User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards

For my contributions to Rfxs, see User:Phantomsteve/Editor/Rfx contributions.

These are indicators of what I look for in an RfA candidate.

However, as each candidate is a unique individual, I will consider each candidate on their own merits — and I may not always follow what I have written below — although generally, I would go by a consensus of what is below.

Criteria Inclined
to support 		Inclined
to oppose 		Inclined
to neutral
Reconfirmation RfAs
(If this would be "inclined to support", then I would look at the other criteria here, plus the candidate's admin action)
Why it has been started Valid concerns were raised at either Editor review, or (preferably) at RfC/U No RfC/U has been done ----
Account and edits
Age of account 9 months+ --- 0-9 months
Number of edits (including deleted) 2000+ --- 0-2000
% Automated edits <60% 70%+ 60-69%
Blocks (unless clearly an accidental block) >9 months ago <6 months ago 6-9 months ago
Admin areas
CSD tagging (based on undeleted and warnings left on user talk pages 50%+ deleted --- <50% deleted
PROD tagging (based on undeleted and warnings left on user talk pages 40%+ deleted --- <40% deleted
xfD contribs (excluding 'per xyz' with no reasons) 6+ 0-2 2-5
RfA contribs (excluding 'per xyz' with no reasons) 3+ --- 0-2
Participation in AN/ANI/ANEW etc Evidence of
constructive comments		 Evidence of
personal attacks		 Insufficient evidence
Attitude
Discussions with other editors (on talk pages) Evidence of
constructive comments		 Evidence of
personal attacks		 Insufficient evidence
Willingness to change opinion based on others' reasoning) Evidence found Evidence of
personal attacks		 Insufficient evidence