Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Tempodivalse

One of the first editors that I encountered when I started to frequently edit here was User:Tempodivalse. I've seen them be an active part of the community here, fulfilling a range of roles from deleting articles to archiving them, to promoting and welcoming users.

I believe Tempodivalse can be trusted with bureaucrat rights and as such it is a pleasure to be the nominator. Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions/comments

 * Do you accept the nomination? Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * wow, I wasn't expecting this at all! I'm honoured you think I would make a good bureaucrat, and I humbly accept. Thank you. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Link to user's archived RfA, ended 19 May 2009. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Link to user's archived second PfP, ended 23 February 2009 as successful. Calebrw (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Link to user's archived first PfP, ended 13 December 2008 as withdrawn by the candidate. Calebrw (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should your RfP be successful, would be be available on IRC on a more frequent basis so that if a problem arises that only a 'crat or admin could solve, you would also be available to help out. Obviously you are on top of Special:RecentChanges, so not much slips past you, however, somethings are discussed on IRC that are not always put on the Wiki. Calebrw (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. I've been on the irc a few times before, and it seemed to me as if it is mainly used for informal chatting that isn't always very relevant to on-wiki matters, and there's not frequently much discussion about anything important, wiki-wise. If administrator or bureaucrat action is needed, then it would be just as easy to make a request at WN:AAA instead, where administrators will be sure to see it and probably react just as quickly. Right now, the only times I use irc are: for second opinions when I'm unsure of what to do when making a decision, and for alerting reviewers of breaking news that's just come up. Hope this answers your question. Tempodivalse [talk]  13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm most likely going to be without access to a computer for the next several weeks, starting with next Sunday or so. I should be able to return to Wikinews only in early August (but I promise to return to full activity then). Thus, if everything goes as scheduled, this request should close before I have to leave, but if, as I suspect, it will run overdue past one week, then I won't be able to answer any questions that users will ask me at that time. Tempodivalse [talk]  20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How long do these usually last? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline calls for one week, but since we are small they usually take two weeks. This one has gone longer, perhaps because the steward/bureaucrat has not noticed it or is waiting for Tempo to return from break. --SVTCobra 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Computerjoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Good faith positive contributor, should do fine with the added tools. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having interacted with this User on multiple occations, I can say that Tempo is a great contributor and has done excellent work as an Admin and have not reason to believe he would do good work as a Bureaucrat. I do have one question above, but the answer will not affect my vote. Calebrw (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * based on positive interactions at other projects (and here, as well). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I of course believe this user is responsible enough to be given access to these tools. As a minor note theres not really much need b'crats. In the time i've been a bureaucrat, I have only ever had an opportunity to use the tools once (today actually. this comment would sound much better if i made it yesterday ;). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bawolff (talk • contribs)
 * I think Tempo is a great contributor, but we have recently elevated several people to bureaucrat, I don't think there is a need. --SVTCobra 00:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * per SVT. I feel we have plently to 'crats already and there is no need for any more. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure i completely understand. I agree we don't have a need for another bureaucrat, but what harm do you see in having more of them? Tempodivalse [talk]  13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I saw harm, I would have voted oppose and not neutral. --SVTCobra 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A user who has only been active here since November 2008 and an admin since February this year, wouldn't be very high on my list of candidates suitable for bureaucratship I'm afraid, even considering the excellent contributions. Adambro (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * per SVTCobra and Adambro. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * -Don't know if they're needed but as a reliable contributor who writes articles-why not? Dotty•• |&#9742; 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, but I feel there is no real need for any more Bureaucrats. It's tools for the sake of tools, IMO, and while we have active Bureaucrats who are managing the workload, there is no need for any more. -- Sken   my talk 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What harm do you see in having additional bureaucrats? I would think having more bureaucrats would be a good thing, because there would be a higher chance someone is available if something comes up requiring a 'crat. Tempodivalse [talk]  16:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tempo makes a good work here! Vitorbraziledit talk 03:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no harm in having another bureaucrat and there is no reason why Tempodivalse shouldn't be one. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust him with extra tools. It wouldn't hurt to have a lot of 'crats, in my eyes, as long as they're all good for te job.  hmwith τ   22:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)