User:Frosty/Observations of RFA's

This is not a rambling, rant or any other style of calling out on the activities of RFA. In fact this piece will remain in my userspace more than likely indefinitely. What this serves as, is my justification in voting for or against particular candidates on RFA especially when such RFA's seem close or even controversial. Particular justifications behind opposing votes or supporting votes sometimes irritate me. Here is a run down of such common reasons used and why they don't seem valid/do seem valid to me.

Commonly used oppose reasons I do agree with

 * New accounts - Accounts that have existed for less than a year cannot possibly absorb enough experience to be ready. A gentle "come back in 12 months" is always a good reason to use.
 * Under 5k edits - Often goes hand in hand with a new account, but if it doesn't it does show how a user is only using the site infreuqently at best. Come back later with a stronger edit count works for me.
 * "Recent history" - When I say this, I mean if a user has had issues stemming from an edit war, COI or even straightout vandalism that has transpired recently (last 6 months for example) then I prefer to oppose with almost guaranteed support if strong editing and no signs of relapse occur another year down the track. Usually this refers to anything that happened in maybe the last year.
 * Unstable candidates - By which I mean candidates that show a clear pattern of quitting Wikipedia for reasons stemming from frustration, only to come back weeks later claiming to have found a clear head. Naturally we all need a wiki break from time to time, but users that do so frequently and for the wrong reasons do not match the critieria for adminship for me.

Commonly used oppose reasons I do not agree with

 * Content building - If a user chooses to focus on reverting vandalism, fixing typos or discussion regarding administrative style issues on wikipedia and not write articles that should not disqualify them. Why? Well if all this stuff didn't happen and we all focused on content we would have no-one to maintain this library of information. What good is an encyclopedia if there is nobody behind the scenes making sure it is maintained for future readers? It's a round the clock, never ending, thankless chore. An oppose for "no content building" is simply another slap in the face to someone receives little to no thanks as it is.
 * Only x% is to mainspace: As per wikipedia policy we have an extensive warning system for vandals. 1 revert = 1 warning. Commonly I see "35% mainspace next to an oppose on RFA. Warning users against vandalism, cleaning up after vandals in other namespaces, comments on project namespace pages, maintaining templates and categories and several other tasks fundamental to maintaining a wiki this size means the article namespace editcount percentage becomes less than it would be otherwise.
 * Scripting edits - Without people scripting some edits, incredibly boring, repetitive jobs would come down to humans to do. Writing a script is in itself contributing. Running a script to get a job done is contributing.
 * "Ancient history" - A dispute that happened 2 years ago is not an accurate desciption of what type of editor they are now. People change, quite a simple human characteristic that is too often overlooked.
 * Any oppose done by a person that spent 4 hours painstakingly going through a candidates contributions looking for one insignificant slipup or detail - Yeah this is painfully common.