User:WillowW/Preparations for a contingency

If anyone comes here, this is just a practice page. There's been no suggestion that I be involved in any RfA, but I would want my prose is as polished as possible for anyone who asked me to nominate them. Since my own writing is rather laborious and always rough/unprofessional/gushy when I start, I'm giving myself a "running start" to make my nomination articulate, professional and worthy of both the candidate and the Wikipedians reviewing X.

Co-nomination from WillowW I first met X on 14 February 2008, when X asked me to review X's article Y. The article had been basically rejected at FAC on D as "promising but not quite there yet", and X was scrupulously gathering other opinions and reviews to improve the article and address the earlier concerns. I worked closely with X for several extended stretches, as did several other editors, and thanks to X's indefatigable energy, the article passed its second FAC handily. I have since had the opportunity to see X interact with other well-respected Wikipedians (such as A, B and C) in several other venues (such as P, Q and R), so that I believe I can form a balanced and informed assessment of X's character and strengths/weaknesses as an admin.

The question before the reviewers is whether X will use the admin tools properly, with good judgment and not allowing personal feelings to cloud X's judgment. This question can be divided into several parts: Is X devoted to the good of project? Is X able to be selfless? Would X be energetic but not rash? Can X listen attentively and reason impartially? Can X explain X's reasoning articulately? Is X cool under fire? Does X understand the policies that X would enforce as an admin? My answer is "yes" to all of these questions, and I think closer acquaintance with X will bring others to the same conclusion.

X has extraordinary energy and devotion to improving Wikipedia. That is clear from X's many FA's, GA's and DYK's, and can be attested to by anyone even faintly acquainted with X. X's devotion is warm and enthusiastic, as are many other aspects of X, which X expresses vividly. X's sanguine energy is balanced, though, by a true self-mastery; X Does the Right Thing even when it conflicts with X's own impulses, as X did in withdrawing X's FAC for Y, or in working with A on article Z. I have been impressed, too, by X's careful, insightful reasoning (DIFFS), by X's close listening to others (DIFFS), X's forthright honesty (DIFFS) and by X's articulate and utterly unambiguous way of explaining Xself (DIFFS). I have never observed X to be uncivil towards any Wikipedian, although once an unfeeling bot felt the lash of X's critique (DIFF). ;)

The remaining question is whether X would apply X's admin powers to a situation in which X did not know the relevant Wikipedia policy. X is certainly abreast of policies relating to F, G and H (DIFFS), although I have not had the opportunity of seeing X's knowledge of those relating to T, U and V. My own impression is that X would not apply X's admin powers in any situation in which X was not intimately familiar with the relevant policies. X has also shown Xself to be a quick learner (DIFFS?), and I fully expect that X will have demonstrated X's mastery of Wikipedia policies before this RfA is closed.

With sanguine hopes for a sanguine candidate, Willow (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)