Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vilerage (talk | contribs) at 08:49, 20 July 2006 (/usr/sbin/support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Catamorphism

Discuss here (38/5/5) Ending 15:15, 2006-07-25 (UTC)

Catamorphism (talk · contribs) – While I disagree with this user's politics and just about every view they have on social policy, I think they are a serious, educated, thoughtful contributor, and I agree with their Wikipedia philosophies. I think that this user would be an excellent administrator. I think Wikipedia has too many admins whose main interests and contributions involve TV shows, video games, fancruft, cartoons, and topics that are clearly unencyclopedic. Catamorphism works on serious, encyclopedic content. Catamorphism has shown excellent judgment and knowledge of policy, and I think they can be neutral in spite of their strong feelings on certain social issues. There seems to be a tendency around here to throw out the red herring of censorship whenever one is trying to get rid of a stupid sexual neologism that belongs in Urban Dictionary, not here. I've seen this user in all areas of Wikipedia, and I know they have the experience, and I don't doubt that this RfA would be successful. I'd like to work with this user to get the sexual nonsense out of here and make Wikipedia a source of solid sexual information, firmly grounded in science and medicine rather than urban legend, teen gossip, and pornography. This user has between 4500 and 5000 edits, has a cool head, impeccable judgment, and the amazing ability to deal with POV pushers and hotheaded users in a positive way. I even saw this user deal nicely with the always controversial Brian G. Crawford and numerous cranks. Adminship for this user is long overdue. Erik the Rude 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Catamorphism 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support per nom. 1ne 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, per prior experience here and elsewhere I strongly suspect that Catamorphism will make an fine admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, per nom. Nom asked for help in the mechanics of posting the RfA, and I checked Catamorphism's contribs before posting. Was rather impressed. Seems to be quite civil, have a good chunk of wikignomish quality to them, and will most likely be a boon to Wikipedia when given the wikimop and bucket. Good luck w/the remainder of the nom. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Per nom, and per own experiences at various sexuality related topics. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Serious, thoughtful contributor. An asset to the project. Fan-1967 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nom. Roy A.A. 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, I've seen her around, been favorably impressed. :) Mangojuicetalk 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - just looked over the user's submissions, interactions and responses, and was duly impressed. Good to have someone so dedicated to dealing with issues arising in tough topics that I share some interests in - good admin material. Tony Fox (speak) 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A thoughtful contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per nom. Thoughtful and clear-headed, plus great taste in music. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Emphatic support as nominated. Not sure if I'm supposed to vote, but I'll give it a shot just in case. Erik the Rude 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: I don't know this user, but I like the answers to the questions, and I see no obvious history of problems. Friday (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. I like this statement from their user page: Wouldn't it be fun to step away from your computer once in a while, go to a library, look at a book (one made out of actual dead trees) about a subject you're interested in editing articles about, and add appropriate citations to that book to relevant articles? Articles that only cite random, non-peer-reviewed web pages that are cherry-picked to support a particular POV suck. That attitude makes for a much better encyclopedia. Seems to have responded properly to people despite editing contentious subjects. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support! First of all, they have great tastes in music. I've seen this user in many places, seems they spend a lot of time protecting articles from a lot of the garbage that tends to creep into the 'pedia. A mop could be handy. -MrFizyx 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Naconkantari 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support has been an excellent contributor and seems able to keep a cool head. Rjm656s 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I don't see anything to worry about. -- joturner 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per nom. RandyWang (raves/rants) 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - when people who don't agree with you can nominate you, you're doing something right. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per nom. --Aquillion 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom - complete disagreement with political views, agreement over adminship. This Fire Burns Always 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Merovingian (T, C, @) 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, even though everyone knows that the Dreamcast was the last great game console.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I'm kind of surprised Catamorphism hasn't been nominated already. Very nice and pleasant person and a fellow round tuit fan. Whispering 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Proudly Support I'm sure this user will make a great admin! --Tuspm(C | @) 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Consistently shows good judgment and knowledge of policies and guidelines. --Muchness 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. DarthVader 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I love the t-shirt on user page Joe I 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - per nom, although political feelings are vastly different the ability to get along makes me support. -- Tawker 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom abakharev 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. The "Wikipedia Opinions" section on his user page in particular leaves a favorable impression. I don't necessarily agree with all of them (the "anonymous users do more harm than good" bit in particular -- but that said, I do feel that the "In general, Wikipedia policies are too biased towards assuming that almost everybody is competent and well-intentioned" bit is right on), but I like the level-headedness and lack of frothing at the mouth. -- Captain Disdain 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I changed my vote from oppose, because it seems that the polemical nature of this user is a bit overstated, and I have no problem with a slight dislike of WP:AGF or a distrust of anon IPs. Anyone who has had to deal with serripticious vandals knows about this. My only objection would probably be the pessimism and overall dark view of Wikipedia. AdamBiswanger1 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Thanks for being willing to reconsider your vote; perhaps my "dark view of Wikipedia" is influenced by the types of articles I've spent time editing (although I don't know whether you've also edited equally controversial articles). Obviously I have an overall optimistic view of Wikipedia or else I wouldn't be spending time on