[edit] Criteria for a support vote at RfA
The criteria I use when making a decision at the
requests for adminship pages are these.
- I reserve the right to ignore these criteria if it seems to me to be for the good of the encyclopaedia. However I will not do so capriciously.
- I will say support if a candidate:
-
- Has no blocks (other than technical ones) within the last 6 months
- and
- and either
- Has made reasonable all-round contributions to article writing (~1,000 mainspace edits) as well as areas such as tagging for speedy deletion, discussing articles for deletion, reporting vandals and other admin related activity
- or
- Has shown specialised dedication in one of the above areas (even in the absence of balanced experience in several)
If I am in any doubt one way or the other, the kinds of things that are likely to make me swing one way or the other are:
| Support |
Oppose |
| Candidate stays "cool under fire" during the RfA |
Candidate comments on all opposes, becomes defensive |
| Acknowledges evidence of occasional incivility or poor judgement |
Justifies behaviour, shows no sign of learning |
| Gives at least one example of admin activity to be undertaken |
Cites non-admin activity as the kind of thing they will undertake |
| Clear evidence of improvement since previous RfA |
No evidence of (or no time for) improvement |
| Interacts helpfully with others via talk pages |
Little (or unhelpful) interaction with others |
| Writes well (grammar, spelling, punctuation and argument) |
Hasty or careless writing |
I should say that I am much more likely to express an opinion at RfA if I see an approval rating between 60%-80%. I reckon that there's little point in piling on either support or oppose votes if the decision is clear cut. So my lack of contributions on some RfAs is likely due to that; having said all of which, I do sometimes contribute where the current percentage is outside that window, as time and motivation allow!
