Wikinews

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Archive 11

< Wikinews:Requests for permissions
By date
2004  |  2005
2006  |  2007
2008  |  2009
2010  |  2011
2012–20
2021
2022–
By type


Muluka Ahmed

edit


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.

NOMINATING COMMENT HERE -- NOMINATOR'S SIGNATURE WITH TIMESTAMP

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

edit

@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

edit
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

edit

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

edit


Questions and comments

edit

Votes

edit
  • 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.


Bddpaux (talk · contribs) — bureaucratship (2)

edit

Stats

edit


Questions and comments

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 Close and mark as withdrawn.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  •   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

edit

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

edit


Questions and comments

edit
  • 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]

Votes

edit
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]
  • 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]
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]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Archive_11&oldid=4785990"