it. But it seems to me like there are policies that result in good editors spending time battling trolls that could be better spent improving content. As an admin, of course, I would try to argue for changing these policies, but would respect the rules as they are. Catamorphism 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I don't find the oppose rationale below very convincing. This user has Wikipedia views that are different from me, and probably others as well, but this is hardly a reason not to vote for them (I won't even mention political views, totally irrelevant). The question is, will they be a good admin. This user seems to have everything it takes, as mentioned by the nom and others. Themindset 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per both noms. Seivad 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I don't agree with Catamorphism on all their policy opinions, but their opinions seem always well reasoned and expressed. I have also seen some of their work on gender and sex related topics, both on articles and talk pages, and I'm always impressed. --Allen 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. support. The user seems to have been able to keep their cool while working on some of the most sensitive articles in the project. Perhaps this is why their adherence to the principle of AGF is qualified. I am assuming that this is nuance here rather than antipathy and so am supporting. Bucketsofg✐ 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No big deal Support Doesen't look like the user will abuse the mop. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose: very strident about word use, objecting to perfectly normal grammar for political reasons, and too often harsh with newcomers about it. Thumbelina 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be able to provide any supporting diffs? Absent diffs, it strikes me as common courtesy to call someone by the appropriate gender for their online identity, even if that choice is to not use a gender. It's not a common choice, but that doesn't affect the courtesy required. — Mike (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeChanging to Neutral, leaving comment here for threading: First of all, and not related to the nominee, I find it rather odd that so many comments relate to the user's political views (even if it's to say that it won't affect their opinion) - I guess maybe those political userboxes really do catch people's attention the wrong way. Also, I find the nominator's characterization of other admin's interests as not as good unneeded. But neither of those are the user's fault, but I felt I should mention it. My reason for not supporting lies not in the political views, but in a few points on the user's Wikipedia views, namely 3 and 4. Admittedly, most vandals are anonymous, but it strikes me as against the basic values of Wikipedia to assume that most anonymous users are causing harm and should not be allowed. It also doesn't sit well with me that AGF is cited as being a bad policy (not so much in the question below, but in the way it is interpreted on their user page). Not all first "test" edits are blatant vandalism, and {{test}} is very much needed for users whose first edit is something like adding Bold text, by explaining to them how to learn more. For blatant vandals, there is always {{bv}} or the option to start warning at {{test2}}. I have a hard time thinking someone whose opinions seem opposed to supporting new users would be a good admin. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I hope you would look beyond this user's stated views and consider their actions. I doubt that you will find examples of this editor being uncivil to newbie vandals. Simply because one holds (and is bold enough to share) views that differ from policy does not mean one cannot also follow policy and respect the consensus upon which it is based. -MrFizyx 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as per above. TruthCrusader 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for now. 1. User inhabits too small a quadrant of the WP universe and should roam around a bit more. 2. 232 edits on talk pages is very puny. 3. Disagreement with WP:AGF as expressed below. 4. Too strong of an urge to express POV on user page is also not helpful in a quadrant where admins should act impartially. All things that can be fixed, with time. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to point no. 4, I note that Wikipedia:User page specifically invites users to share their opinions about Wikipedia poilcies on their user page: "Another use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." With regard to the nominee's non-Wikipedia beliefs stated on the page, I note that said page does advocate against "[p]ersonal statements that could be considered polemical," but I would respectfully put forward that the existence of political beliefs on a user page isn't weighty enough of a consideration for an oppose vote. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I'm aware users are invited to offer their viewpoints. My concern is mostly a combination of the points I listed, and I would think 1 and 2 are only fixable with time. This is no judgment of the user as an editor, on which I accept the other users' opinions. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for a few reasons. First off, strong ideology and lack of activities beyond this ideology and other narrow interests makes me agree with the user above who said that user:Catamorphism needs to get around wikipedia more before becoming an admin. Also, I have serious questions about this user's civility. I have had several disagreements with this user (which is fine and in no way by itself has anything to do with this user being qualified to be an admin, as I understand that many of my edits are controversial in nature). Throughout this process, I have tried to maintain a civil tone but have gotten nothing in return from this user but uncivil coldness. I say thank you, this user does not say your welcome. I tell this user that I agree with a particular edit and this user does not acknowledge me. A month or so ago, it had been a while since this user and I had been in conflict regarding anything (and had actually sort of kind of agreed with each other on one article talk page discussion) so I dropped a friendly note on this user's talk page. This user did not even bother with a brief response. I firmly believe that wikipedia works best when its users, whether they agree with each other or not, maintain a spirit of collegiality and civility. user:Catamorphism has been simply unwilling to be collegial or civil. As such, and because of user:Catamorphism's narrow edit history, I do not think that, at this time at least, this user is administrator material. Interestingstuffadder 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: The comments you left on my talk page most recently were at a time when I was taking a break from Wikipedia. I would appreciate diff links to places where you think I was uncivil towards you. I don't think that not replying to every "thank you" with "you're welcome" counts as being incivil. We're here to write an encyclopedia. I'm also not sure what you mean by "lack of activities beyond this ideology". I've edited articles relating to feminism, gender, sexuality, folk music, computer science, and other topics, and I've engaged in activities like stub-sorting that led me to touch a wide range of articles. Catamorphism 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Reply I am referring mainly to our initial exchanges over the fuck truck article. Several times I tried to lighten the mood and even to arrive at some