User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria

This page is always subject to expansion and further work.

Introduction
I !vote based on many things. I have looked at four RfA standards and they are all good. I decided to infuse all the ideas that they contained into a rubric for my own use. You may use this or make up one of your own for your use. I don't mind at all!

My rubric is composed of eight categories:
 * Edit count, recent blocks, and warnings received and given.
 * WP:AFD, WP:PROD, and WP:CSD to prove admin-y tasks.
 * Navigateable and intreguing userspace, signature, and edit summary usage to show how advanced they are in the Wiki-Language
 * Their answers to Question # 1 and how their contributions tie into it.
 * All other questions are answered considerably well and, if applied, are correct.
 * No persuassive oppose votes.
 * Civility on talk pages and keeping everything civil on them, as well as WP:AGF.
 * Very active user in the nomination as well as the nominators (NOTE: this only applies to support !votes.

One more tidbit: If you have a comment about this, PLEASE leave it on my talk page, not on this subpage's talk. Thank you!

Strong Support

 * Have 2,000+ contributions to the mainspace, no blocks, and work with warnings.
 * Works in deletion well, although many not be the main focus.
 * Easy to navigate userspace, however still "cool," they have a unique signature. Use edits summaries MORE than ⅞ of the time.
 * Work with everything they mentioned in Question #1.
 * Answered all questions, optional or reccommended, and all correctly.
 * Absolutley no persuasive oppose votes.
 * Assumes good faith, and retains civilty with others.
 * Looks like a great user and a nom with 800+ meaningful edits.

Support

 * Has 1,500+ meaningful edits, no blocks in last 6 months, and works with warnings from here and there.
 * Works with deletion if that ties into Question #1.
 * Has a personallized signature and a userspace with several templates, and use edit summaries ¾ of the time.
 * Works with everything they said in Question #1 several times in the last couple weeks, and has an understanding.
 * Answers all questions well.
 * No persuassive opposes.
 * Semi-active nominator or self-nom.

Weak Support

 * Has 1,500 edits and no blocks in last 6 months.
 * Works with deletion if that ties into Question #1, however may of made an incorrect speedy recently.
 * Has a intermediate to strong understanding of the Wiki-Language thru their userspace, signature, and uses edit summaries ⅜ of the time.
 * Question #1 answers tie into their contributions, however possibly loosely.
 * Answers all non-optional questions well and/or correctly, and at optional one to their ability.
 * Possibly persuassive opposes, however still several supports.
 * Retain civility and WP:AGF at all times.
 * Nominator with no blocks in last 2 months or self-nom.

Moral Support

 * WP:NOTNOW
 * Works with deletions if that ties into Question #1.
 * No significant Wiki-Language understanding; use edit summaries ⅓ of the time.
 * Answers Q1 to their ability.
 * Answers all other questions to their ability
 * Persuassive Opposes; several of them.
 * Retains a civil manner all the time.
 * Self-nom. THERE AREN'T MANY EXCEPTIONS!

Neutral

 * Has no blocks in last 6 months.
 * Works with deletions if that ties into Question #1 however has made incorrect nominations recently.
 * Uses an edit summary ⅜ + of the time.
 * Q1 answers tie into their contributions often however mistakes are not rare.
 * Answers all questions they could to their ability.
 * Very persuadding oppose votes; ⅓ of them are something other than "per..." or something similar.
 * Retains a civil manner most of the time.

Weak Oppose

 * More than 1,250 meaningful and manual edits.
 * Deletes if that ties into Q1, however several recent deletions are "bad".
 * Uses edit summaries more than ½ of the time.
 * Q1 answers tie into topics shown in their contribs well, however mistakes are common.
 * Answers the questions however may be incorrect.
 * Persuadding oppose votes.
 * Retains a civil manner thru the majority of their editing.

Oppose

 * Blocks in last 4 months.
 * Incorrectly tags articles for deletion often.
 * No personallized signature, userspace. 50/50 use of edit summary.
 * Q1 loosely ties into the contributions.
 * Answers one or more questions wrong.
 * Persuassive oppose votes
 * Has not assumed good faith more than once recently.

Strong Oppose

 * Blocks in last 4 months.
 * No experience in deletion however tags anyway.
 * Blatantly no WikiLanguage on WP:UP or WP:SIG; only automatic edit summaries.
 * Little or no connection from Q1 and the contribs.
 * Answers questions, however incorrectly on one or more.
 * VERY PERSUASSIVE oppose votes.
 * Minimal amount of civilty for an admin.