User:EclipseDude/My Approach to RfA
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I realized that my old RfA criteria was a little too complicated, so I have adopted a simpler criteria based on TonyBallioni's criteria.
RfA Criteria
[edit]I will generally support an RfA candidate who:
- 1. Is not a jerk.
- 2. Has a clue.
- 3. Has a decent track record of editing that I can review to assess the above two criteria. A good rule of thumb is at least 18 months and 3500 edits of tenure.
I will oppose any candidate that outright fails any one of the first two criteria. I will vote neutral if there are some concerns regarding the first two criteria, or if the candidate fails my third criteria.
RfB Criteria
[edit]I will generally support an RfB candidate who, in addition to meeting the RfA criteria:
- 4. Has used the administrative toolset responsibly to improve Wikipedia.
- 5. Understands the roles and responsibilities of bureaucrats as determined by community consensus.
Having experience with BRFA and a solid track record of properly assessing consensus and closing discussions are also pluses.
Further Reading
[edit]- User:Thorncrag/On RfA content-building - I agree with many of the views and arguments put forth in this essay.
- User:Wisdom89/RfA_philosophy_and_criteria
- User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Tyrenius - Specialization is not a bad thing. I don't expect candidates to pour time and sanity into things they hate or are less-able at doing when Wikipedia is better served by them focusing on what they can do and enjoy doing.
- I'll add more essays down here as I find and read through them.