Wikipedia:WikiSpeak/Decoding RfA

Oppose section

Use this highly useful and civil RfA decoder to know what is really meant in the oppose section:

Oppose reason given:	What it really means:
no evidence of working collaboratively	you haven't made enough friends yet to pass RfA
not enough mainspace edits	you're 12
too many userboxes	you're 12
I can't read your signature	you're 12
you're 12	I'm 12, but don't want to get opposed at my rfa later
you've only been here 4 months, come back in three months and I'll support	I've never heard of you. In the next three months, I'm sure you'll screw something up, and I'll use those diffs to oppose next time
per WP:NOTNOW	per WP:NOTEVER
you use poor rationales in XfDs	you voted once to delete an article 8 months ago that I voted to keep
I think you're a great user, but <insert gibberish here>	I don't like you (also: I don't like your nominator and wish to spite him)
per lack of maturity	you opposed my RfA earlier
I don't trust you with the block button	I don't trust you with the block button
too many concerns	one of my friends already opposed and gave diffs. I didn't read the diffs, or look at your contribs, but hell, they gave diffs
per answer to question 27B, part 1, follow up 3c, above.	whew! I wasn't finding anything in your contribs, but you typed "their" when you clearly meant "there", and so I can only conclude that because of your poor grasp of English and grammar, you will be a poor admin, cuz you know, admins have to communicate clearly
per civility issues	You opposed my RfA earlier (also: you nommed my jibberish, unreferenced, non-notable in-universe, fictional character article for deletion) (also: You called me a dick when I was being a dick)
Weak oppose	I oppose, but I don't want to hurt your feelings/don't want to seem uncivil and hurt my RfA chances
Moral support (in the oppose section)	for way too many reasons to actually take the time to list. Besides, by the time I would finish typing out my reasons with diffs, I would end up edit-conflicting with the 'crat that snowed you under
low edit summary usage	I had to actually load up all those diffs to try and find misbehavior because you didn't use swear words in your edit summary. And I found nothing.
concerns from previous RfA(s) have not been addressed	you have addressed past concerns, but since I liked opposing you so much back then, I'm opposing again. Oh, and you have too many userboxes
too quick to be involved in drama	four possibilities: I think you may have found my sockpuppets you are too good to be easily fooled you have a conscience too quick to be involved in drama
hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools	too slow to be involved in drama.
I want the crats to decide on this one	I don't understand how RFA works
many editors I respect have opposed	my friends have spoken, and they don't like you.
per lack of answer to my optional question	by not answering my question, you make me feel less important.
per above	lots of other people have already opposed, so I'll jump on the bandwagon and oppose too. I wouldn't want to be the only supporter, it'll tank my own RfA later
per above (may also mean:)	you pissed me off sometime in the past, and since I don't want to say that out of fear of getting flamed (again) by you, and since I don't quite remember what it was that you did, and because I'm entirely too lazy to go digging through diffs, I'll cover my ass with this
sorry, but...	I'm not actually sorry, and allow me (you don't have a choice) to go into excruciating detail as to why I feel you are incompetent

Support section

Use this highly useful and civil decoder for the support section

Support reason given:	What it really means:
Great editor!	You are 12 and so am I
Meets my criteria	You have 12,000 edits so you must be good – it's not my fault if I didn't notice that 90% of them were vandalism
blah blah blah prima facie blah blah blah	I had an argument with Kurt about something, and I've noticed he's opposing you
per nom	I hope the nominator sees this and nominates me next
per all those above	The cabal has spoken
zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!!	I have a few "favors" to ask of you once this RfA is over
per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/	I didn't look at your talkpage/block log/contribs/, my friends are already supporting
Weak Support (Any text here)	I support, but I'll change if my friends vote oppose.
A very kind, friendly and helpful editor	I am a 13 year old boy and I think the photograph of (allegedly) yourself on your userpage looks hot
Has clear understanding of deletion policies and application	Deletes articles based on any reason given; deletionist, just like me
many editors I respect have supported	my friends have spoken, and they like you
per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy	I read that one "Decoding RfA" page and have decided to suck up to its writers by copying and pasting the reason they clearly approve of despite the fact that I haven't actually bothered to check any of the candidate's contributions

Neutral section

And of course, some Wikipedians just simply can't make up their minds about anything...

Neutral reason given:	What it really means:
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by a non-admin)	Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my own RfA next week
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by an admin)	Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my RfB next week. Also added by an admin when the candidate supported their RfA previously, but there are already a lot of opposers