kind of compromise; you would have none of it, responding always with cold seriousness to my attempts at collegiality. I am not saying you need to say "your welcome" to every "thank you", but some level of friendliness and politeness and some reining in of the condescending tone can go a long way. As for the comment about narrow interests, although there may be some exceptions I stand beside this. If you look above my comment, you will see that another user notices the same thing, so it must not be all hogwash. Interestingstuffadder 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Now you're saying I was "serious", before you were saying I was "incivil". There's a difference. I'm from New England; we don't go out of our way to be warm and fuzzy all the time. That's an issue of personality and is irrelevant to whether I'm qualified to be an admin. If anyone else would like to evaluate whether the exchanges over the Fuck truck article were incivil, the deletion debate is here. Catamorphism 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Call it what you will. Obviously what I meant was that I, an experienced wikipedia user with well over 1,000 edits, perceived your behavior as incivility and did not feel that your way of dealing with me contributed to a general spirit of collegiality on wikipedia. And to see some of this exchange, users would also have to look at out talk pages. Also, throughout this debate there were numerous examples of you acting on your lack of belief in AGF, as you certainly didn't with regard to me. As for personality, being civil or not or collegial or not is very much a matter of personality, I concede that. Thus, since these are important qualities of a wikipedia administrator I would argue that in this case these specific issues of personality are relevant to whether you are qualified to be an admin. Interestingstuffadder 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To Interestingstuffadder. Your comments are more than justification for your voting, they are used as a source for others to draw conclusions from. Without supporting diffs, I could only suggest that the reader disregard your comments. Themindset 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Per Interestingstuffadder's invitation, I went through his talk page's history. I see Catamorphism using smiley faces [1] and a joke [2] in their first dialogue with him; his next interaction with them seems to be they quite civilly asking him why he called them a wikistalker, for which he swiftly apologizes [3]. (Offhandedly, there's then also a concerning remark from someone regarding him being a sockpuppet [4].) They then come back and offer him a friendly suggestion to avoid userbox confusion [5]. A later interaction seems fairly civil and harmless, too [6]. — Mike 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Follow-Up on Above Comment Going through Catamorphism's talk page seems to reveal that Interingstuffadder accuses Catamorphism of wikistalking [7], then declares that he was being tongue-in-cheek and because Catamorphism didn't get it, they must not have a sense of humor [8]. Later, he responds to the aforementioned friendly userbox advice by writing back "I wouldn't want to give you grounds for accusing me of anything, especially knowing from past experience that you will refuse to directly acknowledge the rationales behind my actions" [9] and then levelling another accusation [10]. I'm not surprised that his later efforts at peacemaking — [11], [12] — weren't responded to with abundant joy. — Mike 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Interestingstuffadder. --Shizane 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per trialsanderrors. Zen is what we need. AdamBiswanger1 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral
  1. Neutral I am troubled by the comments on WP:AGF. But on the other hand I hate to puniliize a user for honesty in their RfA rather than giving safe answers. The result is a conflicted neutral. Eluchil404 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Having interacted only a few times with the user but having found them (which pronoun I use on the user's request) to be cordial, pensive, and sagacious, and having indeed thought them to be an excellent admin candidate prior to the nomination's being made, I came hither intending to offer my support. A few of the question answers disconcert (since the nomination appears likely to succeed, I'll not consume the time of others by enumerating those answers here but may later note them at Cata's talk page, and the colloquy with Interestingstuffadder, the length of which is understandable and the civil nature of which is auspicious, is nevertheless a bit discomfiting (for reasons I can't fully explain), and so I'm rather ambivalent (though, of course, I'm probably well convinced of the user's good judgment and think it likely that they'll use the admin tools propitiously, such that I'll be happy to see Cata approved; I suppose I vote neutral only in order that I might express concerns that, were I a support, might otherwise be unseen—of course, I don't really explain those concerns, so, basically, I suck). Joe 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral See original comments in oppose - I left it there just crossing out the word Oppose so as to avoid messing up the reply or having 8 lines of crossout. After others' comments, and considering further, I agree with the above neutral that I shouldn't oppose based on honest opinions as long as there isn't actually any action that goes against policy. In the past, I have supported users being allowed to put whatever opinions they want on their user page, so I really shouldn't then oppose someone for doing so - it's not like if they hadn't written it, their views would be any less existant. So, I've changed to neutral. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. While I try not to let a user's personal Wikipedia beliefs influence my RFA "voting", points 3 and 4 of their Wikipedia Opinions section are worrisome for me. Not enough to oppose since there's no evidence they'd actually act upon them in an admin capacity, so I'll go with neutral. BryanG(talk) 05:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Catamorphism (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 235 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 18, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 27, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 93.96% Minor edits: 99.06%
Average edits per day: 11.27 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 653 edits): Major article edits: 99.65% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.08% (4)
Significant article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.9% (245)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 54.7% (2735)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 25.14%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2725 | Average edits per page: 1.83 | Edits on top: 8.38%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 58.08% (2904 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 15.02% (751 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.46% (573 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 13.24% (662 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 74.96% (3748) | Article talk: 4.52% (226)
User: 5.94% (297) | User talk: 4.76% (238)
Wikipedia: 9.06% (453) | Wikipedia talk: 0.24% (12)
Image: 0.22% (11)
Template: 0.04% (2)
Category: 0.18% (9)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.08% (4)
Username	Catamorphism
Total edits	5203
Distinct pages edited	2750
Average edits/page	1.892
First edit	20:13, June 29, 2005
	
