User:Titusfox/RFAQs


 * 1) What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * I Think the kind of admin work I would take part in would be WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:AFD and ANI. But I would be happy to take care of any other duties that need attending to.


 * 1) 	What are your best contributions to Wikipedia and why?
 * I think that my best contribution to Wikipedia is my recent spur of speedying articles by new users that are designed to promote either themselves or the companies they work for. This has greatly improved the quality of Wikipedia as a good few articles are pure advertising rather than encyclopaedic content.


 * 1) 	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?
 * Simply put, yes. I once had a conflict with the now indef’d user Andy toes who kept removing warnings from their talk page in an attempt to cause more disruption. The reason this caused me stress was that I had caused an edit war on his talk page and he had taken me to AN3 for it. At that time I had no idea what to do as I was edit warring and had never been reported to an administrator’s noticeboard prior to this incident. However, I tried to keep as calm as I could and simply placed information on the noticeboard about him removing the warnings from his talk page and an administrator came along and blocked him. The case is at User:titusfox/Toes.


 * 1) What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * Technically, it depends on the kind of ban. But a block is a preventive measure to remove an editor’s editing privileges on all articles. However, a topic ban is used to prevent an editor from editing certain articles or topic in order to prevent an edit war, an interaction ban is used to prevent further conflict between two editors and a site ban is a ban from editing on all of Wikipedia but is only rarely give out by the Arbitration Committee.


 * 1) When should cool down blocks be used and why?
 * Cooldown blocks should never be used as blocks are a preventive measure and not a punitive measure.


 * 1) 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?
 * Ask the other editor on either their talk page or the article talk page why they removed the content and then state my point of view on the matter. The worst thing to do in this situation Is to revert the other editor as this is how most edit was start.


 * 1) What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
 * WP:IAR does not mean that there are no rules, nor is it a get out of jail free card. it means that if you can’t benefit the encyclopedia because a rule is getting in the way, only then should you ignore it. With a game I currently run under my userpage (Edit Quest), even though it is not permitted because of WP:UPNOT, since it is only designed to help the wiki, IAR applies here


 * 1) What is your opinion of WP:AOR and would you add yourself to it?
 * I think that although AOR has its controversies, if an admin thinks that another admin isn’t doing their job properly or is very aggressive in which the way that they do so another RFA could be used to see if they’re still abiding by policies. But I would definitely add my name to the list.


 * 1) Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
 * Actually, no administrator is forced to partake in administrative activities. However, if I had to choose, would depend on the situation. Most situations like this are context based and when it all boils down to having to make an edit in violation of a block/ban because another editor is vandalizing, sometimes IAR applies

The articles should say that he and his wife DID co-author the books as because Wikipedia is not a primary source. But only the articles which list the person and his wife both as authors. Even if the author of the books contacted the Wikipedia team through ORTS and threatened to take legal action over this small piece of information, it shouldn’t be changed as multiple sources (Including himself in an interview say that both he and his wife wrote the books. If the sources are easily accessible, this issue shouldn’t take long at all.
 * 1) My wife is not a co-author (Scenario Question)