User:Frostly/CAVE: My RfA criteria

My process for !voting at RfA can be summarized as

"CAVE":

Communication

Evidence of learning from mistakes, and responsiveness to criticism
Asking for help or advice^[1]
The proven ability to walk away and cool off

Notice that "knowledge of policy" is not explicitly included. If you can learn, you don't need to know everything.

Pillar Four

Activity

Having a reasonable use-case for adminship
Demonstrable contributions to the project^[2]
Persistence and passion for editing^[3]

Note that a specific minimum tenure is not included. Everyone has the right to edit at their own pace.

Pillar One

!Vote

After looking at communication and activity, I formulate my !vote.

I default to supporting requests for adminship^[4]
I'm more likely to just not support a request than actually oppose it
I usually don't write a statement explaining my !vote^[5]

Consensus

End!

Participating is that simple! After you vote, you should celebrate – you've contributed to a core community process that keeps the project running.

Jimbo's third principle

^ Wikimedia Foundation value 3 "We are in this together": find joy and belonging in human connection. We are there for one another; we support one another through life’s ups and downs, our mistakes, our successes.
^ ("you've left your footprint") – hence the image
^ Wikimedia Foundation value 5 "We are inspired": When we are inspired, we do excellent work.
^ (including moral, weak, etc.)
^ Adminship is no big deal and RfA is stressful. The more text there is, positive or negative, the more you have to read. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers. I will note that this is one of my more recent revelations, so older !votes may not reflect this.

[1] Wikimedia Foundation value 3 "We are in this together": find joy and belonging in human connection. We are there for one another; we support one another through life’s ups and downs, our mistakes, our successes.

[2] ("you've left your footprint") – hence the image

[3] Wikimedia Foundation value 5 "We are inspired": When we are inspired, we do excellent work.

[4] (including moral, weak, etc.)

[5] Adminship is no big deal and RfA is stressful. The more text there is, positive or negative, the more you have to read. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers. I will note that this is one of my more recent revelations, so older !votes may not reflect this.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

User:Frostly/CAVE: My RfA criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia