contributions, your log summary here when deleting a talk page of a user (whose username is obviously... demeaning) is strikingly... intriguing... but implies that you think of admins and WMF as lazy. Hopefully, I'm wrong about your implications.

When Cromium said talk pages you created, I think he meant only the ones you created, not other talk pages, including ones you deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC); my err, 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was the content of the page. Not a custom edit summary. Heavy Water (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "the content of the page"? ~~I'm very sure I was referring to the rationale/summary Paul made, right?~~ George Ho (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin on en.wn deletes something — obviously I can't know for sure because I'm not one, but I think this is the case — the default summary is "Content was:" followed by the content of the page. Heavy Water (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap! I fully misread! I realized just now that the vandal created the content, not Paul. My apologies, Paul, for wrongly accusing you of such uncivil content. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: You're not wrong. This issue has been highlighted to him many times. It is the default text in the deletion box but what he should be doing is deleting that text and typing in a deletion reason. Right above it, there is a drop-down menu, with a list of deletion reasons. He has always ignored this advice and continues to leave edit summaries that are sometimes inappropriate. What he does is click the delete button without checking what is in the deletion box. He also ignores the talk pages, whoch are left orphaned. Other users then expend time tagging those talk pages and other admins have to delete the orphan talk pages. It means we are spending a lot of time clearing up after him. We regularly have to check the edit summaries and hide some of them simply because he refuses to do things correctly. [₂₄Cr][talk] 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for others, Paul is Bddpaux. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to avoid this shitstorm all day. Maybe I shouldn't. "after he BLEW UP a minor error on my part": Cromium, from their comments here and at their talk page, clearly had more than one grievance that changed their mind. This seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Let's not forget that before your (Paul's) first comment at Cromium's talk page on this matter (and before Cromium closed the reviewer request and removed the priv), this was the tone of the discussion — in the last comment there, you clearly communicated (to me) you were upset and why, in a reasonable way. Rather than saying what you said on Cromium's talk page, you could have discussed the issue with them calmly. That your view is that you were wronged by their reversal of your actions doesn't justify that escalation, particularly since you agree you made a mistake in granting the priv. Only then did Cromium also lose their temper and change their votes on your RfPs. Am I wrong about the facts here? Heavy Water (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heavy Water: Then how you explain a couple others' change of stances here, like Koavf's? From what I've seen, Cromium and I aren't the only ones having issues with this nomination. George Ho (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Heavy Water (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading what you said earlier, you seem to understand and characterize Paul sympathetically. Then you characterized Cromium's change of stance as lost of temper. Well, looking at User talk:Cromium, Me Da Wikipedian scold both Paul and Cromium equally, so I figured that Me Da Wikipedian characterized it better than I would've. Nonetheless, the way Paul approached me further and further after my vote just blew me off, so I was leaning toward Cromium's side more. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing I said that was sympathetic to his actions was pointing out everyone involved, including him, was partaking in a reasonable discussion before his comment on Cromium's talk page. I said, "Only then did Cromium also lose their temper". It'd be unreasonable for me not to say that was the case, much as I believe Cromium hasn't really done anything wrong in the past 24 hours. Heavy Water (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not scold both Bddpaux and Cromium equally. Read it again. I said "You are both wrong, although I will say that Bddpaux is much worse." How much clearer could I get? I am also leaning towards Cromium, because they were not as bad ever and they recognized what they did wrong, rather than persisting in it.@George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s OK. Mistakes happen. I’ve made a few myself in recent days. 😁😁😁😁😁 Also, in terms of bragging, I am only trying to drive home my devotion to and longevity within this project. If I were going to be arrogant it wouldn’t be at a place where you do reporting and editing for free, I can promise that.—Bddpaux (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes do happen. But with such an advanced permission, I'd like to no that you won't be making basic ones, such as not knowing what a consensus is, or having no way to communicate outside of personal attacks. @Bddpaux Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul has left a message at his own user page, saying that he's taking a wikibreak after all this. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that due to recent events, Cromium not close this as no consensus or unsuccessful.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request. Any Administator: Take action. Close and mark as withdrawn.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support: Sure. Has experience with the job, and it's hard to mess up, anyway. Heavy Water (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support See no issues here, welcome back. EPIC (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Heavy Water. --BigKrow (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Support - well experienced and long time trusted user. Asked42 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok Leaderboard (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Oppose per the behavior on this page. Everyone has emotions, everyone makes mistakes, but on this very page where you are requesting the advanced permissions, you should really be on your best behavior. This shows poor judgement. No prejudice against him re-requesting after 12 months of having cooler heads prevail and I do appreciate that he’s trying to revive this moribund project. No for now, not forever. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – For almost the same reasons as my opposition to Paul's CU self-nomination: mainly getting emotional and outraged in replies at my talk page. Nothing wrong with inviting those to support your CU nomination, especially when the project lacks local rules about canvassing. However, I can't help wonder whether he remembers, forgets, or is unaware of alternatives, like raising concerns about the RFP policy at a project talk page. Furthermore, as I see, posting in talk pages of less-than-active users. Nothing wrong with that as well, but begging to revitalize the project or to write more articles (again?) reeks desperation and impatience, IMO. I don't know why I should trust him with crat tools other than "support" votes, but then I've yet to see him make effort to revisit policies and guidelines directly before self-nomination. I just read loud-looking feedback toward current policies, like requirements to earn permissions for tools. Perhaps he can also revisit the current WN:A rules? --George Ho (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George uses smart words and I always give credit for those. There is no "desperation" or "impatience" -- it was more "prompting" and "encouragement"... nothing more. I'm just trying to spark reporters reporting the best way I know how -- that isn't an easy task at all. Making sure we do THE NEWS around this place is critical. I am pretty darned aware of my emotional state and in the past 30 days, I've neither been emotional nor outraged -- I might've been offended and refused to lie down and take direct insults from you, but I wasn't emotional. If my black text atop a white screen came across that way, my apologies. I believe in this project and what happens here. 15 years ago (roughly) this was a robust project and a part of me misses that era. Maybe that will happen again. Time will tell.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further same reason(s) for opposing your CU nomination: this and that and that at someone's unsuccessful reviewer nomination. I don't need to summarize those diffs again, do I? Already done at your CU nomination. Furthermore, saying "Making sure we do THE NEWS around this place is critical" right away would imply that publishing articles and saving the project are above quality check, consensus/no consensus decisions, competency in all areas (like tools and social), etc. Well, I don't known whether such implications are fully true, but I'm not suggesting literally that they are. Indeed, the one I'm quoting is something I'm now struggling to bear with. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, thanks for your compliments about my "us[ing] smart words". George Ho (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - I have tried to be supportive but this user has made a mess of a request for reviewer by failing to realise there was no consensus, granting the permission but not closing the discussion. When criticised, this user resorted to describing others as "quacking and barking”, which I assume means that he thinks they are animals. After I tried to find a solution, I concluded there was no consensus after several weeks and closed the discussion. This user has responded by leaving an angry message on my talk page], blaming me for the mess he made. For years, we have put up with his incompetence and rudeness. He has no respect for anyone that disagrees with him. He has no regard for any guidelines or policies, often describing them in disparaging terms. The warning bell was when I read that until recently, he had no idea what a Checkuser does. I have lost all confidence in his ability to handle any challenging tasks such as closing requests for adminship. He also does not understand how to transclude a page, judging by the mess he made of his own requests for bureaucrat (I had to clean it up for him). I am not sure he understood the role the first time round. Given his disregard for guidelines and policies, I think he will be a dangerous person with such tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cromium (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 May 2024‎ (UTC)
Support This project has had a very low bus factor for ages. We shouldn't make it even lower because of internal bickering. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water, EPIC, BigKrow, Asked42, Leaderboard, Koavf: Do you now reaffirm your own support for this crat nomination? Pppery has done so. --George Ho (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho, I support anyone who is willing to help the project. BigKrow (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Double vote by BigKrow. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure either way. I'd rather retract my vote for the moment than deal with any of the toxicity that's bubbling up with everything happening over the last few days. I'd like to see evidence that all of this can be moved past before I reach a firm opinion. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Ash Shay, but this "distasteful" message by Paul was posted on my user talk page. Or rather, in my own words, he accused me of rubbing salt on his wounds and vilified me before I collapsed the post he made. Do you still wanna support Paul's crat nomination after all this and that? George Ho (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reaffirming as I'm not sure what to do at the moment. Leaderboard (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I strike your vote above then and replace it with your comment here? If so, to neutral or oppose?@Leaderboard Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian Not yet. Leaderboard (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay@Leaderboard Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too support per Pppery. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000, Pppery: You two are still willing to support this nomination, despite all this? Well, your decisions then, and I appreciate your judgments about amount of bureaucrats or administrators. However, honestly, this project doesn't have enough resources to handle all potential misuse or abuse or all this. Furthermore, the WN:ARBCOM is now defunct and no longer functioning, especially due to inactivity and lack of resources to keep it going. Like Cromium said, promoting this person would potentially worsen the project more than benefit, and I'd hate to see ArbCom revive only to fall into the wrong hands. George Ho (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to support bureaucrat, but not CU. Why, you ask? Although there isn't a need for excess bureaucrats, when you only have three bureaucrats, you need at least one of them to be following on project matters since stewards won't intervene. When you consider that they already have the experience, it's hard not to support.

