User:Filelakeshoe/RFA standards
| admin+ | This user feels that criteria for adminship are generally too high |
People support on the basis of a good track record with no "bad" incidents. That is, they think someone is a good admin because of a lack of evidence that person is bad. So when asked why they think someone would be good admin, they have nothing specific to point at (merely a lack of bad behavior). On the other hand, when opposing someone, generally they oppose on the basis of one or a small number of incidents which exposed that nominees's judgment as questionable – that is, they have a small set of incidents which they can point at affirmatively and say "these are why I oppose". As a result, oppose votes are much easier to explain than support votes.
— User:Raul654's 10th law of Wikipedia
I also think that it is time for this project to stop relying on old hands in key positions. ArbCom is increasingly comprised of re-elected former Arbs, many bureaucrats (including me) were elected over a decade ago. That's not a good thing. We need fresh blood in key roles.
That's the reason my support votes on RFA are usually bare - all the person is saying is that they want to help, so unless they clearly aren't capable, let them. One thing that would really help RFA would be if people said less there.