Wikipedia talk:Miniguide to requests for adminship

Untitled
''Ask yourself if you are ready to be an Admin. There are a lot of responsibilities. Do you want them?'' I've removed this because I don't think it's all that accurate. I believe that adminship simply means that you can be trusted with the tools, and the landslide nominations of Sfoskett and Thames show that the community will be willing to promote admins who are unwilling to take up sysop chores. I don't think we should discourage trustworthy but busy editors from being admins. Comment? Borisblue 06:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I had thought that too, but my rationale was that the responsibilities of Admins are not just doing Admin chores. They also serve as a face for Wikipedia. They are looked upon for help and other such things. So even if you don't intend to do sysop chores, you still have responsibility as an Admin. I am fine to leave it out if that's what people think is best. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No errors or "bad calls" . . . ?
No errors or "bad calls" involving AfD's, CSD's, or other deletion matters. If I should happen to support deletion of a page — or if I propose that a page should be deleted — and if the eventual consensus is to keep it, does that really mean I'm unsuitable to be an admin? In such a case, I would think that honest participation in the ensuing discussion, and a willingness to abide by a consensus that didn't go my way, ought to count for more than having been on the "wrong side" of the issue. Richwales (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Optional RfA candidate poll
I'd like to link to the optional opinion poll somewhere in the text. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)