Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Catamorphism
Final(56/30/7) Ended 15:15, 2006-07-25 (UTC)

– 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)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Catamorphism 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support per nom. 1ne 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) Support. Serious, thoughtful contributor. An asset to the project. Fan-1967 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Roy A.A. 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, I've seen her around, been favorably impressed. :) Mango juice talk 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 9) Support A thoughtful contributor. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per nom. Thoughtful and clear-headed, plus great taste in music. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) Changed to oppose, see below.
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Support Nacon kantari  20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support has been an excellent contributor and seems able to keep a cool head. Rjm656s 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see anything to worry about. -- joturn e r 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per nom. RandyWang ( raves/rants ) 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Support per nom. --Aquillion 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom - complete disagreement with political views, agreement over adminship. This Fire Burns Always   23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) M e rovingian (T, C, @) 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, even though everyone knows that the Dreamcast was the last great game console. ;-)  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) Proudly Support I'm sure this user will make a great admin! -- Tu s  pm (C 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Consistently shows good judgment and knowledge of policies and guidelines. --Muchness 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. DarthVad e r 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I love the t-shirt on user page   Jo  e  I  02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - per nom, although political feelings are vastly different the ability to get along makes me support. -- Tawker 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per nom abakharev 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) 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)
 * 16) Support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 10:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) 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 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Support per both noms. Seivad 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * Comment. I was already impressed by Catamorphism when I made the comment above, but now I am in awe at the dignity and clear thinking they have maintained in this RfA.  I know few people on Wikipedia or anywhere else who could have done that.  In my opinion, this kind of behavior is at the core of what we need in admins.  --Allen 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) No big deal Support Doesen't look like the user will abuse the mop. -- негідний лють  ( Reply 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Thoughtful, trustworthy editor. I wish zer the best of luck! Xoloz 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I originally opposed after reading the accusations by interestingstuffadder, however I was contacted by WCityMike bringing to my attention of his shooting down of the accusations. I now feel Catamorphism exhibits all the qualities Wikipedia needs in a good admin. Good luck with the mop. --Shizane 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Somewhat conflicted support. I agree with a lot of this user's Wikipedia-related opinions and respect their contributions, so I'll support. On the other hand, the political soapboxing on the userpage is a bit much, and the matter of other people's pronoun usage just strikes me as so utterly picayune I can't wrap my mind around the motivation for it. Opabinia regalis 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Picayune? Wouldn't you correct somebody if they referred to you using pronouns associated with the wrong gender? That's what anyone who refers to me using "her" or "him" is doing. Catamorphism 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time thinking of things I care less about, actually. I rarely bother correcting people unless it's relevant somehow. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, I would think that most people would not want to be misgendered; I certainly wouldn't want to refer to somebody else using the wrong set of pronouns, and if I were doing so, I'd want to know, so I could be respectful towards them by using the pronouns they preferred. Catamorphism 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strictly my opinion, of course, but I can think of dozens of things on Wikipedia that are more important to correct than whether or not a random internet stranger guessed my gender correctly. It sounds to me like an excessive focus on something that's only rarely relevant to a content discussion. (And with that, I'll quit creating clutter.) Opabinia regalis 05:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support because I've seen good work from this user on AfD and elsewhere and because a review of his handling of the interestingstuffadder accusations shows he did a good job of working with this editor. Gwernol 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; likely to be an excellent admin; good work on all fronts. Antandrus  (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Because I too free. :D --T e rrancommand e r 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. I feel it might be timely to point out that a user's personal politics do not matter, so long as they observe due process as it applies to Wikipedia. This is of little significance to me, as nearly all of Catamorphism's opinions on the issues coming into question reflect my own, but some other voters might do well to remember that. Tgies 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Even if disagreements over politics and/or pronouns were valid reasons to deny adminship (which they aren't), those opposing should ask whether WP would really be better off if this user doesn't become an admin. Turning away editors with a history of positive contribution, as outlined in the nom, is unhealthy in the long term.  --Trolleybus 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - There is nothing in this user's history to indicate that their adminship would be anything other than beneficial to Wikipedia. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Side note... why is this user's choice to be androgyne or genderqueer an issue? Gender is a spectrum - while most of us identify with one of the two extremes, very few of us truely fall at either end. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is quite a controversial statement, stated with an air of obviousness... - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I trust this editor to be a good admin. --Guinnog 10:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support - Although I am personally surprised by the userboxes, etc as referenced all around, I can't allow the personal affiliations of a great user to influence my vote. I am somewhat concerned about the WP:AGF issues, which is why my support of this user is somewhat weak. Alphachimp  talk  18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, per nom; they seem to have made quite a number of constructive contributions, and I haven't seen them be anything but civil.  S w i t c h e r c a t  t a l kc o n t r i b s 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom.--Aldux 02:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, nominee is being damned for responding to objections raised which don't seem germane to the topic at hand; are they unprepared to use the tools, and will they abuse them in their own self-interest? I don't think either of these things is true. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Zer's level of civility while editing controversial articles is excellent.--Chaser T 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support- It's good to have all types of admins, and this user has plenty of edits and solid judgement. --Clyde Miller 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - While I agree with some of the criticisms of this candidate and I disagree with some of the candidate's views, I am impressed with Catamorphism's answers to the questions posed below. I think s/he can be trusted with a mop and bucket.--Anchoress 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I find that virtually every issue raised in opposition to this candidate is a red herring - particularly the pronoun bit. I see strikingly few references to any on-wiki behavior or editing habits that would demonstrate an inability for Catamorphism to properly use the administrative tools. FCYTravis 09:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - per FCYTravis, others. KWH 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) * Oppose Changing 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) Oppose as per above. TruthCrusader 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) *With regards to point no. 4, I note that 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. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) **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)