(main)	3921
Talk	232
User	302
User talk	245
Image	11
Template	2
Category	9
Category talk	4
Wikipedia	465
Wikipedia talk	12

 G.He 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would find rollback privileges useful for reverting vandalism to articles on my watchlist (632 articles); in addition, if I had rollback, I would probably read Recent Changes in order to revert vandalism more often. I would expect I would help with closing AFD debates and with speedy deletions. I would follow the administrators' noticeboard and respond to reports of vandalism there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: One of my first contributions to Wikipedia was to rewrite Sex-positive feminism; I feel like I significantly improved the quality of that article and I'm happy with that. I've created many stub articles about various musicians and of those, I'm happiest with Bob Franke and Bill Morrissey, though in general, I haven't had time to expand these stubs as much as I'd like.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have been involved in conflicts, which seems inevitable as I've edited some contentious articles. In particular, on Feminism, a user insisted on adding various editorializing to the article without proper sources, and launched personal attacks against me; the same user followed me to Oral sex and began edit-warring over the inclusion of images that showed same-sex oral sex. As far as the latter article goes, the inclusion of these images has been a constant point of contention; along with a number of users, I've maintained that they are necessary and do not reflect POV, but over the last few months, debates have raged on the talk page about it. In another conflict, a researcher added material plugging their own research to the Sexual orientation article and when I removed it, they launched into a long tirade about how I exemplified all the worst qualities of Wikipedia. In that case, I tried to keep my actions grounded in policy, which is what I try to do in general: I left a note for that user explaining WP:NOR and that self-promotion is frowned upon, and they ceased editing.
In general, I've tried to keep a cool head and to avoid responding in kind to personal attacks, and I think I've been successful at that. I don't suffer fools gladly, in general, but on Wikipedia, the welfare of the project should come ahead of personal disputes. I'll continue to deal with problems in the same way I have in the past, as I think that civility is even more important for an admin, as their behavior will be seen as being representative of the site. Given the nature of some of the articles I edit, I expect that I will be involved in other conflicts in the future, and if I become an admin, of course I would refrain from personally initiating a block against a user I was having a conflict with.

