Standards under which I will vote Support at RfA
Below are some standards that I take into account when considering my vote in RfA discussions. Please note that this list is certainly not all-inclusive.
- At least six months as a registered Wikipedia user.
- At least 2,000 mainspace edits.
- Near-perfect edit summary usage, at least when it comes to your most recent editing. I will always use mathbot's tool as a starting point, then expand my review further. If your edit summary is under 97% for either the major or minor category, I will more than likely oppose.
- A clean block history, at least in regard to reasons other than 3RR. I can look past a 3RR block because it is understandable - in my opinion - that we have all had times where we've been so sure that our edit(s) is/are correct and have had difficulty letting go. However, if such a block is part of the account history within the previous 90 days, I will more than likely vote neutral for a candidate that I might have otherwise supported.
- A demonstrated understanding of the notion of civility and how it applies to Wikipedia interactions.
- Meaningful participation in a respectable amount of AN or XfD discussions.
- Candidates must be willing to add themselves to administrators open to recall. While it is general knowledge that an administrator is always available for recall whether they consent or not (under certain circumstances), I believe in the principle that one must appear publicly accountable.
Standards under which I will vote Support at RfA
Below are some standards that I take into account when considering my vote in RfA discussions. Please note that this list is certainly not all-inclusive.
- At least six months as a registered Wikipedia user.
- At least 2,000 mainspace edits.
- Near-perfect edit summary usage, at least when it comes to your most recent editing. I will always use mathbot's tool as a starting point, then expand my review further. If your edit summary is under 97% for either the major or minor category, I will more than likely oppose.
- A clean block history, at least in regard to reasons other than 3RR. I can look past a 3RR block because it is understandable - in my opinion - that we have all had times where we've been so sure that our edit(s) is/are correct and have had difficulty letting go. However, if such a block is part of the account history within the previous 90 days, I will more than likely vote neutral for a candidate that I might have otherwise supported.
- A demonstrated understanding of the notion of civility and how it applies to Wikipedia interactions.
- Meaningful participation in a respectable amount of AN or XfD discussions.
- Candidates must be willing to add themselves to administrators open to recall. While it is general knowledge that an administrator is always available for recall whether they consent or not (under certain circumstances), I believe in the principle that one must appear publicly accountable.