 * 5) 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)
 * Comment: Recent comment by Catamorphism from the Talk:Wellesley College Senate Bus. talk page that shows how their own ideology and biases impact their editorial decisions --  "I think that whatever marginal notability the bus has derives from the fact that it's important to students at a number of notable universities, not from the fact that a number of misogynistic and resentful Harvard and MIT students decided to attach the moniker "fuck truck" to it."  Interestingstuffadder 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response The comment comes off as much more reasonable when it's read in context: Talk:Wellesley College Senate Bus. &mdash; Mike 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 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: 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 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment Per Interestingstuffadder's invitation, I went through his talk page's history. I see Catamorphism using smiley faces  and a joke  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 .  (Offhandedly, there's then also a concerning remark from someone regarding him being a sockpuppet .)  They then come back and offer him a friendly suggestion to avoid userbox confusion .  A later interaction seems fairly civil and harmless, too . &mdash; Mike 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Further Follow-Up on Above Comment Going through Catamorphism's talk page seems to reveal that Interingstuffadder accuses Catamorphism of wikistalking, then declares that he was being tongue-in-cheek and because Catamorphism didn't get it, they must not have a sense of humor . 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"  and then levelling another accusation .  I'm not surprised that his later efforts at peacemaking &mdash; ,  &mdash; weren't responded to with abundant joy. &mdash; Mike 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As suggested by Mike and Catamorphism, we're quickly slipping into nonsense here. It looks like you have searched Catamorphism's contribs with a fine-toothed comb and all that has come up are mildly curt or dismissive remarks, which can be expected from someone who has been editing for 13 months.  Now of course I am by no means advocating incivility, but in previous RfAs I have seen editors come up with diffs that clearly and obviously show blatant incivility on the part of the candidate, and unless you can do that all of the assertions (which lack diffs) are incredibly weak support for your case.  It's like my mom telling me to watch my tone when what I say is perfectly reasonable.  I think that the legalese and austere writing style of the candidate also contributes to a tone that may be misinterpreted by readers.  In short, I don't care if an editor is a little rude from time to time.  A little.  It's very business like and effective, and unless you can convince me that this is actually incivility and not just an absence of WikiLove, those accusations are meaningless. AdamBiswanger1 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody here actually looked at the various Fuck Truck deletion and move debates, where the nominated user repeatedly made direct and implied accusations that I was not acting in good faith and then refused to reply when I gave specific examples and rationales to defend myself from these accusations. These exchanges provide much needed context for what appears on our talk pages. Interestingstuffadder 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you would know what "nobody here" has looked at, but here are the links to the debates so that others may decide if these help to make your case or not: Articles for deletion/Fuck Truck, and Articles for deletion/Wellesley College Senate Bus. -MrFizyx 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely clear from the nonchronological sort of the article, but when you look at the history, it's clear that Catamorphism AfD'd the Fuck Truck article, and I take it from Interestingstuffadder's first remark in that AfD, "I will remove the offending language that implies original research," and, later, "I did not post this as a joke or to be offensive," that he had some investment in the article remaining undeleted and may have even been the original article's creator. I'll go ahead and say it does not seem that far a leap to understand why there's some rather vehement objections at play here from you with regards to this editor's RfA.  Is that bad faith on my part?  No &mdash; WP:AGF itself says "yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith", and also says "[t]his policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
 * Further, you state that ze made direct and implied accusations that you were not acting in good faith. A small linguistic point that is nevertheless relevant: at least in the passage I see in Articles for deletion/Fuck Truck, ze rather asked you to assume good faith of *others*, and this was after you did a riff on editors' instincts, underlying motivations, and so on -- making zer reminder not only perfectly understandable but even a rather good handling of the situation.  Each of your keep rationales you made in the aforementioned AfD, ze responded to with an argument &mdash; that is debate, not anything personal.  There is one of zer's remark that I think strays into assuming bad faith in Articles for deletion/Wellesley College Senate Bus, but even Wikipedia's good faith policy doesn't require anyone to ignore bad actions, and, not knowing the history of the particular discussion at hand, the sheer face value of you apologizing for something you yourself admitted came across as obnoxious heavily mitigates that in view of a rather sterling reputation otherwise. &mdash; Mike 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Moderate to strong oppose - Admittedly no personal experience with nominee, but I have seen some of his their comments. The being harsh about gender pronouns doesn't look good, you can't expect everyone to buy into the validity of genderqueer.  If someone truly and honestly believed I was female and called me she, I wouldn't have a problem.  Also much too pessimistic for an admin, lots of contradictory opinion to the WP spirit as far as AGF go.  Karwynn (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes, I do expect everyone to refer to people by the pronouns they prefer, or at least, to not use pronouns that somebody considers offensive. (i.e., if someone objects to using the singular "they", I have no problem with people using other gender-neutral pronouns to refer to me.) For me, it's a matter of basic civility. (Thus, I find it disrespectful for you to refer to me as "him" when I am not a man.) No one other than me gets to decide what my gender is. I also see that you've only been editing for about 3 months; I might gently suggest that your attitudes about Wikipedia, too, might change with more experience. Catamorphism 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply/Addendum: That's kind of what I mean about AGF, about civility anyway. You can't say "I was offended, so you must have been incivil and offended me on purpose."  That's not what civility is, civility is about the intent of the speaker/writer, not the interp of the listener/reader.  