| Causes to lean oppose
|
Causes to lean support/oppose depending on other factors
|
Causes to lean support
|
| The editor has less than 6000 edits and displayed no knowledge of the basic pillars. (guaranteed oppose)
|
The editor has displayed knowledge of the basic pillars.
|
The editor has 10000 or more edits and displayed knowledge of the basic pillars.
|
| The editor has no rights.
|
|
The editor is a rollbacker and reviewer.
|
| The editor doesn't use edit summaries 100% of the time.
|
The editor has promised to use them 100% of the time, during the RfA.
|
The editor uses edit summaries 100% of the time.
|
| The editor tags articles incorrectly for CSD.
|
The editor isn't interested in CSD work.
|
The editor tags articles for CSD per policy.
|
| The editor has a total tenure less than 18 months.
|
The editor has a total tenure of more than 18-24 months.
|
The editor has a total tenure of more than 24 months.
|
| The editor has been actively participating for less than 6 months.
|
The editor has been actively participating for more than 6 months.
|
|
| The editor was blocked less than 1 year ago.
|
The editor was blocked more than 2 years ago.
|
The editor has never been blocked or not for a considerable number of years.
|
| The editor has a track record of being uncivil. (guaranteed oppose)
|
The editor is usually civil but can break when under pressure.
|
The editor is able to work well under pressure, and reacts civilly during disputes.
|
| The editor answers questions uncivilly and interprets policy incorrectly. Or they answer using "cut and paste" policy. Or if they just plain blatantly lie. (guaranteed oppose)
|
The editor answers questions in a way that shows that they don't fully understand the policy.
|
The editor answers questions politely and according to policy, but also tell how the interpret the policies and how they would use them.
|
| The editor responds to opposes in an attacking manner. (guaranteed oppose)
|
The editor responds to almost every oppose.
|
The editor responds to opposes in a civil manner in a non-badgering manner.
|
| The editor views adminship as power, a reward or a status symbol. (guaranteed oppose)
|
The editor views adminship as a tool maintenance but also sees it as a way to "lead" other users.
|
The editor views adminship as helping with maintenance.
|
| The editor has closed XfDs inappropriately, and doesn't seem to have improved.
|
The editor doesn't close XfDs.
|
The editor has good knowledge of how to close XfDs and has closed them correctly.
|
| The editor does not think that it is necessary to make sure that BLPs are 100% correct and verified, and has possibly closed BLP AFDs as such. (guaranteed oppose)
|
The editor holds no opinion on the way BLPs are treated.
|
The editor views BLPs as needing to be 100% correct and verified, and their edits concur with these views. If the editor views BLP AFDs as default to delete when no consensus, it will also influence me to support.
|
| The editor has never participated in discussions and close to no experience outside content creation or reverting vandalism.
|
The editor occasionally participates in discussions.
|
The editor frequently participates in discussions and seems to have a deep knowledge of most Wikipedia policies.
|
