1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
I've been very active with WikiProject Spam so I see myself continuing to work on spam-related issues especially helping with our local whitelist and our new local spam blacklist, both of which are require admin bits to edit. The whitelist can accumulate backlogs of many weeks leading to frustration for established editors; at the same time, perhaps a third of the requests are made in bad faith and it helps to be familiar with our spam archives, spam reports 1,2,3, spam search tools [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] and spam templates ({{spamlink}}, {{IPSummary}} and {{UserSummary}}). Other spam-related activities requiring the admin bit can include blocking spammers, semi-protecting articles and deleting non-notable spam articles that have been appropriately tagged for deletion (PROD or CSD).
Beyond that, I don't rule out helping out in other ways as needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
3. 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?
Sure. in mid-2006, I got involved in big disputes in connection with two RfAs 1,2 when I thought candidates (neither of whom I knew) were getting treated unfairly. While there was merit in some of the points I made, I lost sight of the forest for the trees and caused a lot of disruption. In retrospect I realized I should have just made my comment and moved on, rather than trying to wrestle the issue to the ground. I've been asked to stand for admin off and on since then but I always said I would give it at least 12 months after those RfAs to ensure I really had a feel for the community. I think that was a good decision.
I've been in lots of conflicts here and on meta with people upset about their links getting deleted. By the time I've gotten involved, they've usually ignored multiple spam warnings by others, so I don't find it especially stressful. We've got an encyclopedia to build and they've got a business to run -- I try to help them see there's not really a match there.
As for ways I deal with conflict these days:
a. Not trying to have the last word; I found this meta essay really useful: m:Rule of diminishing replies. As long as the project's integrity is preserved, it's probably OK to let the other guy have the last word.
b. Sometimes "agreeing to disagree"
c. Getting others' advice and help.
d. Keeping a sense of humour.
e. When dealing with problematic editors (such as spammers), just stick to templates in most cases as opposed to giving a lecture.
f. This is just an online encyclopaedia and a personal hobby for me -- I'm not trying to cure cancer or Save The Free World.
4. What is the policy trifecta. Why did the author pick those policies? Do you agree with them?
It's similar in concept to the simplified ruleset, meta:foundation issues and the five pillars and yes, I agree with them. As for why the author(s) picked them, it looks like that topic's already been beaten to death at Wikipedia talk:Trifecta
5. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
I just looked it up -- we now have 40+ pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy and 200+ in Category:Wikipedia guidelines and its subcategories so I think I'm already probably ignoring a bunch of rules everyday! Beyond the picayune stuff we sometimes get into more substantive situations where our rules either conflict with each other or don't apply very well. At that point, IAR tells me to use common sense and forge ahead in accordance with the spirit of the rules. A good guide when invoking IAR should be "what would the community say"?
6. What is the difference between indefinite blocking and banning?
Blocking is preventative in intent and can be implemented by any admin for varying lengths of time. It's accomplished by changing permissions for an IP or username in our MediaWiki software. Banning can be thought of as banishment from the community and usually stems from a decision by Arbcom, Foundation, the community or Jimbo (see the banning policy for details).
7. What is your interpretation of BLP?
Any article about a living person must always meet all three of our key content policies (Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view). Poorly sourced material must be immediately removed.