Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo

Pastor Theo

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (103/19/7); 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. 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)

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)

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.First part of the question: in my opinion, FWIW, the spirit of policy is the letter of policy with an extra element of discretion added to it. I feel comfortable making a judgment call on whether a person is making an honest mistake or is up to intentional mischief – I am not a hardass personality, and I recognize that people make errors without realizing it. Second part of the question: That goes far beyond the spirit of policy, I believe. I would get second opinions from other admins before acting in an out-of-bounds manner that could easily erupt into a big fight and ill will. After all, my idea of "common sense" may not be shared by others.

Exceptional explanation. Best of luck. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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.No notability, as in absolute zero? That would seem very unusual, especially if the article meets WP:V and WP:RS standards. And if I know AfD, it seems unusual for 10 straight WP:ILIKEIT arguments that ignore policy completely. If the AfD runs the full seven day course, which the question suggests, there is no need for the extra snowflake in closing as Keep. I don’t see a strong argument in this scenario to completely ignore consensus and Delete the article. The question is fascinating, and if this is based on an actual AfD, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

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

A:I believe it is appropriate when reverting vandalism that was left in place before the page was fully protected.

11.1 (followup from Orlady). Do you really think that's the only time an administrator should edit a fully protected page?

A:I really think I should have cited the additional examples that WereSpielChequers noted in his Support statement. I must note that I have never been active in the WP:RFPP section and I had no plans to become involved there in an administrative capacity.

Um, where are these "additional examples that WereSpielChequers noted in his Support statement"? As for the relevance of the question, I believe there are plenty of types of situations other than WP:RFPP where an administrator might need to consider the possibility of editing a fully protected page. --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in but I think PastorTheo is referring to the following from WereSpielChequers support: other times when it can be OK to edit a protected page include when the warring parties still can't agree on the artists genre or drug addictions but want an admin to make the changes they are agreed on.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When I used the Firefox "find" function to search for WereSpielChequers' input on this page, it didn't turn anything up because I didn't think to search for "ϢereSpielChequers". --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from decltype

12. I am sure you remember this and the subsequent AfD (which was a mess). Has your view changed on the matter, or do you still feel the subject should not be included in Wikipedia?

A: That was a wacky AfD! At the end of the day, however, the article was strengthened and Mr. Derrick's notability was confirmed. To me, that's a win-win situation and I have no reason to argue with the conclusion. Also, I later discovered the web site that issued the SPA call to arms for that AfD: [19]. What I thought was hilarious was someone over there said that "Pastor Theo is a dumb ****" -- anyone want to take a guess what letters were hidden behind those four stars? :)

Questions from Tony1

13. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical response, please; I care more about your analytical skills than your political opinion WRT this issue.)

A:That is a very well written proposal, and the idea of having a majority of non-admins as coordinators is admirable. I am supportive of anything that will dial down the decibel level at the Administrators Noticeboard in relation to admin-related issues, and I believe we need an orderly resolution of this type of problem. My one concern is having an even number of coordinators, due only to the risk of a tie vote that might be seen as inconclusive. I would prefer seven coordinators instead of six, if only to ensure resolution instead of deadlock.

Thanks; I'll raise your suggestion there. Tony (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

14. "I freely admit that I am not a super writer – I am more comfortable with enhancing existing work." Sure, no one expects super writing! But could you provide a few diffs that suggest you have the ability to use serviceable writing in negotiation? (I will understand if you can't locate any.)

A:I am afraid I will come across as obtuse in asking this, but what do you mean by “serviceable writing in negotiation?” What type of negotiation are you asking about, and how do you define “serviceable writing”?

