User:Dreamy Jazz/RfA criteria

I have no strict criteria and will generally !vote based on my overall feeling of a candidate. However, the criteria listed in the collapsed box are often used by myself to determine my overall feeling. It is not exhaustive or complete, and I may ignore my criteria if I so want to. I use these criteria to work out if I support a RfA or RfB candidate.

My criteria boil down to:
 * If I can trust that a candidate will use the tools to the benefit of the community, then I will support.


 * If the candidate can show / or has been shown to be trusted by the community, then I will generally support.
 * If the candidate has worked to improve the encyclopedia, then I will generally support.
 * If the user has a need for the tools, I will generally support.
 * If the nominee has recent XfD nominations which were closed as keep and the reasons for the keep could have been reasonably seen by the candidate at the time of nomination, then I am more likely to oppose the candidate.
 * Repeated issues with civility is a reason for me to oppose.
 * Any socking, or non-self requested blocks which have not been overturned (except the odd 3RR block) will lead me to oppose.
 * If the nominee has had recently imposed community / ArbCom sanctions, or they have violated their active community / ArbCom sanctions recently, I will likely oppose. If the community / ArbCom sanctions have been adhered to, they will become less of a red flag. If the nominee seems to have moved on from the issues that lead to the community / ArbCom sanctions, this may lead me to discount said sanctions.
 * If the candidate has been desysoped recently (unless the desysop was because of inactivity or because they resigned the tools not "under a cloud"), or has applied unsuccessfully for administrative rights recently, then this may make me oppose.