User:Jaobar/sandbox/Matt's Tab/Voting

This section details the exact effects of each voting type. While any user (including unregistered anonymous accounts) can participate in discussion, and display comments in support or opposition sections, they cannot place a numerical !vote. In other words, they can influence voters, but cannot vote themselves. Users may revoke or change their vote at any time while the RfA is still active.

Support
A user may mark their support in numerous ways, often indicating varying levels of support (e.g. Strong Support vs. Weak Support). However, this is only for discussion purposes, all support !votes carry a numerical value of +1. Supporters are strongly encouraged to give evidence and reasons to support their !votes. Sometimes, other users (often those in opposition) will rebut the evidence provided, with the intent to influence the supporter to change their !vote. Candidates generally don't have reason to post in the support section, unless it is in response to an opposing user who has posted a reply to a supporter

Some common reasons many users will cite when declaring support include:
 * Contributions
 * Good judgement
 * Activeness
 * Extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies
 * Clean back logs
 * Prompt and quality answers to questions posed during the RfA. If a user can successfully defend themselves and show knowledge without being combative, that's a huge plus.

Oppose
Similar to the support section, opposition may be labeled based on varying levels of opposition (e.g. Strong Oppose vs. Weak Oppose). Again, this is only for discussion purposes, all oppose !votes carry a numerical value of -1. Opposition is strongly encouraged to give evidence and reasons to support their !votes. Sometimes, other users (often those in opposition) will rebut the evidence provided, with the intent to influence the supporter to change their !vote. Candidates are generally warned against responding to opposition !votes, for fear of coming across as combative. A candidate is expected to provide solid evidence that what the opposition said is false. Even then, it is generally recommended that candidates allow their supporters to respond to opposition !votes, and focus their attention to questions specifically addressed to them.

Some common reasons many users will cite when declaring opposition include:
 * Lack of contributions
 * Account is too young
 * Not active
 * Poor understanding of Wikipedia policies
 * Evidence of vandalism, edit warring, or other activities that demonstrate poor/vulgar interaction with the community.
 * Slow and poor quality answers to questions posed during the RfA. If a user cannot provide evidence to back up their claims, or appear to be combative, that's a huge negative.

Neutral
By declaring neutral, one is stating that they neither support or oppose the candidate. As such, these !votes do not carry a numerical value, and are not factored into the verdict. There are countless reasons why someone would remain neutral. Oftentimes, users will declare neutral near the beginning of the RfA's lifespan, pose questions, with the intent to change their vote to support or oppose depending on the answer to that question. Other times, it will simply be to indicate that the user is simply spectating. Sometimes, users will indicate that their expectations are higher than normal, but recognize that and choose not to impede the candidate's progress based on their own self-admitted high standards (this leads to the implication that they will change their vote to support or vote support at a later time if the requirement is met). A neutral vote can be made for virtually any reason, and it is considered rude to ask for their reasons as it does not influence the RfA either way.