Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pastor Theo (talk | contribs)
5,650 edits
→Oppose: response
Line 57: Line 57:
::'''A.'''
::'''A.'''
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|Question}} -->
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|Question}} -->

;Optional questions from [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]

:'''11.''' When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?
::'''A:'''


====General comments====
====General comments====

Revision as of 05:31, 2 July 2009

Pastor Theo

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (25/1/0); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. This is the only account I have ever edited with. Prior to becoming active on Wikipedia, I spent a few days reading the various rules and guidelines and studying the protocol of the discussions. I am the type of guy who reads instructional booklets cover-to-cover twice before plugging something into an electrical outlet or hitting a button on a machine.
7a. - follow-up question from The_ed17 (talk · contribs). Combing through your earliest contributions, I see that on your second day of editing you tagged an article with {{expand}} [1] and !voted in three AfD's (citing WP:NOT#NEWS and notability) [2][3][4], and copyedited two entire articles [5][6]. By your third day, you added {{unreferenced}} tags to five different articles [7][8][9][10][11], copyedited two more articles [12][13], and voted in four featured picture candidates [14][15][16][17]. I'm not trying to say that you did, in fact, use another account in the past; I'd just like some further explanation on this topic, as I'm not sure that one can receive this amount of wiki-experience from just reading the policies and guidelines... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand how Wikipedia operates, it seems that micro-short articles need to be expanded and unreferenced articles require references, hence the Expand and Unreferenced tags. The WP:NOT#NEWS was not an original statement – I was echoing a statement made by User:Edison earlier in the discusson. The notability issues came by checking whether the articles were in sync with notability standards. The copy editing was rather elementary – I was just cleaning up the text. And for offering an opinion on the featured pictures – well, I liked the pictures, that’s all. :)
And as a P.S. -- Ed, you were the first person I conversed with on Wikipedia [18] - I appreciated your taking the time to lend a hand.
What I meant by the question was just how you understood how Wikipedia operates so soon after you joined, which, now that I think about it, is a rather hard question to ask as it was six months ago. :) You were/are most welcome for the helping hand! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
8. A new user, "AtheistPride" begins editing many religious articles to reflect the point-of-view that there is no God. What actions, if any, would you take to deal with this user?
A:It doesn't matter if the user is "AtheistPride" or "JesusLovesYou" -- editing that does not adhere to NPOV standards will be reverted and the editor in question will receive notices alerting them to the problems with their editing. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject, however, I am willing to devote extra time in conversing with the editor about the problem and how it can be resolved. After all, a new user may be unaware of Wikipedia's editorial protocols -- not everyone reads the instructions before editing. However, a continued course of intentional disruption that ignores proper warnings will ultimately result in the editor being blocked.
Additional optional questions from Steve Crossin
9. Do you, as a potential administrator feel that it is more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines. Additionally, if a situation arose where policies ans guidelines conflict with a better solution that you could achieve by using common sense and administrative judgment, would you do so? If possible, please give an example.
A.
Additional optional questions from WarthogDemon who did not, in any way, paraphrase a question he's seen MrPrada use.
10. An article gets nominated for deletion. The nominator's reasons are that while there are several verifiable and reliable sources, there is no notability. The AFD goes through the motions and in the end there are 10 votes to keep. None of those who voted have said anything to disprove the nominator's claims that it fails notability. Should it be kept per WP:SNOW or deleted?
A.
Optional questions from KillerChihuahua
11. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?
A:

General comments

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

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)[reply]
    you don't know me very well;-)
    Right. Well, it was more a "beat everyone else" support rather than a "beat the nom" support, but..yeah :) I don't know you very well. ^_^ Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 04:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Of course! Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Very pleased to see Pastor Theo here on RFA. Everything's good here. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; I was considering nominating him myself. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. Support. Solid contributor. Solid principles. Dr.K. logos 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  15. Support Seen him around often. No reservations at all as candidate would most definitely be a net positive with the mop. t'shaelchat 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per answers to my questions and my basic wikistalking of his edits & editsummary. tedder (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per answers to Tedder's questions. Had he not asked these, I would have asked similar ones myself. I am satisfied you will maintain NPOV and, as you say, Wikipedia's academic nature. You'll make a fine admin. Tan | 39 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I was apprehensive at first but after reading answers #4 and #5 and checking out some of his contributions I rest assured this editor is here for the right reasons, and answer to #7 shows he's got a clue. -- Ϫ 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I'm impressed with his answers. Pastor Theo also was one of the few people who supported my first RfA, so I'd be a fool not to return the favor. Matt (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - your answer to my question shows thoughtfulness and rationality. More than happy to support. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I've always been impressed, very trustworthy. Royalbroil 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support regardless of said "major failing". I forgive thee; best of luck, Pastor! wadester16 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Balloonman rather buries the lead in the nomination; the candidate's being a Yankee fan, which earns just a mention, is, of course, prima facie evidence of unfitness for adminship, and really for life as well. Because I'm in need of good karma, starting a ton of Yankees tomorrow across my fantasy teams, looking for the team to rake against Jason Vargas, though, and because it is clear that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysyop(p)ed should be positive, I am compelled to support. Joe (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I've seen him making reasoned arguments in discussions. -- Mentifisto 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support You'll make a great admin. You're one of the most civil and insightful user around here. (In all honesty I was going to ask you if you wanted to run this month, looks like someone bet me to it :) ) Icestorm815 • Talk 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Few mainspace edits, and a large percentage of those appear to be adding tags and categories, or adding and removing AFD and PROD templates (especially since your second month or so). Can't find much evidence of policy knowledge outside of deletion because almost all Wikipedia space edits are concerned with it (or RFA); almost no edits to policy-related pages or discussion of policies. Sorry, I just don't see enough breadth of experience here, and there's little to indicate how you would react to conflict. This is a little disconcerting to me, because you appeared to be intent upon shifting the burden of proof to the person who nominated your image for deletion, rather than showing that the image was compliant. In such a deletion discussion, Wikipedia's copyright policies are what is in question, and you appear to have equated "royalty free" with "public domain". Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can please respond - the “royalty free” statement was my bad. However, my intention was solely to confirm Wikipedia’s policies relating to Vatican stamp imagery and copyright. I am a long-time stamp collector and I read the magazines and web sites relating to the subject. The Vatican City stamp program is a healthy source of revenue and it seemed incongruous to me that the Vatican would have a draconian copyright law relating to the reproduction of the images in its stamp program. However, I was unable to locate information specific to the topic, and I did not get any answer in my attempts to contact the Vatican’s postal authority. I just wanted confirmation on the subject. That being said, I was appreciative of Ww2censor’s explanation of Wikipedia’s image policies – I have no plans to do any administrative-related image policy work – and I have replaced the problematic image on the Vatican stamp page with a 1929 issue that is in the public domain. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough. I think you also might want to review your answer to Q8; it looks like it was asking what you would do, personally. If I was in such a situation and my username was "Pastor Theo", I'd let (or request that) another administrator deal with the user in question. For the same reason, I personally don't close AFDs as keeps in Japan-related topics, etc. Even if there is no actual impropriety involved, it's best to avoid the appearance that you are taking administrative actions in an area that involves personal bias. Dekimasuよ! 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you for sharing your concern. However, in AfDs I have nominated religion-based articles for deletion and !voted for the deletion of similar articles that are up for removal. My interest in Wikipedia is strictly academic -- I would've been kicked out months ago if I set up the revival tent and started preaching. Okay, that was last response -- I know I am not supposed to be down in this section too much! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pastor_Theo&oldid=299834344"