Yes, not well-framed on my part: I was referring to the the type of writing that admins need to engage in, in dealing with complicated situations and possibly with difficult, uncooperative editors. You don't need to answer this question. Tony (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

15. I suspect you won't be inclined to do much blocking, but you may nevertheless be placed in that position. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A:IRL, I am a very easy-going guy. I know people get frustrated and say stuff they don’t mean – you are not a bad person if you lose your cool for a moment. The suggestion you raise is an excellent one, particularly if the editor in question has no history of habitual rudeness. I would encourage both parties to shake hands and put their spat behind them in the manner you describe. If the rude editor declines, I would issue a warning and keep an eye on his or her activities. I would only block if the rudeness were a true jaw-dropping tirade that encompasses, say, threats of violence or racially motivated personal attacks.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

16. I know you do a lot of AfD work, so I suspect this will be an easy question for you. What is your opinion about notability and how it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? Specifically, are there any specific notability guidelines you disagree with and if so why? To be clear, what I am looking for is your opinion of what an ideal Wikipedia and not a regurgitation of policy.

A:The notability guidelines are the foundation on which our editorial house is built. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a trivia site or a blog or a celebrity worship shrine. Our challenge as editors is to ensure the information we put forth would not be out of place in any academic reference text. I keep using "academic" because I view Wikipedia through that prism. The notability guidelines ensure we have academic order instead of information chaos. To date, I have been comfortable with the guidelines.

16a. If you could, please pick one group of people covered by SNGs (WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, or a specific element of WP:BIO) and explain why you think the current guidelines are good and/or how they could be improved for that specific group of people.

A: As I stated in the previous question, I have been comfortable with the guidelines. The editorial parameters that are set in the guidelines are my blueprint and, so far, I haven't found fault with them. Thus, I am not able to offer specific suggestions for improvement because I’ve had no complaints with the current requirements.

16b. Do you consider any types/groups of articles to be "automatically notable" (given that the information is verifiable)?

A: I am of the opinion that every topic or subject grouping is notable, ranging from the loftiness of quantum physics to the lowbrow fun of professional wrestling. My focus is not the topic, but the contents of the individual articles that I am writing, editing and/or reviewing.

I apparently didn't make myself clear, so let me rephrase: The normal way notability is established is by being covered in detail by multiple reliable sources. There is a general consensus that this "in depth coverage test" isn't necessary for certain subjects, although the list of such subjects varies from editor to editor. Are there any subjects you personally feel are "automatically notable" merely by being verifiable, or in your opinion should all subjects be proven to pass the general notability guidelines. (Feel free not to answer in further detail if you feel your answers above already adequately cover the subject).

A From my experience, since I come across articles on subjects where my expertise is limited, I would be more comfortable if the article meets WP:GNG standards – if only so I can double-check and confirm the information is correct.

Additional questions from Gigs

17. How would you handle a WP:UAA report of a user named "Allah does not exist"?

A:I would put a {{uw-username}} tag on the Talk Page, add the username to the category on Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over, and try to initiate a direct conversation afterwards with the editor to point out issues that some people would have with that name.

18. You notice a user named "SPKCo" has created an article for "Sal's Premium Kippers", and has no other edits, what do you do?

A:First, I would check the article to ensure it meets WP:CORP standards. If it is fine, that’s not a problem; if it requires references, I would check to see if references are available and help copy edit the article. If it strictly spam that cannot be salvaged, it has to go. As for SPKCo, I would probably issue a Level 1 notice relating to WP:COI and a {{uw-username}} tag, with a personal note offering to help if the editor wants to contribute further to Wikipedia. If the editor had the name “Sal’s Premium Kippers,” however, I would have to issue a block since it is an intentional promotional name.

Additional questions from User:Peter Damian

19. Do you think the relationship between so-called 'vested contributors' and the admin community is a difficult one? If so, do you see it within your power as an administrator to help improve the relationship, and if so, how would you set about it? I admire the way you have occasionally given pastoral advice in this community, by the way.

Peter Damian (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A: I am sorry to answer a question with a question, but I require clarification on "vested contributors" -- without naming any individuals, please let me know what you mean by that phrase, and I will be able to answer the question. Thank you.

