User:Reaper Eternal/RfA Voting
- This is what a vote from me generally means at an RfA.
- This is not a scorecard. This is just to give readers a rough idea of what I like to see when reviewing RFA candidates.
- Anything obviously WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW does not follow this pattern.
- If you have any comments, feel free to put them on my talk page.
Influencing factors[edit]
| Influenced to oppose | Influenced to neutral | Influenced to support |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate uses personal attacks in disputes | Candidate is excessively uncivil in disputes | Candidate generally stays cool while editing |
| Candidate ignores questions on his talk page, does not explain his actions, or otherwise would violate admin accountability | Candidate goes above and beyond what would be expected when helping others[note 1] | |
| Candidate has a poor attitude when editors point out his or her mistakes | Candidate welcomes critique and responds well to corrections | |
| Candidate has written nothing of note | Candidate has only a couple DYKs and/or B-tier articles | Candidate has written a GA or FA[note 2] |
| Candidate rarely improves articles | Candidate regularly improves articles[note 3] | |
| Candidate violates the copyright policy, no-spam policy, or the biographies of living persons policy[autofail] | Candidate doesn't discover blatant copyright violations when editing or reviewing content[note 4] | Candidate discovers copyright violations or works in copyright cleanup |
| Candidate violates the core content policies[autofail] | Candidate displays some misunderstandings about the content policies | Candidate follows the content guidelines |
| Candidate has little admin-area experience, but demonstrates knowledge in the answers to the questions—in other words, they can read the manual | Candidate has experience in administrative areas like SPI, AIV, UAA, or RfPP | |
| Candidate appears to not understand the core admin policies—the deletion policy, the blocking policy, the protection policy, or the revision deletion policy | Candidate messes up on trick questions regarding those policies[note 5] | Candidate only has minor issues regarding understanding of the aforementioned policies |
| Candidate has <2000 article edits[note 3] | Candidate has <3000 article edits | Candidate has >3000 article edits |
- ^ Suggested by Dennis Brown, I must strongly agree with this. If the candidate goes out of his way to help others, it demonstrates exactly the temperament needed in an admin.
- ^ Contributing to audited content means that others have verified and approved of the candidate's use of the manual of style, the verifiability policy, reliable sources, and no original research. Ritchie333 makes further excellent points in his essay "Why admins should create content".
- ^ a b A strong lack of contributions to articles indicates that the candidate may not understand the policies as well due to a lack of experience.
- ^ People should recognize when something is copy-pasted from a website.
- ^ I don't give much weight to messed-up trick questions.
Immediate oppose[edit]
There are a small group of things that cause me to oppose. These generally have to do with failure to understand the core content policies that make this encyclopedia tick, such as the copyright policy or the biographies of living persons policy. They can also include not having any significant article contributions to point to while there are demonstrable content errors in the content contributed. Miscellaneous reasons include playing the Wikipedia game.