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
End goal:
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
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
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
End goal:
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
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