I just find it a little impartial that you would admonish an editor for a good faith use of pronoun because you don't like it, regardless of whether they "believe in" the vailidity of your concerns.  You shouldn't be expect people to validate an idea they don't support in order to not offend you, especially for something that person probably feels is very minor.  If I just offhandedly said "God Bless" to an Atheist Wikipedian, I'd much rather them say "I don't think that's going to happen" than say "God Bless you too" back to me.  It's not just "my way" either, I just don't feel it's right for me or anyone to expect everyone to acknowledge my preference that God be referenced as valid if they don't really believe in the vailidity of God.  I'm not trying to criticize your beliefs, I'm just saying that people who do not share them should not be expected to pretend they do.  Additionally, your assumption that I haven't been able to pick up on WP processes in three months feels kind of elitist to me; a high number of contribs doesn't automatically make someone knowledgeable, there are other ways of learning.  (by the way, in the interest of avoiding looking like a troll I struck out my "him" and put their, my apologies.  I would've deleted it, but that would've made your comment not make sense.  Feel free to delete it out of my last comment if you prefer.)  Karwynn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, actually, civility is about the interpretation of the listener or reader. I can find something to be incivil even if it wasn't deliberately meant that way. The best we can do is learn from our past mistakes and, when we are told we've done something incivil, try to avoid doing that in the future. If someone knows that I don't identify as male or female, I don't see anything "good faith" about them continuing to refer to me as if I were male or female. Whether they feel it's minor isn't particularly important. Again, it's a matter of respect. I think your example of saying "God Bless" is very different, because it doesn't affect someone's personal identity. Of course I wouldn't expect that an atheist should say "God Bless" in return, if someone says that to them. But not saying "God Bless" isn't equivalent to denying someone else's religious beliefs. A better analogy would be that referring to someone as a "he" if you know they prefer "she" is like an atheist replying to someone saying "God Bless" by saying "I don't believe in God, and you don't really believe in God, either; you're just pretending to." Wouldn't you agree that that would be disrespectful? In addition, I see nothing elitist about the principle that as somebody gains more experience in an area, their opinions may change. Someone who's only been editing WP for three months just hasn't had enough time to see the range of interactions that someone who's been editing for a year, or for three years, might see. That's why we say that fifty-year-olds have more life experience than teenagers. Catamorphism 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: This won't be much to add, but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your comments. I'm not really saying you don't really "believe in" genderqueer, as in your atheist example, I just disagree, and others may too.  I don't feel it's disrespectful at all, for basically the same reasons as I said above (again, sorry, nothing new here).  I just don't feel it's reasonable to expect anyone to put aside their personal beliefs for politeness sake, any more than I think it's reasonable to expect a Hindu dinner guest to pray with me before the meal.  Not that I'm equating genderqueer to a religion, I'm just saying both are concepts that people have personal, varied beliefs about, and both are ideas which a person might not even believe in at all.  Karwynn (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I think you misunderstood my analogy. When you say "I refuse to use the pronouns that you prefer because I don't 'believe' in 'genderqueer'", you're saying, "Despite the fact that you assert your gender identity to be X, I don't believe that your gender identity is really X." That's why I make the comparison with claiming that someone else doesn't really believe in God. I don't think that denying that someone else knows what their own gender identity is falls within the bounds of civil behavior. Anyway, I correct people -- politely, and I don't always bother correcting them -- when they use the wrong pronouns for me because I assume that if they knew what my preference was, they would respect it. I don't think most people feel they're entitled to say that they know what my gender identity is better than I do. I assume that most people are interested in respecting others' pronoun choices for the sake of smooth and unambiguous communication, because such communication is important to the functioning of this project. It is confusing and distracting to read a comment that refers to me as "he" if you know that I prefer "they": it forces you to think, "Hmm, that person is referring to Catamorphism as 'he', but I know Catamorphism is a 'they'... maybe they're referring to somebody else?" It's just easier and more respectful to refer to people using the terminology they prefer. I hope this clarifies the reasons why I try to encourage people to refer to me using the correct pronouns; if it were detrimental to the project, I wouldn't do it, and thus I'm rather bewildered as to why some people think that either my gender identity or my wish to have that identity respected affects my fitness to be an admin. Catamorphism 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per polemical user page. There's a lot that concerns me there, particularly the AGF argument, the lengthy political discourse, and the use of inflammatory userboxes. BigDT 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)]
 * Which userboxes do you find inflammatory? Catamorphism 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "This user does not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, but agrees it is as likely as creationism", "This user does not begrudge illegal immigrants and supports their right to immigrate undocumentedly", "This user supports moral equality amongst great apes and humans" BigDT 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Let me ask a question, BigDT: do you believe Catamorphism has demonstrated these biases in zer actions as an editor? If so, can you provide diffs?  See, I'll grant you that the material and userboxes of a polemical nature go against the User page guideline, but I don't think the existence of zer beliefs on her userpage translate into biased actions as an editor.  If we start demanding that before people become admins, they leave their beliefs at the door, that's eventually going to create some real problems with the resulting creation.  The metric that really matters is whether or not Catamorphism has demonstrated a bias against those people who disagree with her on those points, such as creationists or people who feel differently than zer when it comes to immigration.  Does that evidence exist? &mdash; Mike 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care about belief userboxes - heck, I have some on my userpage. The problem is that there is a difference between "this user is an atheist" and "This user does not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, but agrees it is as likely as creationism".  The former is a statement of belief, while the latter is inflammatory. Expressing an opinion about a highly charged subject in anything other than a matter-of-fact way is not a spectacular idea.  At ny rate, userboxes are not the only issue, but the userpage, taken as a whole, is polemical and can discourage a user from seeking help and/or give cause to call into question administrative actions as being a product of bias. BigDT 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this question in an uncivil manner, but you actually feel this issue is of sufficient weight to merit an oppose vote despite (presumably) not showing any anti-creationist or anti-anti-immigrationist biases in zer actions? And, while I wouldn't suggest to Catamorphism that ze actually do this (as, with all due respect to you, I don't feel this is reasonable to ask of admins) ... were ze to remove the polemical material from her user page, would your vote then change to one of support? &mdash; Mike 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The userboxes alone wouldn't really matter that much - that's a style question more than anything else. But there's a lot of strong opinions expressed on the page, most importantly the AGF text.  