Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Tempodivalse 3

I'd like to withdraw this nomination. It was foolish to ask for the tools back by saying I wouldn't be very active. I don't want to provoke further drama and waste people's time, and even if the privs were returned, it would still cause needless conflict due to my being so controversial. I will still occasionally edit in the capacity of an editor and reviewer. Tempodivalse [talk]

I'd like to regain the sysop rights that I resigned last year. For better or for worse, I think I'm sorta back, although I can't promise to be nearly as active as before (other projects take up most of my time and interest nowadays), I wouldn't mind sometimes helping out with janitorial tasks like vandalism cleanup, archiving, and maintenance deletions. The rights can probably be restored without a vote since I didn't resign "under a cloud" (the deadmin request in September failed quickly with everyone but the nominator opposing). Note, I currently have no desire for +crat, just +sysop. Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'd prefer it if this went for the whole week, per sort-of this. You've edited 52 times in the last fortnight; it's only been three weeks since you returned. I'm not convinced that's active enough for an admin, especially after the long haitus; surely we should be judging you as if you were a brand new user? — μ 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From my observations, in these situations, the returning user isn't regarded as a newbie - his previous contributions usually account for something., for instance, immediately regained his rights after an eight-month hiatus by a simple request, without any discussion. Of course you are welcome to hold a different opinion. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion in September (as distinct from the mere tally of votes) was not cut-and-dried. BRS's vote was opposed to it in the form presented, with a recommendation that it be withdrawn and relaunched in a different form (well, the comment is there to read in all its nuances).  I too had made a point of narrowly addressing only the specifically stated reasons for nomination, and I see that I never actually cast a vote.


 * IMHO there's a disturbing tone in this request of (a) treating adminship as an entitlement; and  (b) cavalierly dismissing Brian, suggesting that the vendetta mentioned in September isn't dead yet.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no vendetta against Brian. I find the suggestion somewhat amusing; there's much more evidence to suggest that it is the other way round ... but what use is finger-pointing now. I was extremely angry at him at one point, and that caused me to do something I now realise was foolish - but that cooled over a long time ago. Certainly, I did not intend to come out as presumptuous or sniping at Brian, merely suggested that because the deadmin failed, I hadn't been put "under a cloud". Tempodivalse [talk]  22:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is the Wikinews community is in constant flux, and this is usually a good thing. However, it also means the community will needs to be polled anew to affirm the community as it is currently constituted puts trust in the candidate. For example, I will need to review recent actual news contributions by Tempodivalse, and other actions, to see whether I would vote to support. -  Amgine | t 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * I fully trust this user. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Diego Grez return fire 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry Tempo, actually MC8 brings up a good point; and you have said many times you "would never be [so] active again", so... I think that renders this request moot, unless you say something more convincing. Diego Grez return fire 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean I wouldn't be active at all; just not as much as by my previous standards (which were very high). I still check in once or twice a day and copyedit articles, tag vandalism, etc. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: there's a sense of entitlement in the wording of this nomination; marginalisation of Brian's comment in the aforementioned RfdA; inactivity. Juliancoulton didn't cause any drama when he left, you did. You seem to have a binary-state mind in some discussions: it's either "I agree, you are correct", or "I disagree, you are completely wrong" (YMMV) . Whether I'm wrong or not, I don't feel comfortable with you regaining the bits so quickly, and not with such a presumptuous attitude. — μ 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Awarding adminship is, after all, something to vote for only when fully comfortable doing so. I pretty much agree with Microchip's remarks, having noted Tempo's comments here since.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)