The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (1/13/0); ended 23:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC) - Although there is no technical requirement to be an administrator before getting a bureaucrat, many volunteers want to see a potential bureaucrat having experience with admin-related tasks before promoting other users to administrators. mabdul 23:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Self nomination. Apteva (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: Yes. Promotion requires confidence in the promotion as well as a high plurality of votes roughly 70% for Admins, 85% for Bureaucrats.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: In general it is far better to err on the side of caution. If no clear decision is apparent, it is better to not make a decision. Anyone who is not promoted can certainly be nominated later. Someone who is improperly promoted can cause havoc that while correctable, is best avoided.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: My careful attention to detail speaks for itself. My primary interest is in improving the respectability of Wikipedia so that it becomes the go to standard for experts and laypersons, and not just the top of the search results.

Additional question from PumpkinSky

4. See this rights log, it says you are not an admin. Technically, you can be a crat without being an admin. Did you mean to file a RFA? PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A:This question was not answered until now because I did not see it until now. I have answered it below. But to be more specific, no one else is brave enough to submit an RfB, and, in my opinion, we need more crats. Apteva (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from — ΛΧΣ21™

5. Your userpage says that you are an alternate account of Delphi234 (talk · contribs). That userpage says that "I maintain an alternative account for editing solar related articles, RCP, and to become an admin, User:Apteva." Do you understand that although you may have alternate accounts, this may not be of much benefit for this request, specially when you write that you created this account for this sole purpose?

A:I created this account about a week after creating my primary account - four years ago, with the sole purpose of someday using it as an Admin account. To establish an edit history I picked one topic and two tasks, RCP and RM. My preference was, and is, to edit as an IPUser. In closing, I thank everyone for the positive comments that have been made, and will, in due time, apply again. Apteva (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Apteva: Apteva (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Apteva can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

• I've posted to Apteva's talkpage suggesting that he visit this page, take a look, and withdraw this RfB. Can I ask that we avoid any additional piling on until he's had a chance to review and respond. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. No evidence of non-handsomeness. Wikipedia needs more handsome administrators and bureaucrats, so why not? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Sorry, but I suggest that you try for adminship before becoming a bureaucrat. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose There is no official requirement that you must be an admin before running for bureaucrat, but it is universally expected on the English Wikipedia. I know some other Wikipedias have different expectations on this, but that is how it is here. --Rschen7754 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Agree with the basic concept that one should be an admin prior to being made a 'crat, and suggest that this falls somewhere between WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. Jusdafax 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. From the rather sparse answers, it is difficult to tell which area of bureaucracy Apteva intends to undertake. Regarding RfA closure, Apteva has no involvement with RfA. Also, I found no AfD work, which might be helpful to see how Apteva handles consensus. (I realise that Apteva is not an administrator. It would be sensible to gain adminship and demonstrate good use of those tools first before applying for RfB.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose I thought it was an official requirement, but apparently not. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a defacto requirement. There's nothing from a technical perspective that prevents a crat from giving someone crat rights without them having admin rights. PumpkinSky talk

6. Oppose per previous comments; I would also expect a higher edit count for bureaucratship.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Per above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose I'm not necessarily against a non-admin becoming a 'crat. This, [1] however, doesn't reflect well on someone wanting to be either. GaramondLethe 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. I want to see performance as a admin first. Glrx (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, per the above. Zac  22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose I couldn't care if the candidate isn't an admin or not. I do not consider it in my evaluation. What I evaluate is the ability and experience of the user and crat like behavior. I don't see it in this user just yet.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose per de facto requirement to show experience in judging consensus among other reasons. KTC (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per everyone. I also don't like that there is no answer to question four and no real details of what user plans to do as bureaucrat. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.