In answering Lar's question below, this user expressed an unwillingness to be listed in Category:Administrators open to recall.  Personally, I believe adminship should be more easy come/easy go, but in view of the difficulty involved in removing a problem admin, I prefer to err on the side of caution. BigDT 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Interestingstuffadder. Vote changed to Support. See support comments.--Shizane 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per trialsanderrors. Zen is what we need. AdamBiswanger1 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose because I think there are several downsides and no upsides to having administrators who are very visibly espousing strongly-held political or religious beliefs, and who focus their Wikipedia contributions on articles in that field. Even though I have no reason to believe that Catamorphism will abuse the admin tools, I imagine readers and new users (who don't really grok Wikipedia yet) will be swift to suspect bias when being confronted with administrative action (no matter how justified) in an article related to Catamorphism's personal views. I'm afraid to say that my one interaction with Catamorphism (on an AfD) doesn't help either; I think his insistence that everyone adjust their language (and thus, their personal ideas on sex and gender) to accommodate his supposed gender is incivil and reflects an attitude unbecoming an administrator. He has certainly every right to call himself whatever he wants to, but he has no grounds to request that other people (who can see a man's photograph on his user page) call him anything else but the standard English "he". They might do that out of courtesy (or conviction), once they get to know him, but to insist on it reeks of arrogance. Sorry. Sandstein 07:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See, I'm approaching this thing from an entirely different perspective: that of the courtesy Wikipedia requires of all of us. So ze wants to be referred to using "they" or, alternatively, any other gender-neutral pronoun.  It's only courteous of us to return the favor.  There's one Wikipedian I've interacted with recently who I always have to remember exactly how many consonants are repeated in the middle of their name.  As for insistance versus courtesy versus whatever, I think elsewhere in this document ze's made it clear ze's not going to worry about minor infractions, only instances where people are doing it quite clearly to be incivil.  If I'm wrong, feel free to explain how so.  And, here's an amusing thing: I was fairly certain that was a biological woman's photograph, so obviously, people's radars are calibrated differently.  That's very much not the point, however.  The point is that if Catamorphism prefers an online identity that is without gender, that's certainly zer right, and it's part and parcel of civility to respect zer wishes.  In kind, I don't personally think ze's shown signs of, in the normal course of editing, as opposed to here, where ze's being specifically asked and challenged on the issue, being overly polemical or incivil with regards to the occasional good faith "he" or "she" pronoun usage. &mdash; Mike 08:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, the fact that you see my photograph as being of a male, whereas others, such as Mike see it as being of a female, shows exactly why it's necessary to respect my pronoun preferences. I do have the physiological characteristics of one particular sex (that is, I'm not intersex) -- which one it is, I'm not saying, though it's actually very easy to figure it out by reading my user page (not by looking at my photograph, apparently). I'm not sure how it helps anyone for you to insist that I am male, but it would be better for me if you treated me with the respect and civility that all people deserve. No one has to change their personal ideas about sex and gender -- you might think that I'm misguided in my gender identification, but you can still use language that avoids open confrontation about it. (By the way, my gender identification is not limited to just my "online identity"; in real life, I'm also dynamically gendered, though it's easier to be clear about it online.) In addition, do you find any of my contributions to articles relating to my political views to be biased? Isn't that the really important question? Finally, I'm also wondering which interaction with me you're talking about; if I search for "sandstein catamorphism", that turns up seven AfDs, all of which were ones where we both voted to delete. Catamorphism 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ze vent to Wellezley, ja? Zat iz wunderbar! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just briefly, so as not to overly expand this RfA: I didn't aim to offend you, but to me the notion of made-up genders is novel (and mildly silly, such as made-up days of the week). Certainly I don't think that adopting every idiosyncratic way of thinking that the people we talk to might have is required as a matter of courtesy: if I claim that I'm Emperor of the U.S., courtesy doesn't require that you call me "Your Majesty". As for the AfD, it's not in the search results for some reason, but it involved a list of pedophilia-related books, and I remember it (and your name) only because the pronoun issue came up. If you so desire, I'd be glad to continue this discussion and address your points in another forum. Sandstein 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you claimed to be Emperor Norton (or, I guess, claimed to be Emperor of the U.S. without claiming to be Emperor Norton), I'd think you were beyond all rational discourse, thus courtesy wouldn't be an issue, since I wouldn't think that your notions of courtesy necessarily had anything to do with mine. If you think that I necessarily must be crazy because I don't feel that the descriptors "male" or "female" fit me, that's your prerogative, but I wish you would have said that outright rather than beating around the bush. But if you don't think that, then it's not a good analogy. Catamorphism 23:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: too many divisive userboxes. Jonathunder 17:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose A lot of adminship is about managing situations and keeping them in perspective, as well as focusing on priorities. Catamorphism has not shown these qualities in this RfA, but has allowed a personal issue to have a disproportionate place. Tyrenius 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Arguably, it is the people who have made an issue out of my gender identity who have given a disproportionate place to an irrelevant issue. I'm not sure how I could have acted in such a way as to keep others from bringing up that issue. Catamorphism 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe acknowledge they might have a point, or ignore it with dignity, or else a simple one or two sentence statement of your position and leave it at that. The long explanations are counter-productive in this context. Tyrenius 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose, picking fights with everyone who opposes your RFA is not usually a good way to go. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I don't understand the logic behind voting in opposition simply because someone's strenuously defending themselves in an RfA. If someone didn't defend themselves in a RfA, then the criticism stands unopposed, and oppose votes rack up even more quickly. &mdash; Mike 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone shows they are prepared to accept the validity of criticisms it tends to generate support "votes". Tyrenius 01:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept the validity of people criticizing my userboxes or my comments on AGF; however, I feel that comments about my gender are out of line, and thus, I've been trying to understand why this is such a concern for some people. Catamorphism 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it indicates that this important issue in your life can become disproportionate in a wiki context, where, to be blunt, it is of little import. As it is for some people obviously a confusing and/or contentious issue anyway, it is up to you to minimise it and not extend its place at the expense of issues which are of value to the project and the reason this RfA exists. Your surprise, even indignation, that some people are not happy, for example, using the word "they" to refer to one person, shows a lack of sensitivity and foresight dealing with the reactions of other people. I have no objection to you stating your wishes on your user page, but I think you have to be able to gain sufficient detachment and perspective that you do not allow this to spill over into the project. Might I suggest s/he or some similar variant would be easier for most people to deal with? I think you have good qualities, but at the moment a weakness here which has proved itself problematic and distracting, and needs to be addressed. Tyrenius 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it really had little import, there wouldn't be so much discussion about it here; I'm not just talking to myself. My original comment was made because of someone writing "they" in their vote and changing it to "she". I don't object to people using other gender-neutral pronouns to refer to me; "s/he" or "ze" are just as good as "they". The issue is with people who insist on referring to me using "he" or "she". I hope you would agree that it is confusing, if not disruptive, to have some people referring to me as "he" and others referring to me as "she"? Catamorphism 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People can at times easily get distracted into things of little import on wiki. In fact such loss of awareness is a major cause of editor conflict. I would like to see a potential admin able to avoid that and redirect the focus back on the project where it should be. It is not particularly rare to have a he/she confusion with users, and, as gender is not pertinent to the project, I don't find it disruptive. If your priority is to avoid confusion, then I suggest you put aside your own agenda and simply settle on "he" or "she" for use on wiki, or, as you don't wish to be defined, then let them use whatever pronoun they come up with. Then there wouldn't be any problem at all. I find the the dominant insistence of your personal position inappropriate. Tyrenius 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Response . I'm finding this entire debate on Catamorphism's choice of gender identity to be extremely amazing, and certainly not in a good way. Catamorphism has, for quite some time, devoted a great deal of time and effort into substantially improving and contributing to the quality of many articles on Wikipedia.  The quality of the editor's reputation should be the utmost consideration in any Wikipedia "voter"'s mind when they come here. In almost all cases that I have seen when looking through Catamoprhism's contributive history, they have handled previous conflict on Wikipedia with grace and aplomb.  There is absolutely no sign whatsoever in their editing history (in, of course, my opinion) that they are in any way, shape or form untrustworthy to handle the wikimop and bucket.  Yet apparently because they prefer to present themselves with a gender-neutral pronoun &mdash; despite having outlined below in their answer to my second optional question a quite reasonable and non-ubertouchy take on how they would handle future conflicts regarding said choice &mdash; they are now receiving a substantial amount of oppose "votes" from individuals here based sheerly on the "singular they" preference.  This is hardly a preference unique to Catamorphism &mdash; would we vote against these others if they came up for RfA for the exact same reason?  I want to assume good faith of my fellow editors, but this here, this is the crucible of where we make Wikipedia a fair place &mdash; the type of people we vote "support" and "oppose" for here.  People are not perfect, and admins will never manifest a perfect history coming into this venue &mdash; yet Catamorphism has a pretty darn good reputation coming in here, and would handle the wikimop and bucket with great aplomb, I am certain.  I simply disbelieve the evidence of my own eyes that so many people here seem to have such a problem with a rare choice of gender pronoun that they are willing to shoot down a person's RfA for it.  If this person's gender identity is sex-neutral, and they prefer not to be identified as either a man or a woman, then with all due respect to Tyrenius, I think it is entirely out of line for any editor to require a fellow editor to adopt a different gender identity than what feels natural as a condition of support for adminship. &mdash; Mike 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point (and there's no need to put text in bold). I don't object to gender choice. My objection is the way the candidate has chosen to address it in this context. It assumes a polemical importance which I am surprised at. The candidate should downplay its presence and stress what really matters to them, namely participation in the project, and if others get a pronoun wrong, or feel uncomfortable using it, then I would expect the candidate to rise above such things, and not make a major issue out of it. An admin is likely to be subjected to far worse treatment, and a desirable quality is the ability to turn a blind eye on occasion. The fact that the candidate cannot see how this is marring their RfA is also troublesome. Another candidate might apologise that this was causing any trouble, make a polite request and leave it at that. Such an approach is also far more likely to achieve the desired result, so, although I give credit to Catamorphism's civility, I have reservations about their ability to see the best way to resolve contention. I am prepared to reconsider, if Catamorphism takes stock of this. Tyrenius 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel the need to apologize because I don't think that I've done anything wrong; I've (in my opinion) politely asked that people use the pronouns I prefer. The people who have made an issue out of my gender are the ones who I think should apologize, if anyone should. (Note that the first oppose vote, from Thumbelina, mentioned my gender identity even before I had said anything about it here.) I agree that admins are likely to be subjected to far worse treatment than this, but the difference is that while I would brush off a personal attack from a random user (and I've brushed off many such attacks already), in this case, I am assuming good faith by assuming that people would respect my wishes if they understood what those wishes were. I don't see my gender as a matter for other people to debate and I don't consider it acceptable to lie about it by suggesting people use the pronouns "he" or "she" for myself. It was said above that an admin should be able to handle situations like this more gracefully -- however, I would question whether any other admins have ever found themselves in this situation, thus there may not be any precedent to compare to. Catamorphism 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody's issues feel unique to the person that has them, whatever their specific content. I worry about an intransigence that does not accept that you could handle this any differently or any better. In my previous post I stated categorically that your gender was not the issue. Let's just leave it at that for now. Tyrenius 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely unsurprised that the candidate has taken what you term to be a "polemical importance" to their choice of gender being challenged. Gender choice is an essential component of one's identity.  I would ask you, by comparison, to visualize this as an example: would we ask a gay Wikipedia editor to not make a big deal out of it if someone labeled them as straight, and continued to label them as straight despite their continued indication they were gay?  Would we ask an African-American Wikipedia editor to not make a big deal out of it if someone labeled them as white, and continued to label them as white despite their continued indication they were African-American?  Unfortunately, in neither of these examples are those respective portions of editors' personalities as easily challenged as one's gender can be, by the simple use of a pronoun &mdash; and yet the nominee has already indicated that they will not make a big deal out of small mistakes obviously not made in bad faith.  (With all due respect, Tyrenius, I shall continue to feel free to use emphasis as I like.)  So what remains, then, of everyone's supposed concerns?  