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

What's not included edit

Specifically, I don't:

ask questions. RfA is stressful enough, and a quick look at someone's contributions is enough to judge character. Getting adminship should not be a pop quiz.^[6]
judge off-wiki activity.
comb through your contributions in whole and find that one edit from 2015 where you did something mildly controversial and misinterpret and misquote from it, starting a 2kb heated discussion that quickly trails off-topic until it is removed by a bureaucrat and archived to the talk page. :)

On naming edit

I chose CAVE as an acronym because I feel it represents RfA: a big cave that's difficult to navigate and often not transparent. Going through RfA is hard, it's emotionally and time expensive, and lots of social norms surrounding it aren't well-documented.

Closing edit

I'll sound like a broken record, but RfA is a taxing process. Every candidate should be commended for stepping up for the task – any !vote expressing otherwise risks harm to an essential process. I hope that my criteria reflects my immense admiration for any editor running.

In closing, I'm just one !voter among hundreds – don't take what one particular person says too seriously. I'm also not an administrator myself, so take my words with a grain of salt.

It's my sincere wish that this example criteria will encourage more community members, especially newer ones, to participate, and qualified candidates to run through the ~~gauntlet~~ process, by making my decision-making more transparent. If it did, I'm always available for a chat, or an email to rant to!

Best of luck!

Appendix edit

You can see my !voting history here. Thanks to Legoktm for the tool!

Notes edit

^ 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.
^ I admit that I used to do this. Thank you Valereee.

[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.

[6] I admit that I used to do this. Thank you Valereee.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]