User:Flaming/RFA

I have no set-in-stone standards for voting in RfA's. I do however, have a guide (bland, generic, yet present) as to what I meant by my vote(s).

Neutral

Neutral is my usual voting position. If I vote neutral, 1. I have no preference as to whether this candidate should become or not become an admin, and 2. I trust the community's better judgment regarding this particular RfA. I may add a comment with my neutral, like "And I really don't like the candidate's username," which will probably bring some responses like... Well, here's an example.

1. Neutral And I really don't like the candidate's username. flaminglawyer

   [someone challenges it with something like...] "Then why are you voting neutral? You haven't brought up any new concerns, or reiterated any new ones. Example (talk)"

   [here's where, while I'm off doing something else in real life, someone (occasionally the nominee him/herself) says something like...] "Perhaps flaming is trying to say [...]"

   [I clarify my neutral by (maybe) linking to this page] flaminglawyer

Support

Support is less common among my voting history; I only vote support if I've seen the candidate around (i.e., at XfD's, or on the RefDesk) and I like what I've seen. At AfD's, they don't have to agree with my voting position, but they have to give a good reason for voting the way they did. Even if they voted the same way as me, I shun them if they gave a reason like "Per nom" or "Per Flaming lawyer," etc. You can only vote "Per [xxx]" in AfD's if you bring a new concern to the table, like "Per [xxx], and in addition, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE, as he's only played in Little League."

Also, when writing my support votes, I never write "Support per my RfA criteria," because that's just boring, and implies that I have some standards for voting in RfA's. I'll vote something like:

1. Support This guy loves hanging around at AfD's; he never seems to agree with me, but his opinions are always justified (not perfectly, but at least reasonably well). Never had any interaction with him outside of AfD's, but seems like a nice guy judging by his talk page. His userpage seems rather devoid of barnstars, which concerns me a bit... Eh, net positive, so go ahead, mop him. flaminglawyer

Oppose

I only vote oppose if I really wouldn't like to see this dude with a mop. Some possible reasons for this:

• NOTNOW candidacy
• Loves to get into edit wars, content disputes, and the like
• Is generally uncivil, curt, or a general "Get the hell off my talk page, n[][]b" attitude when another user comments about something that he's done.
• Low WP namespace edits. This kinda fits into NOTNOW, but not 100%. Low WP namespace edits generally means low policy knowledge, which means an admin who goes around deleting pages without a good reason, or one who indef-blocks a user without any warnings for something like vandalism.

To sum it up...

• If you got a support in an RfA, congrats! I like your stuff, and I'd have you on my hockey team any day... if hockey was for people who understand policy and maintain a civil attitude everywhere.
• If you got an oppose, I either really don't like you, or you have ~100 edits. Go improve your reputation.
• If you got a neutral, don't think it was because I didn't want to pile-on oppose, because I think that pile-ons are helpful and demonstrate community opinion, instead of watered-down knives (which you can't water down). I voted neutral because I think you might make a good admin, but I won't make it a definite vote. The community's better judgment (which I trust, most of the time) will decide if your RfA passes or fails.