User:Peter/RfA reviews
I created this page mostly for my reference, but you will probably also find it useful if I've suggested I'm interested in possibly nominating you for adminship, or you would like to ask me to.
Some info for people considering an offer from me of a potential nomination, or wish to ask me to consider one
[edit]- You can see the previous nominations I've made at User:Peter/RfA reviews.
- I am less familiar with what is likely to pass or fail now than I used to be. Therefore I make absolutely no assurance that I think the RfA would pass.
- Before agreeing to nominate you I will do pretty thorough review of your contributions. This will both help me decide if I should proceed with a nomination, and help with writing my nomination statement, which I aim to be equally thorough to match. An offer of/acceptance of a request to do a RfA review is not a guarantee of a nomination.
- I also wish to have a high level of confidence that you would make a good admin. A large part of this is formed through the contributions review mentioned above, but another part is you being willing to answer a load of questions (the number and nature of which depends on what I find, and anything I may think needs clarification). These can be done either on a user subpage or by email. I will also of course aim to answer any questions you have.
- I make no guarantees as to how long I will take to do the above. It depends on how many other things I have on the go, both on- and off-wiki.
- If you are in a hurry, lacking in patience, don't think this is all necessary, you're happy to self-nom, or accept someone else's offer (possibly from someone who already knows you better) then that's fine. I won't take the slightest bit of offence, but please let me know and I will not proceed with the contributions review.
- If you would like to go ahead with the above then please confirm that you understand all the above.
RfA Reviews
[edit]Waiting/In progress
[edit]- (none)
Completed, not resulting in a nomination
[edit]- Please note, this section is not a complete listing. I've make several other quick comments at editor reviews, on talk pages, etc.
- Agathoclea (talk · contribs) Quick comments, where he showed no interest in becoming an admin. Later re-considered and became an admin on Christmas day 2006.
- Viridae (talk · contribs) Quick comments
- CTSWyneken. User request. User now inactive.
- JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (RFA) - My offer. Promoted (102/9/3) 21 June 2010. Became 182nd most supported candidate at time of promotion according to WP:100.
- Sean Whitton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (RFA) - User request. Promoted (54/6/4) 2 September 2006. Became 1000th admin at time of promotion.
- Andypandy.UK (talk · contribs) (RFA) - My offer. Failed to reach consensus (69/27/0) 22 July 2006.
- Gwernol (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (RFA) - User requested review, I offered nomination. Promoted (89/0/0) 17 June 2006.
- EWS23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (RFA) - My request. Promoted (89/0/0) 23 May 2006.
Resources
[edit]Checklist version 1
[edit]- Edit count -
- Time around -
- Email enabled? -
- Controversial userpage? -
- Any blocks? -
- Correct image licensing? -
- Stupid signature? -
- Edit summaries -
- Civil? No person attacks? -
- Mistakes -
- Any edit warring? -
- Namespace review
Checklist version 2
[edit]- Edit count? -
- Time around? -
- Email enabled? -
- Controversial userpage? -
- Any blocks? -
- Stupid signature? -
- Edit summaries? -
- Need for tools?
- Civil? No person attacks? -
- Mistakes, concerns? -
- Article contributions:
- Demonstrates understanding of Wikipedia practice and policy (a.ka. Wikipedia namespace contributions):