Wikinews:Requests for permissions/CheckUser/Bddpaux

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 Close this as withdrawn.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Unless @Bddpaux has an objection, I would like to say that since Bddpaux has withdrawn I am fine with @Cromium closing this as unsuccessful.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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If I had to guess they meant the next diff, mine @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Amended. Sorry/thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Strong Support very nice well deserved user BigKrow (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I have withdrawn my vote because the requester has announced a long-term break from the project. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Support solely on merit. Regarding '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)
 * Support A worthy candidate with experience in the press. — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Have enough experience. also having another active CU currently seems necessary. Asked42 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - long-time admin and can be trusted. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support due to concerns brought up by others. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, 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)
 * 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)
 * ...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)
 * 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)
 * , wasn't the first two diffs before Cromium challenged the consensus? Leaderboard (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the history log, the diffs must've been. George Ho (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)


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