Thought I might offer a possible explanation. Vested contributors, while discouraged, are editors who have been here for a long period of time, and may feel that they are "above" other editors, and have exceptions to our policies. (I hope this is a correct enough answer). Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Thank you, Mr. Crossin, because I don’t recall seeing that phrase before. As I see it, that concept mirrors the famous line from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”: “All animals are created equal but some animals are created more equal than others.” Whether in a two-legged or a four-legged community, double standards should never be encouraged. But the blame for such a situation is shared between those who think they are above the rules and those who encourage them to think that way – after all, such behavior would not exist if there wasn’t some degree of tolerance to allow it to take root and blossom. In regard to Mr. Damian’s question, it would be within my power as an admin not to give support – either active or benign – to a two-tiered or three-tiered system where some individuals are encouraged to behave as if they feel they were created more equal than others. I like the concept of everyone being on equal footing, and as an admin I will operate from that playing ground.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

20. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:If we are going to be literal, Wikipedians have the right to edit, the right to participate in Wikipedia without being harassed and (for members in good standing) the right to vanish. In situations where problems arise within these areas, I would act based on a review of the specifics of each individual case.

Additional question from JGHowes

21. Under what circumstances, if any, would you indef block a registered user? Suppose a user you've blocked for disruptive editing requests unblocking– how would you respond?

A: As I stated in the first question, I hope to be involved in the administrative aspects of WP:UAA. In that sector, registered users who are in violation of username policy face indefinite blocking. Furthermore, if I determine that registered accounts exist strictly for vandalism purposes, they will also receive an indefinite block. I would review any request for unblocking based solely on the history of the editor making the request and the specific circumstances that resulted in the block.

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

22a. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?

A.

22b. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?

A.

22c. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?

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)

   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)

   My trademark is that I don't vote on my candidates until later... which means I've actually failed to support two three of my candidates in the past ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:50, 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)

   Still staying at support, but I just want to echo what Iridescent said. There was a back story behind both Majorly and Malleus' posts, and I think that this post coming right after a reasonable explanation by Majorly should have been enough of a hint of that. So just a bit of generic advice to try to investigate matters a bit further before you act if you don't know the histories fully, especially because you have only been here 6 months. But otherwise, you still do seem like a fine candidate, so I will stay at support. NW (Talk) 03:49, 3 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)

