User:Revi C./SEV

• General rule of do not edit my userspace unless otherwise authorized applies here.
• If someone else linked to this page on SE Vote page, Trout them. They should have their own criteria to vote.
  • in other words: don't blindly use my rule by linking to this page. You probably don't want to outsource your opinions to me. Forking this page with your own criteria is fine, but don't link this page in SE.

My own SE voting criteria. This rule will be the single rule for all future SE after 2020, so I will not write anything specific about the candidates here. This is more about the rule I use to evaluate every candidate on an election.

• Updated 2025-02-14 to implement status changes.

election for the newbies

I expect new stewards to meet at least following criteria, and will oppose if any of the answer is NO to me. This is a bare minimum, and you might get 'no' vote even if you pass this rule.

1. Do they understand written policies and procedures around Stewards?
   • I don't expect non-stewards to know all the hidden customs around Stewards' work when you are not part of them, but you should at least know what is written in the stone.
2. Do they understand 'cross-wiki'ness of Stewards' work?
   • Doing stuff as a steward is bit different from doing stuff as local sysops, and I think it's quite an important value so I want new Stewards to know it before they join the team. Unlike #1, you don't need to be a Steward to understand this; you can demonstrate this by GR/GS experiences, SRG reports, etc etc.
3. Do they have track records of requesting something to be done by Stewards?
   • I want people who will do the job to have an experience requesting it. I don't think it makes a good sense to request some button you have never requested to be used. It helps you pass #2, because if you request some button to be used, it means you will understand cross-wikiness of their work.
4. You also have to pass my kowiki local RFP criteria:
   1. You need to understand policies and guidelines Replaced by SEV#1.
   2. You should not have a strong "ego" (Noun #1)
      • From my experiences, when you have too strong 'ego' (- 'self-importance'), you tend to create a battleground, failing to suppress your self-importance to yourself.
      • You get a semi-automatic no vote if you are exhibiting a keyboard-warrior behavior on the Votes page. You just have shown that 'strong ego' by doing so. (I decide what is a keyboard-warrior behavior, but if you are biting voters on (almost, if not all) every small details in a comment (especially @ no section), you probably fall within this clause. Remember, this is what I use to decide how to cast my vote.)
      • If you are exhibiting warrior-like behavior @ the vote page, it is just unrealistic that you will change yourself from head to the toe, and be a pacifist as soon as you are elected.
   3. You need to have some track records to verify #1 and #2 Replaced by SEV#3.

Confirmation

• When I am NOT a steward:

  I only vote when there is a reason to vote remove. (The same logic as below applies.)

• When I am a steward:

  I don't vote during the community consultation period. I only vote on the final verdict. I don't vote in the confirmation just to say keep. I have biases (in a positive way) on all current Stewards I have interacted with, thus I am probably not the best person to offer the critics on them. This means, I might vote to remove someone, though.