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.
I'm not going to live forever, but this ain't gonna last forever either. Whatever, thanks to those who commented/voted. This was a stupidity and I didn't think it was going to fail so awfully. Sorry about that. アンパロIo ti odio! 03:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I have been an admin here for more than eight months, and I'm nominating myself for bureaucratship because I think that, always that there are nominations for adminship, it takes at least two weeks to be completed by a bureaucrat, or so. I'm often around, it wouldn't be a big deal to handle these requests by myself. I'd like to know what cha think. アンパロIo ti odio! 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, no Diego; I simply think you'd cause too many problems in that role. I've caused enough myself, but you couldn't talk, or write, yourself out of a corner. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Erm, what makes you think that, Brian? :) Have I caused any problems in my role as an administrator? Just because you, as a controversial person, have caused problems in this role, doesn't mean I should :P アンパロIo ti odio! 20:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
You simply don't give a compelling reason; there are, despite what you say, active 'crats. And, it would be more precise to say I'm a controversial person who holds the 'crat right. I don't think I've specifically abused the privilege it confers. Don't confuse prior attempts to take the right from me as a clear indication I've abused it. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean it that way. I am aware there are active crats, however, backlogs in the RfA section occur very often, and I've been yelled-at several times because I closed them, and it's kinda boring to go knock at some crat's door (a.k.a. talk page) to give them the right, or whatever. That's my reasoning, Brian. アンパロIo ti odio! 20:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, not a compelling enough reason for me --Brian McNeil / talk 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
C628 (for reviewer) 7 days, most of them were active voting.
Benny the mascot 7 days, most of them were active voting.
I have to arrive to conclusion that an at least week-long vote is normal on this matter (two-week for oversight), and self-requests/re-admin requests which don't require vote were handled in a timely fashion. As such, I have to disregard your reason for request. Do you have any other reasons? --Gryllida 22:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I am responsible enough, with this kind of things. I learned something since the request to de-admin me last December (?), and since then I have helped with most things. I just think I'd do well with it. If this request does not succeed, nothing will change anyway, I'll continue to chingar around :P I just thought something needed to be done. And it kinda saddens me that ... obviously those opposes came from my previous and long-time forgotten sockpuppetry issues. Whatever it is decided, I'll be happy. アンパロIo ti odio! 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Question Bureaucratship role has many sides, and you have to point out which one you want to participate with, and why you find yourself strong with that side. Gryllida 00:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I particularly want to get involved in the RfA/RfB side, handing out the rights. I know how the process is, and how to do the rights-giving , I find myself competent to do this well. アンパロIo ti odio! 01:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Question I have to assume that by "handing out the rights", you mean to count the votes and visit the Special:UserRights page, right? Gryllida 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I love my Chilean Spanish dialect :P アンパロIo ti odio! 02:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Question How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized? Gryllida 02:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In these cases, I'd put myself in the place of Wikinews, and the whole community; if I promote XYZ to admin/crat will it be for the best of the community or not? Perhaps in some circumstances it will not be the best decision to promote if there is not much consensus, or there is 'consensus' but some of the votes come from nowhere (editors with almost no edits here coming from another project only to vote), or in some cases it will be better to promote even if there is no consensus. Being a bureaucrat may be controversial most of times, IMO, but I should just think wisely about the decisions, otherwise, I'd leave it to another. アンパロIo ti odio! 02:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think that we're observing a sligt failure - you misunderstand the role here. You initially thought it allows you to 'hit the green buttons', and don't feel more ready to decide on a debatable RfP than to let someone else handle it. Yes, bureaucrats actually do need to make a large deal of decisions and judgments, which I don't see these questions reveal your potential with. I'm sorry, despite all the great OR reporting job and respect you have, I have to cast a 'neutral' vote and wait a few weeks before your next nomination. Gryllida 02:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Happened over the RFB in recent changes. I wasn't planning on editing here again, but this request deserves a firm no. With all due respect, Diego is not a user who I would consider mature enough to handle bureaucrat tools at this time. Tempodivalse[talk] 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate why do you think I am not 'mature enough'? I find this vote somewhat related to my "Fuc*ers." comment some weeks ago at #wikinews-workshop, but anyways, you're just like Father Gatica, "you preach but you don't practice," since you weren't planning to edit here again. It isn't like I'm crying out loud for the 'crat rights, "not a big deal", however, some things gotta be said :) アンパロIo ti odio! 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel it was most inappropriate of Tempodivalse to vote here; however, it clarifies that xe - for whatever reasons - is still lurking/watching the goings-on here. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose; as Gryllida mentions above, the sole reason that this RfB rides on is not based in fact; as such, pending further reasons for the role, it appears to be hat-collecting. — μchip08 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Neutral per questions above. Gryllida 02:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I am not seeing any reason here to promote. Phearson (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
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.