    He did have one A7 that I disagreed with, but on a whole, his CSD taggings were solid.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:49, 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)
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)
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. -- œ^™ 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
21. Support I've always been impressed, very trustworthy. Royalbroil 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support regardless of said "major failing". I forgive thee; best of luck, Pastor! wadester16 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
24. I've seen him making reasoned arguments in discussions. -- Mentifisto 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
26. Strong Support as I've seen nothing but good from Pastor Theo. He's doing nothing but good for the project, and the tools will only increase how useful he will be. I think he'll make a fine admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
27. ÷seresin 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
28. No need for words. Keegan (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support As the Mets are struggling to get over .500, it's okay to root for the Yankees. At least it's not a Boston team. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I've bumped into the Pastor a few times, and had already made a note to support this RFA when it came up. But I've also checked and glad to see the clean block log, civil talk page and archives. You might want to expand your answer to Q11 though - other times when it can be OK to edit a protected page include when the warring parties still can't agree on the artists genre or drug addictions but want an admin to make the changes they are agreed on ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. No reason to believe you'd abuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. I think Pastor Theo's real-life experience would serve him well in the role of administrator. audit of deleted contribs shows nothing to worry about. However, I urge him to think about the implications of Q8. Pastor Theo blocked ThereIsNoGod (disruptive editing) may cause some eyebrows to be raised, even if the block is totally appropriate (as pointed out by dekimasu). decltype (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support An absolute pleasure to support a dedicated quality candidate. Per Ballonman's nomination. Pedro :  Chat  09:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
34. No reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support per Balloonman's nomination who says everything I could have considered to say. As a minor advice, you might want to use more descriptive edit summaries when tagging articles for speedy deletion, e.g. "requesting speedy deletion (A7)" instead of simply "A7". Regards SoWhy 10:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support No problems here. A good candidate. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support  Excellent contribs, even-tempered, clueful. --StaniStani  14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
38. per nom, per above. I for one am not much of an article builder and seldom discuss policy. We need more admins who are not "hardasses," who "devote extra time in conversing with the editor," and who don't brawl. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support – I like the answers to the questions, and the run-ins with him at AFD indicates to me that he has good working knowledge of the deletion policy. MuZemike 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support – I've only seen positive from this editor, and in general he possesses a nice level of clue. I already thought PT was an admin by his demeanor, which is a good sign. IMO article-writing is nice but not a requirement for adminship, and if an editor has an exceptional sense of what is good judgement with potential content disputes, it overrides those pretty-looking GA/FA credits, or lack thereof. Jamie^☆S93 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support – His edits are always sensible, NPOV, and completely adhering to WP policies and guidelines. We need more admins like Pastor Theo – Shannon Rose 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Easily one of my stronger supports as of late. Candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in multiple ways: 1) candidate has never been blocked; 2) candidate is listed as a nice Wikipedian; 3) candidate is an article creator; 4) candidate is an article rescuer; 5) candidate has rollback (i.e. some admin trusted him enough to give him those tools); 5) candidate's fellows editors appreciate his edits as seen with User:Pastor_Theo#Wiki_Snacks and User:Pastor_Theo#Wiki_Honors; 6) candidate has earned some DYK credits; 7) candidate says to delete articles when it is reasonable to say so as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko; and 7) candidate says to keep or merge articles when it is reasonable to argue as such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila (Peanuts) (one caution here is to remember it is not a vote and so a reason is prefereable to just a stance), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Shakespeare (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). Candidate is clearly not partisan or biased (again, good reasons to delete and good reasons to keep) so can be trusted to close AfDs based on these examples. How often can I cite SEVEN unique positives as reasons for supporting? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Seen him around AfD, seems like a reasonable guy. Answers to my questions were sufficient. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
44. About Time. I have been waiting for this rfa for awhile. Good Luck! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Something I call a traditional candidate: ~5K edits, general article work in the mainspace, Wikiproject work, and some healthy work in an administrative area. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
46. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
47. — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support, pretty obvious. Valley2city^‽ 22:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

    Unusual from me, given the weak content contributions, but everything I've seen of you recently has been sensible. – iridescent 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

49. Strong support. Very active and responsible editor with enormous contribution. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Support — Answers to questions demonstrate competency. If you had chosen a secular user name, with a few religious userboxes on your page, I suspect that you would not be questioned so much about hypotheticals. And with regard to the issue in the Oppose section about his name, any claim of bias that uses a user's name as its foundation should be met with appropriate amounts of laughter. —Animum (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    Follow-up comment: Answers to questions 11 and 11.1 are a tad concerning. I know that you say you don't plan on working in protection; but just in case, please give WP:PROT a read. —Animum (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

