This page shows the criteria that can influence me to support or oppose editors RFAs.
NOTE: There are exceptions where I might not vote according to these standards.| Things that will influence me to oppose. | Things that will influence me to vote neutral, or help me oppose/support. | Things that will influence me to support. |
|---|---|---|
| The editor has less than 7000 edits. | The editor has few edits to the Wikipedia space. | The editor has 15000 or more edits. |
| The majority of the editor's edits are automated. | The editor's User page is unsightly or unfriendly to new editors. | 5000+ edits to the Mainspace. |
| The editor almost never uses edit summaries. | The editor uses edit summaries reasonably. | The editor uses edit summaries almost 100% of the time. |
| The editor tags articles incorrectly for CSD. | The editor isn't interested in CSD work. | The editor tags articles for CSD per policy. |
| The editor has been actively editing for less than 3 months. | The editor has been actively editing for 3-6 months. | The editor has been actively editing for more than 6 months. |
| The editor was blocked less than a year ago or has more than one block. | The editor was blocked more than a year ago and only has one block. | The editor has never been blocked. |
| The editor has a track record of being uncivil. | The editor is usually civil but can break when under pressure. | The editor is able to work well under pressure, and reacts civilly during disputes. |
| The editor answers questions uncivilly and interprets policy incorrectly. Or They just plain blatantly lie. | The editor answers questions in a way that shows that they don't fully understand the policy. Or They answer using "cut and paste" policy. | The editor answers questions politely and according to policy, but also tells how to interpret the policies and how they would use them. |
| The editor responds to opposes in an attacking manner and/or responds to almost every oppose. | The editor responds to serious opposes in a civil manner. | The editor has a history of being civil when attacked, not just at RfA |
| The editor views clearly adminship as power, or a status symbol. | The editor views adminship as a tool for maintenance. | The editor has turned down a nomination in the past. |
| The editor helps out with only a few topics or WikiProjects. | The editor helps out in various areas of the Wikipedia space, but usually sticks to one topic, or WikiProject. | The editor helps out in a wide range of topics and in various parts of Wikipedia. |
| The editor has closed XFDs inappropriately, and doesn't seem to have improved. | The editor has good knowledge of how to close XFDs and has closed them correctly. | The editor is bold in closing controversial XFDs and closes them correctly. |
| The editor does not think that it is necessary to make sure that BLPs are 100% correct and verified, and has possibly closed BLP AFDs as such, preferring to Delete rather than risk incorrect info in a BLP. | The editor appears to hold no opinion on the way BLPs are treated. | The editor views BLPs as needing to be 100% correct and verified, and their edits concur with these views. the editor views BLP AFDs as default to delete when there no consensus. |