User talk:Preceding unsigned comment/RFA Formulation

Welcome all visitors!
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:

End goal:
To determine the nominee's ability to: The Nominee should have a demonstrated need to sysop.
 * Block, Protect, and Delete IAW Wikipedia policies
 * Lower: disruption, drama, conflict
 * Increase: project quality, collaboration
 * Promote: friendly environment, positive editing by all

The Investigation
a) Check for PREVIOUS RFA(s). If found: b) Edit sampling: below criteria (10% random edits past 6mo[500 min/1500max]) c) Answers to RfA questions d) Peer review/current RFA e) Disqualifying factors
 * 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.
 * 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 )
 * Skill/knowledge
 * Character and Maturity
 * 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
 * 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

 * 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

 * My Comments at RfA
 * Linking


 * FAQ page


 * Candidate Contrib. tool
 * Candidate Subpages
 * Candidate research
 * Guide to requests for adminship, WP:Admin
 * The admin reading list.
 * WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Protection policy, WP:BLOCK