51. Support My encounter with this user tells me that he's civil and willing to learn.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Support: why not? South Bay (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Only wish this RfA had been put forward sooner. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support Very rational contributor; seems unbiased and dedicated to the project. Also, being part of the civility police is a good thing. ThemFromSpace 09:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Seems like a very reasonable person. While the declared Pastor-ness might have been a concern, it does seem to me that PastorTheo thinks about the separation of church and wikipedia which is good enough for me (we can't obviously leave our identities completely behind!). Of the various neutral concerns below, I think he/she pushed too hard on the Majorly RfA (it was rather unchristian, if I may be permitted the small joke!) but presumably that was a one time thing and I don't see a pattern here. The answers to the questions are excellent too. What's not to like? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Solid contributor who has left me with a positive impression of them. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - I know you're a pastor, but it would keep things much simpler if you could keep religion out of discussions. Aditya ^α _ß 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Support in spite of the major flaw. Clueful and polite editor who seems to understand policy. (FWIW, as an atheist I've had no problems at all with his editing.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Thought he was one already. Jonathunder (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Was thinking of opposing until I read Friday's and Peters comment which makes me think maybe Ive misjudged. I have almost the opposite concern – that when you do criticise you dont always take care to ensure your criticism is constructive - as in the diff Majorly posted and your comment on Mr Bloom's RFA only yesterday. Most wont mind, but some will find such comments gratuitous and offensive – all the more so as you're a very well respected editor. For the encyclopaedia to be successful its important that folk are as nice as possible even when criticising – otherwise we'll never have the pleasant , collaborative atmosphere our work needs. Changing to support now looks like over 99% of your work is positive and I remember you being very supportative in the aftermath of unfortunate drama back in May. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong Support Definitely! I also think that being a 'civility cop' is a good thing, sometimes people need to be reminded. LittleMountain5 18:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Superman Strong Support He wasn't an admin already? Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Support, more admins are required that don't just pay lip service to our civility policies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC).
66. Support per Peter Damian. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Per nom and plus and even better he's a Yankee fan.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Support an admin with interest in AfD who has support from all of the people above with such very different views is what we need. DGG (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Happy to support. I've noticed for some time that his mainspace edits consistently uphold npov, reflecting his answer to Q4, and his work at XfD, etc., shows he understands and can be trusted with the tools. I had to chuckle at his answer to Q7, as one who's been known to re-read instruction manuals myself– even going so far as to add index tabs (sometimes).  JGHowes  ^talk 02:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. Theo has been helpful and productive. He knows his way around and provides thoughtful rationale. I see little risk in granting him sysop status. Majoreditor (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Definitely an upstanding and trustworthy candidate, no worries. Mfield (Oi!) 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
72. Support No concerns. Law _{type! snype?} 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
73. Very strong support You've helped me whenever I've requested an image for an article. Allow me to pay my respects by offering my support in return.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - Pastor Theo has about 4k edits, but they are quality edits. He has also started about 40 articles. I also analyzed his other edits, and they are good. AdjustShift (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
75. Support – Contributions demonstrate article building, thoughtful additions to discussions; clueful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Support I have no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. hmwithτ 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
77. Support - Will be a reasonable person with the tools. LadyofShalott 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
78. Support The pastor has class, style, and knows how to put a point across. And since when is it a crime to be a nice guy? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
79. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
80. Support I don't see why not. --candle•wicke 01:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
81. Support The answer to question 3 did trouble me as disagreements will happen. (It's only a matter of time.) However, after looking at his contributions, I think that he would be able to handle any conflicts that may appear.Shinerunner (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
82. Weak support. Your positive contributions to the growth of Wikipedia (dozens of articles) are the most important to me in deciding whether to support or not, and for the "tldr" crowd, I'm supporting because you do a dang good job making the encyclopedia better. That said, I'll go on. :-) I think the diff provided by Iridescent (in the oppose section below from Majorly's most recent application for re-tooling), is very offputting to other editors, myself included. So a quandary has presented itself. I really don't think you'll be a "civility police" type person, nor do I think you'll hit people over the head as "morality police" because your username contains "pastor" in it. You haven't shown any malice towards anyone, I don't see any inclination that you'll start, and the fact that the "diff" is from the Majorly RFA which was contentious all around and got the best of a lot of people, I've decided to call it a one-off. You went there to call someone out for calling someone a name (but not really, it turns out), and you came off rather poorly in a text-driven community: condescention. But I don't believe that was specifically your intention. However, as an admin, you are going to get slammed with people deciding what you "mean" when you type things. The nice card won't work as well as I think you think it will work. Been there, bought the t-shirt. Hence the "weak" in the support. I think you'll do fine, but I also think you'll burn out, and start to become disillusioned (sp) with wikipedia and will slowly (or quickly) leave once an admin. We need content builders, and you strike me as someone very good at it. I think the tools will get in the way, actually. I'm supporting because I want to be wrong and that you'll be a good, honest, and fair admin of this website. I'm hoping you withdraw your request, to be honest, because I know it will drive you nuts to have the "extra tools", if in fact you use them. Keeper | 76 02:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
83. Support I support his canidacy, but I also wonder about his low number of edits. Since he has shown a varied backround, that concern doesn't matter since he has a reputable image on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Very solid contributions and good dealings with user. -download ׀ sign! 06:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
85. Support I was on the fence but Q16 threw me over. Very good answer. Tavix |  Talk  17:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
86. Support. I'm eminently satisfied with this user's contributions, and I'm bewildered by the highly trivial nature of the opposes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Upgrade to strong support because the comportment of the "oppose" camp is tainting this RFA.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    Off-topic conversation moved to the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

