"Refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit."
It's hard to be upset about losing my administrator status for being too principled. The problem apparently is that I'm a completely unapologetic idealist. I would rather lose my bit for making decisions that are in the spirit of Wikipedia but against its rules than follow the rules when they fly directly in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. The biggest quality that I look for in an administrator is integrity. When I was faced with the choice of surrendering the mop or my own integrity, I chose to surrender the mop. It wasn't a hard decision, really.
Who am I? I'm one of the resident patsies of Wikipedia. I spend the majority of my time working with the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Every single day, Wikipedia is deluged by thousands of vandalism hits. The only thing that prevents the projects from deteriorating into an unusable mess is the group of people that fight every moment of every day to prevent that from happening. What do I do? I clean up all the graffiti off the walls so that the legitimate writers can do their work in peace without having to deal with it. I think it's important to note that I tend to get more recognition for removing "Fuck you" from an article than most content contributors get for promoting an article to FA status. To that end, be sure to thank a content contributor today.
The most worthwhile Wikipedians are the ones that gain the least recognition and desire the least. These are the ones who really make Wikipedia what it is.
For all the barnstars and other random crap I have picked up over the years, look here.
Concerning Requests for Unblock: I don't have a lot of tolerance for unblock requests that sit for days or weeks because nobody can muster up the balls to make a decision. There are remarkably few administrators that are willing to make tough decisions; it's far easier to pass on something and let someone else handle it than to make a difficult decision yourself. The problem is when EVERY administrator just sits on their collective asses waiting for someone else to do something. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, even someone who has been blocked. As such, any serious unblock request deserves respect, and should be acted on with respect. The breakdown in the system occurs when you have a dozen administrators, including the blocking admin, gathered around (pardon the imagery) with their thumbs up their asses because nobody wants to be the one to step forward and say "Sure, I'll do it... here's my conditions."
Concerning deletionism/inclusionism: I refuse to attach a label to myself. I think that it is a foolish endeavor that divides us more than it identifies us. I find each extreme to be just as damaging as the other. However, I find that the integrity of the encyclopedia demands that there be more of a criteria for inclusion than just WP:V. We have guidelines for notability that have been agreed on by consensus and as such I have very little use for the kind of editor that feels that those guidelines don't apply to them or the articles that they have chosen to defend in AfD. Put fifteen Wikipedians in a room together and you will get sixteen distinct opinions on what is "encyclopedic", but that is what we have guidelines for.
Concerning RfA: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." So said Churchhill, and I feel the same way about the RfA process. The process is ridiculous and cumbersome, not to mention a playground for all of the grudges and pissing matches that are more suited to the schoolyard. So sayeth Jimbo: adminship is "no big deal". I don't treat it as such. My criteria for RfA is summarized here.
Concerning Edit count, and all the little stupid things we worry too much about: I have a huge edit count. Big deal. I have a huge edit count because I spend all of my time reverting vandalism, and doing all of the little background tasks that allow people like this guy,orthis guy, or even this guy, to not have to worry about such things while they are working on the encyclopedia. I consider myself a cog in the machine. Not a bigger or more important cog than any of the others, just one among many. Another thousand edits won't change that, another ten thousand won't change that.
My edits are not always perfect but are always made with the best intentions. If I made a mistake somewhere then I apologize and am happy to discuss it with you. If I copyedited your article and chopped it all to hell, I only ask that you take some time and consider the changes before you get upset about it. Likewise, when I patrol the recent changes I occasionally revert something as vandalism when it turns out not to be. I am only human and when I'm reverting a hundred incidents of vandalism a day, I occasionally make a change that was not warranted.
That which must never be forgotten (a.k.a. a collection of essays that express the greatest truths that can be offered on the project. In other words... if you are new to Wikipedia, READ THESE as they are the cliff notes to surviving your Wikicareer.):
Wikipedia:Avoid Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect <--- We all do it. Remember to take a step back from your discussions to look at the bigger picture. If you then see the debate as being foolish, it probably was.
Wikipedia:Mark of Cain <--- For the last time, you can't give an IP editor a warning for removing a warning from his own talk page.
Committed identity: deef10687d8a84fdc69b184eff3042444cae187a52c7ca07d6733575d5d0ed849fc550baa98d16958e6338e31fefea4a263268dc8a80eecf8fe19f71e0c79e58 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
