User:Buffs/My Thoughts

I started a page similar to this a while back, but never really got around to updating it. I guess now's as good a time as any to look at RFA criteria. Perhaps I meet them now. Perhaps I don't. Perhaps no one will ever see this page.

Opening statement (needs to be concise)
First of all let me thank my nominators with regards to their collegial support. I've ruffled a lot of feathers in the past, but I think it all turned out for the best and Wikipedia is stronger for it. I've also made some controversial statements which were cause for opposition in my last RfA; I hope this page addresses these concerns.

Second, according to feedback in my last RfA, I think people who opposed adminship got the impression that I could abuse admin rights if given them. Rest assured, if I ever abuse any administrator rights, I will submit myself for recall immediately in accordance with my recall criteria.

Lastly, I think that a healthy challenge to one's beliefs is important to strengthen the foundation of those beliefs. Since I largely intend to address images in the WP:FFD realm, I think it's important to note that I don't always agree with what's been done there. However, I intend to apply policy to files in accordance with a well-founded majority opinion (Example: Just because you like an image isn't a valid reason we should keep an image on WP). If I believe a clear consensus of opinion runs contrary to policy, I will NOT close the discussion, but will instead give my opinion on the matter in an attempt to sway opinion the other direction.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

RFAs
You don't have to agree with anyone to trust and support them for adminship. Your views and a nominee's views may not line up on flagged revisions, Christianity, or nationalism, but that's of little importance.

Fairness
An individual's !vote with regards to changes in policy is the same whether or not that person is an admin, bureaucrat, steward, etc. A person's political or religious views have nothing to do with their ability to apply Wikipedia policy/guidelines appropriately. Should I be appointed an admin through consensus, I will continue to voice my opinions on controversial subjects, but despite those opinions, I'll appropriately apply policy with regards to situations that arise on Wikipedia. I am well-versed in this odd dichotomy as I am in the U.S. military; there are policies which I do not support, but as a "good soldier" I enforce them without prejudice/preference. Though I may vote for or against my commander-in-chief in any given election, I am bound to follow his orders and, unless illegal, I am legally/morally bound to do so. This is the same position I view admins: policy and consensus are their commanders-in-chief; while I might not agree with the outcome, I will abide by and enforce policies/consensus.
 * 1) I agree that nationalism, fringe groups and corporations are problems on Wikipedia, but resorting to name-calling, driving away users/contributors strictly because of their views, and other uncivil acts show that our rules of conduct only apply to newcomers, when in reality, they apply to everyone. That means if tendentious editing is a problem, uninvolved admins should step in and prevent an onslaught.
 * 2) Should I be appointed an admin, I will abide by consensus. If my opinion doesn't line up with what is stated, I will not take unilateral action against consensus. Rather, I will simply express my opinion and allow another administrator make the call. While, at heart, I generally lean towards keeping things within Wikipedia rather than delete (in discussions which result in no consensus or an ambiguous conclusion), that doesn't mean it overrides consensus. Majority does not rule on Wikipedia and a single dissenting opinion with appropriate logic can override others with ill-founded logic. That said, stuff on Wikipedia needs to have a purpose within an encyclopedia (or at least on a user page). If it has no use, then it needs to go. Copyrighted materials need to be appropriately used in accordance with Fair Use and WP policies/guidelines or removed. If you'll look at my contributions at WP:FFD, you'll find quite a few examples to better illustrate this point.
 * 3) Just because something hasn't been done in a certain way before doesn't mean someone is wrong to do something non-standard. If something needs to be standard, then it needs to have consensus-support and be appropriately codified in a policy or guideline. It is inappropriate to malign/chastise someone because they have done something non-standard. Effectively "We don't do it that way" with no policy or guideline to back it up can result in a conflict and should be avoided. Such actions should be brought up on the related talk page and, if consensus decides that the particular method chosen can/shouldn't be used, then it should be permitted/removed (respectively). Care should be taken when referring to recent changes in policy as a devoted minority may, for a short time, change a policy without or counter to consensus.
 * 4) Policies and guidelines are crafted slowly over time and are the "rules" by which content is kept in check on Wikipedia. Doing something that is explicitly in accordance with one of these policies/guidelines and then quoting the appropriate reason you did such an action is inherently appropriate. It is not "wikilawyering"; it is following the procedures/content rules of Wikipedia. If the rules need to be changed, then change them. If clarification is needed, then clarification needs to be added. Common sense dictates that not every situation should be expounded upon in-depth, but common sense is not common and policies/guidelines should be spelled out as much as possible to prevent problems down the road.
 * 5) This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. That means that semi-protection and full protection should be used as little as possible. In general, IP users should be able to contribute to the encyclopedia without registering for an account as much as is reasonably possible.
 * 6) People should be held accountable for their actions and there are certain kinds of behavior that shouldn't be condoned, no matter who it is that is contributing. I will oppose that kind of behavior if made an admin. That said, We are all humans here (except the bots...and those are controlled by humans...in general...) and everyone makes mistakes. Those Wikipedians in good standing, if genuinely remorseful, should not have things held against them long-term and don't need to be desysoped or indef blocked unless there is a serious, long-term problem. We type things we don't exactly mean and the lack of specificity in the English language doesn't help; if there is a misunderstanding, clarification is always welcome. In short, I don't hold grudges and neither should anyone else. However, some people do things that warrant removal from Wikipedia altogether and consensus bans from the site should be upheld barring exceptional circumstances. If someone recants and genuinely refutes poor behavior, we should forgive them and let bygones be bygones.