CU, on the other hand, yes, I do agree with you; I won't vote for that nomination, though. SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unconvinced that experience, amount of bureaucrats, and concerns about stewards are enough to change my stance to support this crat nomination, but whatevs. Oh, and amount of bureaucrats and concerns about stewards are outside factors that, to me, are irrelevant to how I feel about this nomination. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. This page, Asheiou review request, Cromium's talk page, the checkuser request are all filled with reasons why.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not at the moment. I've spent a few days thinking on this, and I just don't think this is the right move right now. In the future, maybe. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 19:11, 3 June 2024 (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.

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.

Bddpaux

Nominating myself. One of ours is 100% in-the-wind and the other is about 98% in the same category. We need at least one CU active and checked in, although I am heavily focused on Reviewing and developing Reviewers (primarily) at the moment.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this request. Any Administrator: Take action. Close this as withdrawn.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Links for Bddpaux: Bddpaux (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · review log · lu)

Questions and comments

I guess you've brushed up on the technical knowledge needed? (I ask since you asked Acagastya last month what CUs' duties are.) Also Acagastya is still fairly responsive to CU-related inquiries, not that having another CU would hurt. Heavy Water (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have, yes. We really need 2 active and involved here.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul has left a message at his own user page, saying that he's taking a wikibreak after all this. --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that due to recent events, Cromium not close this as no consensus or unsuccessful.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless @Bddpaux has an objection, I would like to say that since Bddpaux has withdrawn I am fine with @Cromium closing this as unsuccessful. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support Very active, long-time editor here with advanced user permissions and who has already publicly declared his identity. No issues on other wikis. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ~~https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/CheckUser/Bddpaux&diff=prev&oldid=4783146~~https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Bureaucrat/Bddpaux_(2)&diff=prev&oldid=4783137—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but I don't know why you use this diff of someone's minor correction (or something). George Ho (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If I had to guess they meant the next diff, mine ([1]) @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Amended. Sorry/thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support We could definitely use another CU. I don't see anything that would cause me any issues in supporting this request. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 18:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I stand by the need for another local CU, but I am hesitant to lend my support to anyone at the moment. We'll see. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 17:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support CUs have less politicking than bureaucrats, and the benefits outweigh any potential issues. Bddpaux doesn't seem like the person to leak CU info because of a spat. This could be a good opportunity to rebuild some reputation. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support very nice well deserved user BigKrow (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I have recently had the need to request CU and unfortunately, neither local CU has responded. And our need for Checkusers will only increase once Temporary Accounts is rolled out. So I see this as both a short- and long-term solution for us. I also agree with Justin's comment above. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my vote because the requester has announced a long-term break from the project.[2] I think this request should be closed as it is no longer supported by the requester given their stated, long-term break. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I am not entirely convinced that this wiki should have local CUs. It's really too inactive and underserved with admin support to justify having them, and I think this can be taken over by stewards sooner or later, who are quicker to handle CU requests most of the time. However, this wiki does get quite a bit of abuse to the level where I think it does somewhat justify having local CheckUsers, and if there is someone relatively active who wants to help out, then that's positive. EPIC (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the issues pointed out here; I am not sure what to think. I need to think about this for a while. EPIC (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Very active and experienced editor, already advanced permissions, we need another CU, disclosed identity, etc. Also, this user makes up more than 20% of this entire wikis editing, and is the main reason it hasn't totally fallen apart. Well deserved.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The fact that you don't know what consensus is, and launch personal attacks and are not civil, and fail to comply with don't assume is getting me close to requesting removal of some of your current tools. If I'm that far, yeah I'm definetly not supporting you get more. We don't need checkuser being abused for personal arguements. See User talk:Cromium for more details.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As one of the current checkusers (and a former steward), I don't want to see this wiki relying entirely on stewards. Most people are familiar with English Wikipedia and often incorrectly judge Wikinews by the activity levels of English Wikipedia. [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support solely on merit. Regarding @Cromium:'s point, I've seen many times that the reluctance of this wiki to take help from other users has been, to the detriment of the wiki. Let's be fair - I don't normally see the level of requests that rise to requiring a CU, and this wiki has a problem in that admins don't seem to be around to do standard housekeeping tasks. How about ensuring that stewards can always action CU requests irrespective of the presence/absence of CU users? That's how it works on en.wikibooks. Leaderboard (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A worthy candidate with experience in the press. