User:Shirik/RFA

Welcome to my RFA toolbox! Here I keep some tools which are useful to me in identifying if a particular user can be trusted with admin tools.

General Criteria[edit]

While this is not a binding list, these are traits of a candidate which will lead me to support or oppose. Exceptional situations will warrant overriding this policy; this is just a general guideline which presents a "good idea" of where I am leaning. I have partially stolen these ideas from Coffee but adapted them to my own beliefs.

Things that will influence me to oppose.	Things that will influence me to vote neutral.	Things that will influence me to support.
The editor does little to no vandalism fighting and has less than 3000 edits. The editor does a significant amount of vandalism fighting and has less than 6000 edits.	The editor has few edits to the Wikipedia space.	The editor does little to no vandalism fighting and has 3000 or more edits. The editor does a significant amount of vandalism fighting and has more than 6000 edits.
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 acknowledges a lack of understanding of CSD policy and does not intend to service this area.	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 6 months ago.	The editor was blocked more than 6 months ago.	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 repeats policy as written without any elaboration when answering questions. The editor demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of a policy when answering questions.	The editor explicitly states that he/she does not understand a given policy well enough to answer it without referring to it, but after referring to it answers the question satisfactorily.	The editor answers questions in a manner that clearly indicates a thorough understanding of policy and how it applies to the given situation.
The editor responds to opposes in an attacking manner.	The editor responds to almost every oppose.	The editor responds to opposes in a civil manner.
The editor views adminship as power, or a status symbol.	The editor views adminship as a tool for 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 indicates he/she will not be open for recall and does not give a reasonable justification.	The editor indicates he/she will not be open for recall but gives a reasonable justification.	The editor indicates he/she will be open for recall.

Questions for candidates[edit]

These are some questions I may ask to candidates during an RFA. This is not an all-inclusive list; it merely is a set of commonly-applicable questions to candidates.

General questions[edit]

Should you be granted adminship, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

Questions about CSD[edit]

What is the difference between CSD criterion A1 and A3?
As reviewing administrator, how would you respond to this and this nomination?

Questions about article content[edit]

When, if ever, is uncited content which is present on biographies of living people acceptable?

Questions about AIV[edit]

When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?