It is quite simply an outgrowth of Wikipedia's civility policy (as well as, in my opinion, sheer human decency) to respect our fellow editors' choice as to how they identify themselves online. 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per the above. And also, though not really that important: The nomination is fishy. is Catamorphism an individual or a THEY? --HResearcher 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I am an individual who is not a man or a woman. Does that clarify things for you? Catamorphism 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose files false reports of revert wars when she in fact reverts just as many times. Bubba ditto 17:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This user has been blocked multiple times for 3RR violations. Catamorphism 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. User page indicates an understanding of Wikipedia that I'm not comfortable in seeing in an administrator, esp. regarding AGF, anonymous users, and user-page expression.  A particular point of concern is the complaints about the test templates; an admin should know already that you don't have to use them if they're not appropriate. -- SCZenz 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response (a) Wikipedia's user page guidelines specifically invite editors to comment on Wikipedia policies on their user pages. (b) The user in question is not an administrator yet, and WP:BITE also asks us not to bite the new admins, recognizing they're going to make mistakes, too.  We cannot expect administrator nominees to enter the nomination process perfect; no human being ever will be. &mdash; Mike 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was a bit unclear. I do not oppose their inclusion of views on Wikipedia policies on their user page, and in fact I think such discussion is a good thing; however, I do feel that some of those specific views may interfere with them doing a good job as an admin.  I do oppose the extensive inclusion of political views on user pages.  Regarding my comment on the test templates, I stand by what I said: an admin should already know you don't have to use them, because test templates are part of basic vandal-fighting skills, not part of basic adminship skills. I aknowledge these issues wouldn't be enough to oppose for many people, but it is enough in my personal view. -- SCZenz 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Stifle and perseverations on pronouns. Half a RfA devoted to pronouns?! Sheesh. Ifnord 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose mostly for the same reasons as SCZenz. In my view, the user page comments smack of elitism - i.e. anons "shouldn't be allowed to contribute" and AGF is flawed because only "A minority of the population has the ability" to contribute. That type of POV + the pro userbox stance and gender pronoun issue does not inspire confidence, particularly given the challenges admins face in dealing with a very broad mix of users. --JJay 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose mostly on userpage. Similar reasons to my vote at RfA/Joturner2 - user espouses very controversial beliefs and is a quite bit aggressive about it. And zere it iz! lol - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the votes are similar, but that is not to say that Joturner "espouses controversial beliefs" - there the situation had to do with his non-controversial religious beliefs. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose- too aggressive, I think. Krugs 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- Often rude and unreasonable. Would she start banning people in sight if they do not call her they? Lapinmies 07:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Far too many (divisive) userboxes. Userpage is too political. Uncivil insistence on nonstandard pronoun usage. I would definitely not trust him with administrator tools. WCityMike's arguing with the oppose votes does further damage. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The userpage is way too polemical, use of inflamatory userboxes seem to be the rule, the behaviour seems to be sometimes a bit uncivil and this "they" thing is just surreal to top it off. Sorry but no way. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose- as per Krugs and JJay Frelke 09:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose thinks that WP:DRV is WP:AFD.  .   Grue   09:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose due to pronoun-related disruption, random accusations of misogyny and borderline trolling with regards to the Fuck Truck. Also, um... "This page is 100 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size" is never a good sign. I don't have time to read all of it, but from what I can see, this user responds poorly to criticism. — Jul. 25, '06  [09:51] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Comment: I wish you would read the full commentary before voting oppose. Most of it seems to be unrelated philosophical debates (which require the participation of other users) and frankly, baiting the nominee with issues unrelated to adminship. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose per inflammatory comments poor response to criticism on own RfA. Also nommed by an editor that has since been indefinitely blocked (and I'm not sure what to make of that) -- Samir    धर्म  09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It may not be Erik's fault. He left a message on his userpage indicating the account might have been hijacked . In any case, it's the message, not the messenger, right?--Chaser T 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. I think administrators need to demonstrate a better ability to work with others, particularly those who disagree with them.  --Ed (Edgar181) 12:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: without WP:AGF we would have a deluge of unnecessary conflicts. It is very important for the smooth running of interactions between strangers. I'm also concerned about WP:SOAP, particularly with the narrow concentration of articles. Wikipedia is not the place to change the English language, flawed as it is. I'd be less concerned if the edits covered a wider spread of articles. Stephen B Streater 12:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Some of the oppose votes concern me (especially regarding civility, although I haven't seen a mountain of diffs, just testimonials). Regarding the userpage, I, per my own "standards", seldom oppose based on userpage, but the fact that you still haven't removed the stuff people have a problem with and the fact that the views expressed on your userpage (sometimes) creep into your editing concern me. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Can you provide any examples of this? My general impression has been that this editor has been exceptionally committed to NPOV in article space, regardless of strong personal opinion expressed in user space. IMO we should recognize a very clear distinction between the two. Fan-1967 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Re user:Catamorphism's inability to maintain NPOV, I want to repeat something I quoted above (an exchange between nominated user and myself from yesterday) that seems relevant here, as you may have missed this among the numerous comments here.  Recent comment by Catamorphism from the Wellesley College Senate Bus talk page -- Talk:Wellesley College Senate Bus.  Shows how their own ideology and biases impact their editorial decisions --  "I think that whatever marginal notability the bus has derives from the fact that it's important to students at a number of notable universities, not from the fact that a number of misogynistic and resentful Harvard and MIT students decided to attach the moniker "fuck truck" to it."  