I have been an active contributor to Wikidata since February and an administrator since May, and I have made over 28,000 edits. If I were a bureaucrat, I would help out with the usual bureaucrat tasks (permissions and user renames, but probably bot, flood, and RFPs more than renames). Although the current group of bureaucrats seems sufficient most of the time, I would be able to help when other bureaucrats are less active or not available. --The Anonymouse (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - No reason not to. TCN7JM 14:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutral There is no demand currently, I think. Already the 4 'crats we have are getting in each other's way most of the time, as there is really not much to do. Anyway, if you absolutely want this I have no problem with seeing you joining the team as you seem to be a sensible contributor. Vogonetalk 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't think edits really say how swiftly we respond to 'crat requests. All requests we get are usually handled within a few hours. If you take a look at WD:BN (and the archives) you will see that always somebody was around to deal with the requests. Vogonetalk 19:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Support @Vogone: Promoting another bureaucrat would make existing bureaucrats worry less about there being no bureaucrats to close an RfP (since it's customary for involved bureaucrats to abstain).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know but please don't use this ping feature next time as I monitor the pages I edit anyway. The red 1 at the top still always gives me the impression that something important has happened on my talk page, as I'm still not used to this new "feature" yet. Though, I don't want to disable ping in my preferences as some users who really want to point other's to discussions they might be interested in seem to assume that everyone uses this echo humbug :) Vogonetalk 13:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Before I comment otherwise here, Do you use IRC actively or be willing to do so? We have no real need for any new bureaucrats though we lack availability via IRC. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I am not on IRC, but everybodyis welcome to contact me via talk page or via mail. I can not really imagine any urgent (on a scale of minute) matters which would require a crat intervention.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't have urgent 'on the minute' crat requests to be honest. Poking a bureaucrat on IRC asking them to do something is much better than posting onwiki and waiting a few hours or so for one to come over to see it really. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You probably don't mean better, rather pleasanter. In case of Ymblanter, he is pretty good contactable while he is around, at least that's my experience with him. :) Vogonetalk 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
To answer the original question: I do not actively use IRC (only for urgent matters), but if there is a great need, I might be willing to do so. I respond quickest on my talk page, but I use e-mail for more private matters.
The main reason why I am running is because, while the current 'crats seem to take care of business just fine, some of them seem periodically inactive and/or have other cross-wiki matters to attend to (some are admins on other projects, for example). Since I am only active on Wikidata, I plan on being available most of the time. The Anonymouse (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@John F. Lewis: Really, we do? I'm always on IRC and no one has ever pinged me for a crat-related matter... Legoktm (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought I did a few time. Guess not. I guess this point is therefore invalid. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
For me it happened a few times, though. But it is indeed not like there is a big need for bureaucrats on IRC, especially since they never have any particularly urgent tasks to do. Vogonetalk 17:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.