User:Ginkgo100/RfA considerations

Requests for adminship is ridiculous. It is not the process, but the users (some of them) who make it so. I see users tear candidates apart after nitpicking the answers they give to The Questions. Having been an admin for nearly a year and a half, I thought I would see how I would answer them today. I plucked these questions from recent RfAs (as of today, 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)). I am answering these honestly with my first impressions, and without doing any research. Admin candidates who really want to succeed, of course, would definitely do research and spend time considering their answers, as this is an open book test.

See how I answered the questions on my RfA!

The questions
I sometimes work CSDs and block vandals. In the past I have been active with username blocks. I've been involved with several sockpuppet cases in which I identified and blocked socks. I've done some administrative (and non-controversial) page moves requiring deletion on request from a user/friend. I also like having the tools, as I find it convenient to simply sprotect a page that needs it instead of going through the request process, etc.
 * What admin work do you intend to take part in?

I am very proud of many of my new articles, such as pregnant patients' rights in the United States, fetal movement, street system of Denver, Colorado, and use of force continuum. I've been a major voice on the controversial article police brutality and on non-controversial ones like Siamese (cat) and dracunculiasis. And I more or less single-handedly (well, I use both hands on the keyboard, but it's a figure of speech) brought Asian Arowana to GA status. I think it would pass FA if I could only track down an elusive source I once read that says its ecology is little-studied. I could just put that in there, but I am a compulsive fact-citer, and virtually never make major content edits without citing a bevy of sources. I even keep links to the citation templates on my user page.
 * What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

I also have done some major meta work, although it's always based on my whim, not systematic. For a long time I contributed to WP:RFC/N regularly. I have done a lot of counter-vandalism and new page patrol work, including speedy deletions. I'm of the school of thought that WP:CSD ought to be followed absolutely rigidly, which makes me a bit of an "inclusionist" on speedies (which I think is a sad commentary on how trigger-happy some admins are).

Sure I've been in conflicts. I've even gotten a vandalism warning after, during routine CAT:CSD patrol, removing an invalid speedy tag from an article. That was special. Stress, though? Not so much. I avoid the things that cause me stress around here. I'm a lover, not a fighter.
 * Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Blocks are fun to do and bans are not. Kidding. Blocking is a technical tool to prevent damage to the project from out-of-control editors. Banning is the temporary or indefinite removal of an individual's privilege to edit. The epithet "the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit" does not apply to banned users. Banning can't really be done unilaterally except by our self-appointed, highly exalted god-king. Normally it takes consensus by ArbCom or the community.
 * What is the difference between a ban and a block?

Depends on how much I care. Seriously. It's just a website, and if I am not invested in the article, then I will let it go. Assuming I am invested in the article, I'll take it to the talk page and present my case. In an extreme case I might even go to WP:RFC. Whether or not BLP is involved, I make it a personal policy never to engage in edit wars, period. (Nor wheel wars, for that matter.)
 * If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

I think it's a stupid idea and I don't plan to add myself to the category. I never plan to be a dick (or the female version thereof) because I have too much respect for the project and the mop, so I don't see any reason I would need to be recalled.
 * What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

WP:CSD because they are so often and so horribly abused. Also WP:BP since I do a lot of blocking. Protection policy and deletion policy are important too.
 * What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

I delete based on A7 when and only when the article meets the strict requirements of A7. That is, it must be a qualifying subject (person, group, web content, etc.) and must not claim notability. When in doubt, I'll prod. I don't care if the notability claim is cited or not. If it's not cited or doesn't cite a reliable source, it needs to either be uncontroversial (prod) or discussed (AfD).
 * When would you delete an article on the basis of A7? When would you not?

As something to be used very, very rarely. I've only called on it once, when it was suggested that the use of a copyrighted image that was being used as fair use might actually be criminal (the U.S. FBI logo). I thought it was a good idea to save the discussion for after the deletion instead of going through process. I am a process wonk much of the time.
 * How do you interpret WP:IAR?

Most likely let it be. If it's egregious, I'll talk to the blocking admin (using the most diplomatic of language); if this does not resolve the issue, I'll take to it ANI. Whether I unblock in the meantime is very case-specific.
 * You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What do you do?

I've put myself on the list of admins willing to grant it, but I haven't ever been asked to do so. My standards would probably be pretty loose; the editor would have to show integrity (indicating they won't likely abuse it) and a need for it (e.g. frequent counter-vandalism work).
 * What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?

I don't know what it is. So I don't know how I would deal with one.
 * What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?

What kind of a question is this? A lateral thinking puzzle? I refuse to answer on the basis that it's a stupid question.
 * A user requests semi-protection on an article, but you instead fully protect it. Why?

Is this a trick question? If the problem user was a disruptive vandal, I'd first turn to the vandalism part of the blocking policy. I take a dim view of vandals and their potential to be better Wikipedians. If you take the vandalism out of the equation, then I would start by examining the history of the dispute, then talking to the problem user(s). Any blocking would only be done following a clear defiance of Wikipedia's rules regarding civility.
 * If you noticed a vandal was causing a bit of bother for several different users, for instance making personal attacks towards other user, would you block the user for a short period of time, or would you attempt to work with the user to try and make them into a better Wikipedian? Please explain your reason.

Honestly? Ignore it like all but one other user on the project.
 * What would your response be to: Wikipedia_talk:NPOV?