Interestingstuffadder 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone expressed personal opinions on a Talk page? Gee, I've never heard of anyone else doing that. . Can you provide examples of POV edits in an article? Fan-1967 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This comment was in the course of this editor reverting my edits (just yesaterday). Thus, they is essentially admitting that they won't permit this edits to stand for the POV reasons detailed in the quote I include. Have a look at the article -- all I was atteting to do is add a sentence to the into mentioning that the shuttle service has gotten quite a bit of attention for being a means to sexual rendezvous...if you read the article you will find that this is what most of the article is about, so it seems to makes sense to mention this in the intro. Unfortunately, as the user freely admitted, they would not let this edit stand for POV reaosns. Interestingstuffadder 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks to me like Catamorphism reverted your revert of someone else's revert of an anon's addition, and the article had existed for quite a long time before then without that particular line, which quite frankly looks superfluous and unnecessary to me, as the subject is quite well covered in the article below. But I guess you disagree. Fan-1967 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: this isn't the place for content disputes. Look above -- you will see an ongoing debate as to whether Catamoprhpism's strong ideology impacts her ability to edit in an unbiased manner. In this conversation they clearly admitted that the motivation for their position in an edit conflct was a rather polemical viewpoint. That is what is relevant, not the merits on either side of the particular edit conflict. Interestingstuffadder 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per user's Wikipedia Opinions #4. The last thing we need is more elitist admins.  Deli nk 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Grue's reasoning above. --Wisd e n17 13:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per some-but-not-all of the above. Not confident in this user's ability to be unbiased.  The issue of preference for gender-neutral pronouns is just a harmless quirk, but the insistance that people use nonstandard English per this person's individual quirk is a bit over the top.  We can't get bent out of shape if some stranger on the internet incorrectly guesses our gender, particularly when there is no correct guess in this case.  The big reason is that admins must have a greater-than-normal ability to AGF, not a lesser-then-normal ability.  Friday (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 2) Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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&mdash;of course, I don't really explain those concerns, so, basically, I suck).  Joe 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 6) Neutral There is no dispute on the quality of work the User has demonstrated with their contributions. However, I also share concern about the sentiments they have expressed about the WP:AGF policy. I believe AGF is a cornerstone of the Wiki Community and a mindset that is of vital need for an Administrator. Good faith should be assumed on a level that is tantamount to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level that we hold guilt in society. A user needs to definitively demonstrate they are acting in bad faith and I think far too often the "Bad Faith" label is bandied about with newbies or more shy introverted users who do not "talk" as much as others in order to "positively prove their good faith". Good Faith shouldn't hold the burden of evidence and I think that is where I most disagree with the candidate. The AGF policy serves as an internal checks and balance for civil discourse and it should be a looking glass that every admin views through--especially when the consideration of deleting articles or banning users is being made. This need applies to all users but it is of paramount importance with our administrators. Agne 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral Userpage could cause tensions with other users, otherwise great candidate. Molerat 22:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

Last 5000 edits. Voice -of- All  20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) --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 . H e  22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Catamorphism's (Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs) contributions as of 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (Source*) using Interiot's tool*:
 * See Catamorphism's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

The last two are fair enough criticisms. I'm not sure what 3 means, but I didn't think that being aggressive was a bad characteristic in an admin. I'm most concerned about 2. The very first oppose vote was cast by someone who mentioned they thought I was "too strident" in my preference that others not refer to me using incorrect pronouns. In addition, a later support vote originally referred to me as "they" but the voter changed it to refer to me as "she". Because of that, I added a note just in case anyone was confused. I was assuming that if the people who were misgendering me knew that they were doing so, they would stop. I could have assumed bad faith and assumed that the people referring to me as "he" or "she" were intentionally doing so as a personal attack, and ignored it, the way I usually ignore personal attacks. Instead, I assumed good faith.
 * Note: I am, indeed, a "them" and not a "her". Catamorphism 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like this vote is going to be close. When I look at the oppose votes, the reasons cited mainly seem to be:
 * 1) voter was in an editing dispute with me
 * 2) it's objectionable that I request that others refer to me using the appropriate pronoun for my gender (or it's not objectionable, but they dislike the way I've handled it during this RfA discussion)
 * 3) people who think I'm too "aggressive"
 * 4) people who don't think I should mention my political views on my userpage
 * 5) people who disagree with my stated views about Wikipedia policies

This mushroomed into a huge discussion. I've spent more time discussing my choice of pronoun and gender identity here than I have in my entire previous history on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't have pursued the issue if I weren't totally baffled over why people would think that expressing a preference to have my self-definition respected made me unsuitable as an admin. I'm still baffled. Some have said that they don't have a problem with my gender identity but they feel that the way I've handled this situation is not befitting of an admin. Perhaps so, but an admin who was not genderqueer would never have to deal with this situation, so I don't think it's entirely fair for people who haven't had their gender identity called into question publicly to judge my behavior. I don't see very many people pointing to actions of mine that they feel are worrisome in regards to a potential admin. I don't see the connection between having a nontraditional gender identity and asking that people respect that, and being untrustworthy to click the rollback button and clear out speedy deletions. I also have to wonder whether the people who have cited this issue as a concern would also think poorly of an FtM admin, for example, who asked to be referred to as "he" even if people insisted on referring to him as "she".

Whether or not I'm promoted, I look forward to leaving this discussion behind and freeing up some time to write an encyclopedia. Catamorphism 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 Mango juice talk:


 * 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)


 * 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? &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 2. I regret needing to ask this, as I feel it is a personal matter to you, but it appears to be becoming a concern for a great many voters, and your answer may help clarify your position. You have asked that fellow editors refer to you using gender-neutral pronouns.  Assuming that the topic of gender-neutral pronouns is not being specifically discussed as it is here, under what circumstances would you choose to bring up your desire to be called by a gender-neutral pronoun and/or under what circumstances would you correct another editor's referral to you by a male or female pronoun?  In other words, if a fellow Wikipedia editor refers to you as "he," "she," "her," or "him," will you consistently correct all editors each and every time such a reference is made?  If not, what general sensibilities, perceptions, or guidelines have you used to guide you as to whether to bring it up or not in the past, and how would you handle it as an administrator?  To also place the situation to a hyperbolic extreme, if an editor is purposefully choosing to refer to you by a masculine or feminine pronoun despite your stated request, but is otherwise conducting a discussion with no other signs of incivility or personal attacks, how might you handle the situation?
