Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo

Pastor Theo

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (16/0/0); Scheduled to end 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) – Pastor Theo first disappointed me about three months ago when I first considered nominating him for adminship. You see, I spent a fair amount of time reviewing his edits and was impressed with them before I realized that he had only been on wikipedia for a few months. About six weeks ago, a very respected member of Wikipedia came to me asking me to nominate Pastor Theo. So I broached the subject again. Theo indicated that he wanted to wait until July. Well, July is upon us, and I am happy to tell you that Theo has agreed to accept a nomination.

Pastor Theo is one of those people who joined wikipedia for all of the right reasons and has consistently shown a high level of commitment to the project and has been sought out by others. Including deleted edits, he has amassed over 4,800 edits (all manual) almost a third of which are in the article mainspace. Theo has created about 40articles, mostly stub and start class that exemplify his eclectic interests. The articles fall into four categories: Religion (but not any specific denomination), race horse, stamps, and early twentieth century entertainment. He is a member of numerous projects--the two that caught my attention the most are the Guild of Copy Editors and Article Rescue.

A quick review of his CSD work revealed no major issues, similarly his XfD work is solid. Theo will send articles to XFD when needed.

And for Caspian Blue, who knows that I always have to point out at least one negative of my candidate, I hate to say it but Pastor Theo has one major failing, but I'm trying to over look that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am deeply appreciative of Balloonman's kind words, and I hope that I will be able to live up to his praise. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If provided with administrative responsibility, I would primarily focus on areas where I am currently active: AfD, CSD and UAA. I understand that these areas often get backlogged, so I would like to provide assistance to keep the systems flowing.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:To be honest, there hasn’t been a single “superstar” achievement – just a lot of gnomish work. I am active in New Page Patrol, where I try to improve the quality of works-in-progress -- by copy editing, adding references, links, categories and stubs plus connections to WikiProjects -- and alert administrators to potential problems via CSD and Prod tagging and UAA reports. In AfD, I have nominated articles, relisted discussions that require more consensus, performed non-administrative closures, and participated in the debates – sometimes rescuing articles that had potential for growth, sometimes pointing out flaws that I believe cannot be helped. I have worked to de-orphan articles and I copy edit existing articles, too. I’ve tried my hand at creating articles and I have three DYKs, but I freely admit that I am not a super writer – I am more comfortable with enhancing existing work.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have experienced no conflicts whatsoever. The people here have been wonderful to me. In areas where I have been uncertain of policy and protocol, friendly editors have stepped forward and patiently explained procedures. In discussions and debates, I have been delighted by the intelligent and spirited opinions put forth. Someone even named a day after me, which I still can’t believe! It has been a lot of fun, and I am thankful for being welcomed into this community.

Additional optional questions from Tedder

4. Balloonman said you've spent a lot of time in religion articles. Since I don't think we've crossed paths, can you explain how NPOV is handled in these articles?

A:It is inappropriate to use the articles on this site for either proselytizing or denigrating. Any religion-based article should be strictly academic in nature. The personal views of the editors relating to the tenets of religious faith should not be incorporated into the texts of the articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we need to realize that people are coming here to conduct research and not to be entertained by personal opinions.

5. Suppose you find a new article about a religion you aren't familiar with. All of the edits are from enthusiastic supporters, and the only sources given (or found) are from adherents to the religion. What do you do?

A:If an article does not meet WP:RS standards, then its survival could be in jeopardy. I would make a very serious effort to research the subject and determine its legitimacy. If I am in doubt on the references and the subject, I would consult with other editors within WikiProject Religion to get second opinions.

6. What would you do in the above scenario if you were closing an AFD for the religion?

A:I would have to present an airtight case to justify its deletion in the face of supportive consensus. If I cannot make a cogent argument with irrefutable evidence that the article’s references do not meet WP:RS standards, then it would be inappropriate for me to delete the article when the consensus is overwhelmingly positive.

Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare

7. Your first edits under this account indicate a high degree of familiarity with both the English Wikipedia and with MediaWiki. Could you please list any account besides this one that you currently use or have used in the past?

A.

General comments

• Links for Pastor Theo: Pastor Theo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Pastor Theo can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pastor Theo before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom support. Yes, definitely. I find you to be a clueful editor, and I feel that you will be an excellent credit to Wikipedia. RFA is a lot like Hell Week, and sometimes RFA should stand for "Requests for Agony" but you're a strong editor. The RFA process will strengthen you. Basically, if you can succeed in this, you can succeed at anything. Best of luck, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Of course! Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I was honestly surprised when I learned he had just been around since January; he seems so much more knowledgeable than that. I don't always agree with Pastor Theo in all discussions that I have seen him in, but I have always seen him discuss his point civilly and with justification behind his actions and words, which implies a strong sense of clue in the man. I'm happy to support him for adminship. NW (Talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. No brainer. Sorry, Balloonman, I do not even need to read your nomination statement for the candidate. :) I've always thought of Pastor Theo as "the next administrator" (not American Idol :D) because of his civility and insightful commentaries on RFAs as well as other good contributions. (yes, I checked his contribution time to time in case somebody would nominate him) Well he clearly knows how things go within Wikipedia and is willing to help editors in trouble, so why not?--Caspian blue 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Very pleased to see Pastor Theo here on RFA. Everything's good here. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support; I was considering nominating him myself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. For sure Six months is enough to be clueful and show commitment to the project. He is, he has.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes indeed I've been very impressed by Pastor Theo's contributions and interactions about the place.--Slp1 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support As per Balloonman who is one of the best and intense judges of Candidates and would have spent hours before noming the candidate.Also as per track see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user geting tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - A review of Paster Theo's contribution history shows no reason not to support. This is backed up by my own (admittedly limited) interaction with him, in which I found him knowledgeable, courteous and happy to collaborate with other editors. Balloonman's CSD endorsement is a good sign also. Euryalus (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Solid contributor. Solid principles. Dr.K. logos 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Quality edits & trustworthy. I'm sure he'll make an excellent admin. Best of luck. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - I'm very impressed by his contributions and the demeanor Pastor Theo has displayed. I think he'll make an excellent administrator. Camw (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Pastor Theo's only been here for 6 months? From what I've seen of him, I would have thought he was here a lot longer than that. Perhaps that's just the impression I've gotten from him as an smart, friendly, reasonable guy. Not a hard decision here. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Seen him around often. No reservations at all as candidate would most definitely be a net positive with the mop. t'shael^chat 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support per answers to my questions and my basic wikistalking of his edits & editsummary. tedder (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)