Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Tempodivalse 2

Tempodivalse
Over the last three months Tempodivalse has clocked up over 1600 edits to Wikinews, worked on many articles, and became one of Wikinews' best editors. He has also tagged many articles for speedy deletion, and this could have been simpler if he had adminship. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

 * Do you accept this nomination? Anonymous101talk 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept. ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We need some more input, it's been almost three days since the nomination, and nobody has voted yet. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article was largely written by you., who had never (ever) before edited on Wikinews, put a review on the talk page. He then put the publish tag on the article. Subsequently, you sighted the article, releasing it to the masses. My question to you is: Do you think that this article went through a proper reviewing process with which Wikinews can feel comfortable? --SVTCobra 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that I am operating a sock puppet? I can assure you, I would not do such a thing. Tempodivalse is the only account I have ever edited Wikinews with. I only sighted that article because I thought that the reviewer forgot to sight it himself -- or couldn't sight it himself (I saw he was new, and assumed that he was reviewing without editor status and therefore couldn't sight his own edits). This was just a coincidence. Please feel free to checkuser me if you want to verify that the IP addresses behind the two accounts are different. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Never mind, sorry for the misunderstanding. See my comment below. -- ♪ Tempo  Di  Valse ♪ 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand. I am not accusing you of sockpuppetry. What I was seeking to discover was whether you felt that reviewer was qualified in reviewing the article. In my view, you ought to have reverted the publish instead of "sighting" it. But, that's just my view since it isn't spelled out in policy. You must have noticed that this was a brand new contributor. --SVTCobra 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the misunderstanding.
 * I do agree that in retrospect, I should have reverted the addition of the publish template, given that the reviewer was brand new. I guess that just didn't occur to me at the time. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 04:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wondering, what margin of support does an admin candidacy have to have in order to pass as successful? The policy doesn't seem to be very specific about it. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Varries (depending on situation, and seriousness of the concerns raised, and really the b'crats have some lee-way), but generally around 70%. So far you're doing good imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been a week to the day since this nom opened, I think that a bureaucrat can close it now. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA closed as SUCCESSFUL. Thanks to everyone who supported me, I appreciate your trust. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * - Per nom by . Cirt (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - In regards to svt's concerns - I personally feel since it was the user's very first edit, TempoDiValse should have perhaps asked an univolved party to sight the edit. However this is still a very grey area as to what to do, and I think Tempo's action were perfectly ok. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * stole my signature color scheme. Still grumpy. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was just a coincidence. I have had this signature for ages on Wikipedia, before I even registered with Wikinews. (The grey box is a new addition, though.) -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Goddamn kids and their multicoloured signatures! Every byte is sacred, every byte must be saved, and if a byte gets wasted, Brion gets upset! :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * --Brian McNeil / talk 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I'm supporting this to cut down on the number of editprotected requests that I have to wade through. ;o) Now he can do his own protected edits Muwhahahahaha! Gopher65talk 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)