User:EclipseDude/My Approach to RfA

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
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
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.