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Have enough experience. also having another active CU currently seems necessary. Asked42 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As from a very ignorant point of view, I think this is a conflict between editors and should be solved between them. Although I am not in favor of WP:Canvassing, their asking for a vote doesn't change the vote that I might make. Perhaps, I am not active on Wikinews and still lack expertise (very much) to blame anyone. Asked42 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been lurking on this project for a while (I was not told by anyone to comment here) and am happy to move this one closer to the required number of supports. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming support. This project has had a very low bus factor for ages. We shouldn't make it even lower because of internal bickering. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, Asheiou, BigKrow, Michael.C.Wright, EPIC, Me Da Wikipedian, Виктор Пинчук, Asked42, Ixfd64: Pppery and Leaderboard reaffirm their own support for this CU nomination. Do you now reaffirm your own support for it? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am changing it to oppose due to recent events and my comment at User talk:Cromium Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've also posted on the bureaucrat request, I'm taking a step back from all of the wiki politics for a bit to see if constructive progress can be made before coming to my opinion. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 02:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your aversion toward politics, but do you still wanna support this CU nomination after the post Paul made to me? (Already mentioned this at Paul's crat nomination) --George Ho (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to retract my vote on both nominations, and that's my opinion for the moment. I don't want anything to do with what's going on. I've neglected to share this here about myself because it has no bearing on my ability to report the news, but I have BPD, and all of the arguments that are going on at the moment are not doing me any favours emotionally. Please do not ask again, I will come to a final conclusion in my own time with the evidence I've seen, present and future. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 17:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a native speaker, I'm not sure that fully understand what's going on; I only realize that this is some kind of small conflict. I leave opinion the same. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To explain it briefly, Asheiou had a reviewer request. Bddpaux didn't realize (or ignored) that there was no consensus, and made Asheiou reviewer. A bunch of users got upset, and then Cromium undid it. So Bddpaux wrote a nasty note on Cromium's talk page, which people got upset about, and then did the same thing on George Ho's talk page for asking if people wanted to reconsider. A bunch of people did change their opinion.@Виктор Пинчук: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - long-time admin and can be trusted. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak support due to concerns brought up by others. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose... reluctantly – A post at my user talk page (begging to support the nomination) and subsequent replies (no.1,no.2), which clearly reveals emotional response, make me wonder whether to trust Paul with the CU tools. I appreciate his frustrations about current policies, like the RFP policy. However, alternatively, he should've raised the concerns at the policy talk page before self-nomination. Furthermore, begging for support reeks desperation, IMO. There are no current local rules against canvassing, but begging for a vote is a lot to ask. Also, hostility toward stewards, especially from ~~"oppose"~~ "support" votes, due to their perceived inexperience with Wikinews sites smells like an attempt to maintain the project's autonomy. I appreciate those wanting to save this project, but giving him the CU tools merely to improve or save the project is hardly a reason to support the nomination. Sorry. George Ho (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC); corrected, 20:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are way out of line using the word "begging" and I don't appreciate it one single bit. I am engaged in news work and try to move that forward here. You show up here, flog about re: various permissions (who has them and who doesn't) and then quack crap of this nature. You can oppose and that is fine. Consensus matters around this place - but you'd better check yourself using the word "begging" whenever it comes to me. I hope to help and build up this place, (maybe to return it to some remnant of its former glory days)and little more. My desire for CU is only built around that end.--Bddpaux (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Bddpaux:, I think George has a point here. Your actions did seem like closer to "begging" than what's normal. I'm not opposing you; I think you would do good as a CU, but you need to be a bit more patient. Leaderboard (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my initial thoughts could be wrong about being asked to favor the nomination after reading this. I really do honestly wanna support the nomination when Paul asked, but the replies and frustrations amid the nomination pushed me toward the opposite. George Ho (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and while I'm at it: Thanks for pouring gas on the "frustrations" whatever those happen to be.--Bddpaux (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and that and that at someone's unsuccessful reviewer nomination now reaffrim my opposition to this CU nomination: assuming there was a "consensus" (when such assumption was challenged), (sarcastically?) trying to close this as "successful", and saying that the person not becoming a reviewer is the last thing Paul needs. Furthermore, I can't help wonder how Paul would treat someone accused of sockpuppeteering and other anonymous editors. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho:, wasn't the first two diffs before Cromium challenged the consensus? Leaderboard (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history log, the diffs must've been. George Ho (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - I have tried to be supportive but this user has made a mess of a request for reviewer by failing to realise there was no consensus, granting the permission but not closing the discussion. When criticised, this user resorted to describing others as "quacking and barking”, which I assume means that he thinks they are animals. After I tried to find a solution, I concluded there was no consensus after several weeks and closed the discussion. This user has responded by leaving an angry message on my talk page], blaming me for the mess he made. For years, we have put up with his incompetence and rudeness. He has no respect for anyone that disagrees with him. He has no regard for any guidelines or policies, often describing them in disparaging terms. The warning bell was when I read that until recently, he had no idea what a Checkuser does. I have lost all confidence in his ability to handle any challenging tasks such as carrying out checks of IPs. [₂₄Cr][talk] 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as unsuccessful. [₂₄Cr][talk] 09:38, 12 June 2024 (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.