User:Walton One/Sandbox 3

This is a test page, please ignore it. It does not currently represent a plan to refactor RfA, nor does it reflect the views of the user with whom it is associated.

RandomUser01 (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination because I think I would be a great administrator.

Questions for the candidate

What admin work do you intend to take part in?
I am an active vandal-fighter, so the block and rollback abilities would be useful. I could also close XfDs (mainly AfD, but also CfD and TfD) from time to time.
What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
Hmm, I haven't really written any articles. Mostly I just do vandal-fighting and commenting on XfDs.
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
An anonymous IP vandal kept vandalising my userpage, but I didn't get worked up about it. Also I had a bit of a dispute with someone over an AfD - they wanted to keep this fairly pointless article - but I think I kept my head and stayed civil.

Discussion

In this section, the user will be evaluated against the principal criteria for adminship. Please comment in each section where needed.

The bureaucrats will count the votes cast in each section, and determine consensus on each of the four points. Where possible, please provide evidence for your viewpoint (ideally in the form of diffs). Further discussion may be moved to the talk page.

Experience

Has this candidate edited Wikipedia for long enough, and made enough relevant and productive edits, to be a suitable candidate for adminship? (Note to bureaucrats: If the result of this section is No, but the other sections return a consensus of Yes, the outcome of the request is likely to be "Fail Encourage".)

Yes

Good candidate, plenty of edits. ILikeHim 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
NotBad 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No

Not enough contributions to article space. Too bureaucratic. ArticlesFirst 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Per ArticlesFirst. ArticlesAreBest 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - only 500 mainspace edits is not sufficient for an administrator, and most of those are automated vandal reverts. Go write some articles. NotEnough 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Per ArticlesFirst. Flock of Sheep 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding of adminship

Based on his/her answer to question 1 above, and on the candidate's experience with Wikipedia discussions and processes, has the candidate demonstrated that s/he understands the purpose of the administrator tools, and would be able to use them in appropriate ways? (Note to bureaucrats: If the result of this section is No, but the other sections return a consensus of Yes, the outcome of the request is likely to be "Fail Encourage".)

Yes

Have seen this user around at XfDs, and I trust their judgment. Also good answer to Q1. ILikeHim 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
NotBad 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of participation in projectspace (over 1000 projectspace edits) shows this candidate understands what adminship is about. Also an experienced vandal-fighter. Projectspace 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No

I don't really think someone who hasn't written any articles can understand what Wikipedia is about. ArticlesFirst 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Per ArticlesFirst. ArticlesAreBest 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Answer to Q1 isn't good enough - candidate claims they will focus on vandal-fighting, but they only have 3 reports to AIV. I'm not impressed. NotEnough 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Per NotEnough. Flock of Sheep 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust and good faith

Based on his/her record on Wikipedia, has the candidate demonstrated that s/he is acting in good faith, supports the goals of the Wikipedia project, and would not wilfully abuse the administrator tools or use them in a manner detrimental to Wikipedia?

Yes

ILikeHim 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
NotBad 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Projectspace 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good editor. Come back later after you've written some articles. ArticlesFirst 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
ArticlesAreBest 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
NotEnough 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No

Character and civility

Based on his/her record on Wikipedia, and on his/her answer to question 3 above, has the candidate demonstrated that s/he has an appropriate temperament to serve as a Wikipedia administrator, including an appropriately civil and mature attitude?

Yes

Answer to Q3, and experience dealing with vandals, shows that this user is mature, sensible and civil. ILikeHim 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
NotBad 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Projectspace discussion experience, especially XfDs, shows the candidate is a good potential admin. Projectspace 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No

The candidate hasn't done enough serious editing to show how well they would handle a conflict. NotEnough 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Outcome

This section is for bureaucrats only. Non-bureaucrats should not edit this section, but can leave comments and evidence on the talk page for the bureaucrats to consider.

The closing bureaucrat should sign below under the "Result" header, and indicate the outcome of this request. The outcome may be one of the following:

Pass - The candidate has been promoted to adminship.
Fail Encourage - The candidate does not have sufficient experience to become an administrator, but is encouraged to apply again after a suitable period.
Fail - The candidate is unsuited to be an administrator.

Bureaucrat discussion

Well, I think there's pretty clear consensus that this candidate is a good-faith editor - just needs a bit more experience. BureauMan 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I'd be inclined to promote them personally, but looks like the community is against it. Shall we close this as a Fail Encourage? BureauMan2 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll do it. The Big Bureaucrat 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Result

Fail Encourage. Candidate is encouraged to try again later. The Big Bureaucrat 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)