User:Buffs/views

I've created this page to better concisely state my views on various subjects. These are my opinions.

WP:RfAs
RfAs have gotten more hostile over the years and I see the following trends:
 * 1) Failure to let past acts go (even if repudiated and years in the past)
 * 2) Vilifying disagreements
 * 3) Opposition based solely upon the fact that the nominee doesn't agree with your personal philosophy.

I think that these three concepts are the reasons that people aren't getting through. There is a severe difference between taking a stance at an AFD (perhaps as a devil's advocate) and actions you would take as an administrator.

WP:HOUND
"Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime."

"If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized...then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you."

This goes for myself as well. Anyone at any time is welcome to look at my edit history. If you think I've done something wrong or think you can do it better, you are welcome to make any/all changes to improve the encyclopedia. I might object, but we can go to the talk page and hash it out.

To be hounding someone you must meet all the criteria:
 * 1) You must be singling out a specific editor
 * 2) Edit articles/join discussions in areas which you've never contributed prior and that coincide with edits of the specific editor.
 * 3) Repeatedly confront said user
 * 4) Intend to irritate, annoy, or distress

I do not view hounding as merely following another person's edits. To be hounding, you have to have the intent to disrupt someone else or blatantly annoy them. It must be based on the intent of the user not the feelings of his perceived victim. If we based it simply upon annoyance, I think we all could find someone to get rid of on Wikipedia...

Porn on Wikipedia
I don't care for it and don't see much of a need for it on the encyclopedia (beyond basic the basics of "what is porn"?). I also recognize that WP:Wikipedia is not censored, and it shouldn't be. Accordingly, I will not weigh in (in any capacity) on discussions broaching related topics on porn.

WP:XFD
How would I close it?

Let's assume every opinion is based in policy or guidelines. Barring a particularly persuasive argument, I would throw all the other opinions out, though that's not to say that even among policies and guidelines, there are contradicting notes. Those opinions, unless amazingly grossly off, would be germane to the discussion even if they disagree with my interpretation.

Then I'd look at all the aforementioned opinions expressed and see if there is a general consensus (anything higher than a 2-to-1 ratio with 4 or more contributors or unanimous with no objections), I would go with whatever the consensus is. If no clear consensus existed, I would default to keep with the exception of BLPs. I would consider BLPs (again only valid opinions under the above criteria) under a strict majority:
 * >50% keep=no consensus, default to majority opinion=keep
 * <50% keep=no consensus, default to majority opinion=delete

If I felt consensus was wrong on the matter, I would put in my two cents and allow another admin to make the call.