Optional questions from Mangojuicetalk:

1. What do you think the difference is between being in edit disputes as an admin vs. as a non-admin?
A: As I alluded to above, I think that admins have to hold themselves to an even higher standard of behavior than normal. Some users are quick to become resentful at admins who they see as "abusing their power". Though an admin really has no more power than a non-admin during an edit war, non-admins may not see it that way. Thus, admins have a greater responsibility to be impeccably civil, to be familiar with policy, and to avoid violating policy. As an admin, I would follow the same rules that non-admins follow when it comes to seeking administrative intervention; I would try to be careful to not wear my "admin" hat and my "editor" hat in the same dispute.
2. What's your favorite Wikipedia policy or guideline and why?
A: I have to say WP:DICK; it more or less encompasses most other guidelines. I'm also a fan of WP:SPIDER ;-)
3. What's your least favorite Wikipedia policy or guideline and why?
A: I wouldn't say that I disagree with WP:AGF, but I think it can be misinterpreted easily. Where I depart from the policy is that I don't believe in assuming good faith in the absence of any positive evidence of good faith; my reading of the policy is that good faith should always be assumed unless there is positive evidence of bad faith.

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
A: The self-discipline necessary to maintain neutrality even in situations where you have a strong point of view, knowledge of policy, and the good judgment necessary to adapt policies to specific situations. The emotional detachment necessary to deal with trolls without getting stressed out is necessary as well. All these are important for Wikipedians in general; admins just need these qualities even more.

Optional question from Lar:

(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I wasn't aware of Category:Administrators open to recall until reading other RfAs just now. I guess I probably wouldn't use it, since I think it goes without saying that an admin who misbehaves can be stripped of their privileges. If I did something as an admin that became controversial, I would respect the community's opinion and if it got to the point where my being an admin was more harmful than helpful to the community, I would step down. I would hope that any other admin would do the same, so I don't see the need for the category (though I don't know all the backstory behind it, so perhaps if I did, I would understand better.) I love the philosophy behind Category:Rouge admins and I would definitely be honored if someone placed me in this category. Humor is always the best weapon.

Optional question from WCityMike:

1. You have expressed on your user page beliefs that anonymous editors should not be allowed to edit and that assuming good faith should only go so far. As an administrator, to what extent do you feel your beliefs regarding anonymous editing would influence your behavior towards anonymous editors? To what extent would your beliefs about good faith influence your enforcement of WP:AGF as an admin and your continued behavior as an editor? (I note that even WP:AGF does not require admins to "ignore bad actions.") Understanding that circumstances consistently and constantly vary, and you cannot form a blanket policy, what general criteria do you use, and/or would you use as an admin, to decide when to assume good faith and when not to? — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: As an admin, I would have to keep my personal beliefs about what the ideal policies would be for Wikipedia separate from my actions as an administrator. My responsibility would be to enforce policies as exist, not as I think they should be. Thus, my behavior towards anonymous editors would be based on policy. I might believe that an anon vandal should be blocked on the first offense, but as an admin, I wouldn't do that, because there would be no rules I could point to to support that action.
I think enforcement of WP:AGF is mostly up to each individual. You can suggest that another person ought to be more generous in assuming good faith, but ultimately, your assumptions are up to you. As you say, deciding when to assume good faith and when not to is a judgment call. I think I've seen enough examples of good-faith and non-good-faith editing that my judgment about that is reasonably well-practiced. Sometimes the line is hard to draw: for example, someone who is fairly obviously pushing their POV but seems to believe that their contributions are valuable. I'm more likely to assume good faith when dealing with a user who has a clear record of participation in multiple aspects of the community. I'm more likely to be skeptical about someone who only edits articles on a single, highly politically charged topic.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Catamorphism&oldid=64817906"