Jump to content

User talk:Preceding unsigned comment/RFA Formulation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome all visitors!

[edit]

Please feel free to comment on me, my RfA comments, or on how I derive them

  • If you are a nominee that I commented a support to become a sysop... remember: becoming a sysop is no big deal. It looked to me like you could use the tools, and you would use them responsibly, so if you get them, put them in a holster, when you take them out please remember the end goal.
  • If you are a nominee that I commented an oppose to become a sysop at this time... remember: becoming a sysop is no big deal. For a reason that may not seem fair, I felt that you did not need to use the tools at this time. I have plenty of friends that I enjoy drinking beer with. None of them as nominees, would get a supporting comment from me at RfA. Best of luck to you and please don't poke me in the eye with a sharp stick, this was just my humble opinion.
  • If you are a nominee, peer, administrator, or crat that would like to provide me with information that will help me better form an opinion (for RfAs in general or for a specific nominee), please communicate with me at the RfA, or on my talk page. I hope that you will find me open minded, kind, and willing to reconsider all things short of the End goal:

This is my formulation page that I use to prepare comments at RfA

[edit]

End goal:

[edit]

To determine the nominee's ability to:

  • Block, Protect, and Delete IAW Wikipedia policies
  • Lower: disruption, drama, conflict
  • Increase: project quality, collaboration
  • Promote: friendly environment, positive editing by all

The Nominee should have a demonstrated need to sysop.

The Investigation

[edit]

a) Check for PREVIOUS RFA(s). If found:

  • Select the top oppose reason(s) pertinent to End goal
  • Research validity in past
  • Determine if any past oppose reason(s) are still a factor.

b) Edit sampling: below criteria (10% random edits past 6mo[500 min/1500max])

  • Edit quality (skill set in Article; clear edit summaries)
  • Guidance/Leadership skills (any Talk)
  • Demeanor under pressure (any Talk; polite edit summaries)
  • Focus on self (-), or community (+) (any Talk)
  • Maturity ( All edits/summaries )

c) Answers to RfA questions

  • Skill/knowledge
  • Character and Maturity

d) Peer review/current RFA

  • Do give weight to respectable, responsible and verifiable opinions pertinent to end goal
  • Do not factor any biased comments, comments that cannot be verified (diffs); gratuitous assertions
  • Do not factor Group/Click status this
  • Do not factor Strong conflict skill record: that
  • Do not factor Edit count: Success in attaining the other
  • Do not factor any profiling comments: Having the peg that fits the hole

e) Disqualifying factors

  • Disruptive behavior
  • Ownership
  • Drama participant
  • Single purpose applicant(trophy/promotion/status goal)
  • Box checker (gaming the system) to fit the criteria of others
  • White washing (repeat RFA nominee w/ sole editing intent to whitewash over vs correct issues noted previously)

The comment structure

[edit]
  1. Phrased to stimulate constructive discussion
  2. Strong or weak points noted should be backed up with diffs
  3. Avoid drama, just the facts
  4. Reference the edits, not the editor.
  5. Comments will be constructive and preserve the nominee's dignity

The resources

[edit]
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 2 200 2 2 99 09:47, 18 November 2024 5 days, 4 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation&oldid=286237127"