User:Mkdw/RfA Standards
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 6000 edits. | The editor has few edits to the Wikipedia space. | The editor has 6000 or more edits. |
| The editor has few edits other than reverting vandalism. | The editor is a rollbacker. | 3000+ edits to the Mainspace. |
| The editor doesn't use edit summaries 100% of the time. | The editor has promised to use them 100% of the time, during the RFA. | The editor uses edit summaries 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 8 months. | The editor has been actively editing for 8-12 months. | The editor has been actively editing for more than 12 months. |
| The editor was blocked less than 12 months ago. | The editor was blocked more than 12 months ago. | The editor has never been blocked or not for a considerable number of years. |
| 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 answer using "cut and paste" policy. Or if they just plain blatantly lie. | The editor answers questions in a way that shows that they don't fully understand the policy. | The editor answers questions politely and according to policy, but also tell how the interpret the policies and how they would use them. |
| The editor responds to opposes in an attacking manner. | The editor responds to almost every oppose. | The editor responds to opposes in a civil and non-badgering manner. |
| The editor views adminship as power, a reward or a status symbol. | The editor views adminship as a tool maintenance but also sees it as a way to "lead" other users. | The editor views adminship as helping with maintenance. |
| 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 doesn't close XFDs. | The editor has good knowledge of how to close XFDs and has closed 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. | The editor holds 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. If the editor views BLP AFDs as default to delete when no consensus, it will also influence me to support. |