Same boat here but as I spend less time on wikipedia lately its not a big deal. I find that less responsibility makes things more fun in many cases anyway. I am especially the same in that I don't have a lot of confidence in my writing, well and I can be a bit argumentative at times (though usually polite).
SKL
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm fairly similar to you, I've been around for a little more than two years (June 2004), I have around 2000 edits, I've proven myself to be curteous, I've participated in process, I do occasional vandal-fighting. Most of my wikipedia time is spent helping clueless newbies do their first articles (that right there should qualify me, you have to have the patience of a small planet!). I'm very familiar with process (as much as anyone can, given how much process we have). I don't get into arguments much, if I see one I try to defuse it. If I do get into an argument, I argue curtiously and respectfully. I'm a stand-up guy. I'm not a very good writer though, so I tend not to make big article improvements, but I've helped out the encyclopedia in many other ways. I feel like I've improved it. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to be an admin.
But I would never pass an RfA. I mean, if someone would nominate me, I would accept (although I don't think anyone will), but I'm pretty sure that I would get shot down pretty easily because of my edit-count and my less than stellar involvement with articles. But I have helped with the encyclopedia, in many ways. With admin-tools, I know I could help more. That doesn't seem likely though. It's bordeline mental, what RfA has become.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l