User talk:Preceding unsigned comment/RFA Formulation
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]- Phrased to stimulate constructive discussion
- Strong or weak points noted should be backed up with diffs
- Avoid drama, just the facts
- Reference the edits, not the editor.
- Comments will be constructive and preserve the nominee's dignity
The resources
[edit]
|
- Linking
- FAQ page
- Candidate Contrib. tool
- Candidate Subpages
- Candidate research {{Usercheck-full|example}}
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, WP:Admin
- The admin reading list.
- WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, WP:BLOCK