 * A: If another editor expressed confusion over what pronoun should be used, I would reply in order to clarify their confusion. I probably wouldn't correct an isolated instance. I expect that it might come up if some people were referring to me as "he" and others were referring to be as "she" in the same discussion. In this discussion, I originally mentioned it because someone, in their support vote, referred to me correctly as "they", but later changed it to "she". Since this is a discussion about me, the pronoun issue is obviously pertinent. In other discussions, it generally wouldn't be, unless someone was deliberately using the wrong pronouns in order to be insulting, as you say. In my experience (outside of this RfA discussion), the people who deliberately use the wrong pronouns to refer to me tend to also commit other violations of civility at the same time, so the pronouns would be the least of the issues to deal with. I'm sorry to see that this is becoming such an issue in this RfA, as I don't feel that my gender affects my fitness as an admin, but I guess we still have a long way to go when it comes to achieving widespread understanding of trans issues. Catamorphism 18:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from John254:
 * 1. In response to the question by WCityMike, you state that "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 support that action." At least based on my interpretation of the vandalism policy, it appears that there is no absolute prohibition on immediately blocking vandals without warning under certain circumstances.  Indeed, according to the Counter-Vandalism_Unit, certain types of "severe" vandalism are blockable "on sight".  As an administrator, would you block such "severe" vandalism immediately?  Would vandalism such as this be sufficiently "severe" to warrant an immediate block?  Also, you state in response to the first question that "I would follow the administrators' noticeboard and respond to reports of vandalism there."  However, most reports of vandalism, particularly those requiring urgent action, are not reported on Administrators' noticeboard.  Instead, such reports are posted on Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism.  I have sometimes observed such reports remaining on the page for twenty minutes or longer before an administrator blocks the offending user -- during which time the vandals have caused quite a bit of trouble.  As an administrator, would you watchlist this page, and provide a rapid response to reports posted there? John254 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I should have said, "I might believe that any anon vandal should be blocked on the first offense..." I suspect that existing policies don't support blocking an anon vandal who does something like inserting a single spam link into a single article, or something like that. (I wouldn't necessarily support that if I got to dictate all policies, either. Just trying to think of examples.) I don't think that your example falls under "severe vandalism" as defined in "severe" vandalism, objectionable as it is. I would probably not block that user immediately, since they have only one edit -- I would give a severe warning and would expect that they would be blocked again if they vandalized again. If the user was known to be a sockpuppet of an existing banned user, or something like that, I might think it was appropriate to block them immediately. As for Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism, yes, I was speaking loosely -- I would watchlist that page, and though I'm not online all the time (or at least I try not to be), I expect I'd be able to help out responding to reports there. Catamorphism 01:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question from TruthCrusader: On your userpage you make this statement: '''Anonymous users do more harm than good, and shouldn't be allowed to contribute, or at least should have their contributions severely restricted. People who have something valuable to contribute will register for accounts; requiring registration would get rid of a lot of casual vandalism.' There are many IP-only enditors who do phenomenal work, and for various reasons cannot register. What do you say to them, some of whom may have been here longer than you and have far more edits? TruthCrusader 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I haven't encountered any in the course of my editing, but I'm sure they exist. In the domains where I work, there are far more destructive IP-only editors than ones like you describe. You can see how the area where one has chosen to edit would affect one's view of IP-only editors. What I would say to them is to ask why they can't register; I'm not sure what the "various reasons" you cite might be. You don't even need an email address to register, and one's account doesn't have to be tied to one's real identity in any way, so I'm not sure why someone would be able to edit regularly but not to create an account. Catamorphism 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Chaser:

'''What's your understanding of consensus? I ask because you seemed to argue in the Senate Bus AfD that 5-4 is appropriate consensus to move.''' Never mind. Missed your comment and the correct count (9-5).
 * Comment I actually would like to hear a response to this question. This fishy count, combined with your later accusation that I had violated point when I nominated the article for deletion, and your subsequent refusal to respond to and engage the good faith rationales I provided for this nomination are the core reasons why I am opposing your nomination. Interestingstuffadder 00:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that 9-5 is sufficient consensus to move a page. Moving can be undone (and pages are often moved without a vote), so it's not as if this requires a supermajority. As to where to draw the line, I'm not sure. I don't think anyone has a definite answer to that in close situations. It's judged on a case-to-case basis, and it's up to the people voting on this RfA to decide whether I have good judgment. Catamorphism 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still no response to my reasoned response to your accusation of bad faith via wp: point at the last Fuck Truck deletion debate. Honestly, the lack of a decent response there is the main thing that has held me back from supporting your administrator candidacy. Interestingstuffadder 01:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You state that they made direct and implied accusations that you were not acting in good faith. In the passage I see in Articles for deletion/Fuck Truck, they rather asked you to assume good faith of others, and this was after you did a riff on editors' instincts, underlying motivations, and so on -- making their reminder not only perfectly understandable but even a rather good handling of the situation. Each of your keep rationales you made in the aforementioned AfD, they responded to with an argument — that is debate, not anything personal. The sheer face value of you apologizing for something you yourself admitted came across as obnoxious is interesting, too. &mdash; Mike 01:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of others reading this, Interestingstuffadder created an article, supported it when it was nominated for deletion, then nominated it for deletion themself when the article was renamed. Thus, I stand by my previous remarks. Moreover, I have repeatedly asked Interestingstuffadder to assume good faith when they were speculating that the real reason that people were voting a certain way in the AfD was that they found the article offensive, no matter what their stated reasons were. Catamorphism 01:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledged the perception and recanted my vote. This does not mean, however, that I ever admitted to the alleged violation of wp:point and acting in bad faith. Instead, I recanted my vote as a good will gesture to this user, something they has never given me. All I have asked for all along is some response to my good faith rationale for nominating the article for deletion. They never gave me this. Instead, they accused me of just supporting the Fuck Truck article because it has a funny name; this in the face of faily comprehensive rationales on my part, mainly that the shuttle's notability was completely linked to it being known as the Fuck Truck. Look, I am an experienced editor. I have reverted quite a bit of vandalism myself. Although my choice of topics may seem silly to many, I consider what I do to be important (and apparently the folks who have given me a barnstar and a congratulations agree). All I have asked for from user:Catamorphism is that they back up their accusations of acting in good faith with specific responses to the rationales I provide for these actions. They have never done this. Interestingstuffadder 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And a softball to counter TruthCrusader's hardball: Why the name Catamorphism? As with all potentially personal questions, feel free to ignore this one.
 * A: I did my undergrad and master's theses on deforestation for Haskell, and catamorphisms are an important concept in the theory of program transformations for functional programming languages. When I chose the name as a handle (years ago), I was working intensely in that area, and I continued using it as my default username since (shockingly) it's usually available. Unfortunately, I haven't worked on that research in a long time. Sorry the story isn't any more interesting than that :-) Catamorphism 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.