User:EclipseDude/My Approach to RfA

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.

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.

• 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.