87. Support. It's a long time since I felt the need to comment/vote at an RfA, but, as a confirmed and sometimes militant atheist, I must say that I don't see any evidence that the good pastor "pulls rank" or does anything else that the opposers have claimed. All I see are reasoned arguments with the occasional need to declare a possible conflict of interest as a Christian. We should welcome the fact that an editor declares any such conflict of interest, even when, as in all the cases I can find, it doesn't influence Theo's Wikipedia edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. I trust this user with extra rights - nuff said. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. I had to think about this one for a while. I would have liked to see more insight demonstrated in the answers to my questions and a couple others, and the initial answer to Q11 was technically wrong (although it aired on the side of caution, which is good). Overall, however, the answers were solid and the answers the religion "conflict of interest type" questions were exceptional. Furthur, I can see Theo abusing the tools. Thus, I ended up picking support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    If you couldn't see him abusing the tools you would have opposed? I'm thinking this is a typo. But maybe we need more abuse from admins? Too many editors. That may be my support rationale from now on! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    LOL. A quite humorous typo indeed.  :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

90. Strongest Possible Support This guy has very good contributions, and the opposes are just plain ridiculous... as X! said, it's a very sad day when people are opposed for being civil... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 11:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
91. Support Per above although I wouldn't exactly refer to him as "with enormous contribution". I would however like to see him continue his work in the mainspace particularly in the field of philately and not purely focus on closing afds etc. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
92. Support, will make a great admin. Wizardman 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
93. Support We need more administrators who are mature and responsible. Pastor Theo will be a strong asset to Wikipedia as an admin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
94. Support. per the nom and the above. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
95. Support. This was a tough one for me. I thought there were a couple very valid opposes, as well as some very strong reasons to support - so for me it comes down to my own interactions with the good Pastor. While not being a Pittsburgh sports fan might lead me to an oppose ;), in truth all my interactions have been very positive ones. I've found Pastor Theo to be kind, considerate, and willing to work hard to achieve a solution that benefited the project. I just don't envision him using the tools to go on some "civility crusade", but rather I see him as leading by example in how to interact with others in a positive and polite manner. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  15:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
96. Support I feel I can trust Pastor Theo to use the admin tools to the benefit of the community. I am also influenced by A Nobody's comments above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
97. Extremely Strong Support Per epic contributions, experience, and above all humanity. FlyingToaster 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
98. Support — nobody is perfect, the pastor makes a reasonable approximation. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
99. Support - from what I've seen of his actions around Wikipedia, he would make a sensible, level-headed admin. And because someone has to be 99th on the way to WP:100(!) Bencherlite^Talk 05:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
100. Support per nom---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
101. Support without equivocation. His work at AfD and his understanding of guideline has been instrumental in continued growth and improvement to the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
102. Support I have been looking forward to supporting Pastor Theo's RfA for a while now, an excellent candidate. --kelapstick (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
103. Support edits in the spirit of WP:AGF Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   I don't mean to imply that you are biased. But such a claim could (and often would) be made by someone like the posited "AthiestPride", and it's best to avoid giving such a user ammunition. Dekimasuよ! 05:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   It's a good point. Appearances matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   So, by this logic, I shouldn't really be closing any debates then, either keep, or delete, for risk that I may "appear" biased by whomever "lost" the argument? Keeper | 76 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't follow you. I was talking about something specific here: the forseeable condition that someone could claim a certain administrative action was based upon a conflict of interest. The validity of the claim is secondary; there are lots of administrators, so someone without the potential conflict of interest should be able to take care of the problem. Even Wikipedia:Administrators contains the line, "if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible." Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   You have to look at Keeper's name...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   I understand that he was following the logic to the point of "Keeper shouldn't keep," and it appears that he disagrees with the line of reasoning (thus the scare quotes), but it doesn't appear to me that that hyperbole speaks to the more realistic problem presented by Backslash Forwardslash in Q8. That's what I don't follow. Dekimasuよ! 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I was just using hyperbole. I always use hyperbole to express my point.  :-) I understand your point (and hesitation) completely Dekimasu. Just couldn't resist throwing a jab in there. Keeper | 76 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   If personal bias determines a sysop's decisions, then yes, there most definitely is a problem; but a user's name does not satisfy the condition "[if] a personal motive may be substantively alleged." —Animum (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Changing from support. I hadn't realised you were this user. No more self-appointed Civility Police, thanks. – iridescent 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   This oppose absolutely appalls me. It's a sad day for Wikipedia when people are opposed for being civil. (X! · talk)  · @505  ·  11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

   As a matter of interest, do you consider youself to have been civil in your own comments above? I ask because I've noticed that those most in favour of the civility policy are the ones who seem to believe that it applies only to other people, not to them. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

   Malleus, are you not in favour of the civility policy? Surely you're not saying you oppose it as a policy?  JGHowes  ^talk 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

   click here---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

3. I have concerns about his level of clue. Specifically, he doesn't appear to understand that criticism is allowed. We have too many admins already who think that being superficially nice is more important than doing what's right. We don't need more of that. Friday (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) PS I specifically mean this diff. If Majorly thinks I'm a poor admin who should step down, he absolutely should say so. This emphasis on never being critical damages the project. Friday (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - very sorry but there are a number of reasons. Lack of awareness of an important issue that is tearing the community apart ('vested contributors' is a pejorative term applied to many content contributors - I have been called that a few times). Apparently thinking that being 'nice' is more important than doing what is right. Sometimes severe criticism is needed. And, no more 'self appointed civility police'. Again, I am sorry about this as you seem a very decent person. Peter Damian (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose I am honestly not convinced, after reviewing this user's contributions and history, that they have the necessary tact and understanding of how Wikipedia policy works (rather than simply what it says) to perform effectively as an admin. I am generally in agreement with several of the other oppose votes above, especially after reading the diff presented by Iridescent. Given how many admin-related issues today involve BLP and other content issues, I would also like to see more content contributions. Orderinchaos 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose due to concerns in the same vein as the those raised above. I've been a bit concerned for a while now about Theo's input to ban/block/unban/unblock discussions that have given me the impression he has a philosophical objection to banning and long term blocking and takes an almost obstructionist position to it without providing any realistic alternative solutions or addressing the rationale for the block or ban in the first place. For example, when we were considering the appeal of Eddie Segoura, the so-called "Exicornt Vandal", Theo advocated unbanning and referred to his ""day job"... provid[ing] counseling for individuals who have been released from prison and who are trying to navigate their way back into society" and advocated unblocking because "he has acknowledged his error," this regardless of the fact that Eddie refused to anser straight forward questions about recent activities and later admitted that he was also still socking. [20] As a qualified but non-practicing minister myself I appreciate Theo's position but I really believe that his attitude that "If [a user] is asking to return to the community, he should be welcomed" is impractical, unrealistic and potentially very disruptive, and having seen Theo participate in other ban/block/ discussions I fear that this is his general approach to Wikipedia. Certainly it is nice to be nice and to welcome back banned users who have reformed and sometimes it works out as a very positive thing (eg Root) but sadly not everyone is suited to this project, just as not everyone is suited to adminship, and to take a position that someone who has asked to return should be welcomed back as though they are a kind ofProdigal Son, regardless of whether they've reformed or not or even show any sign of wanting to reform, is, IMHO, a recipe for disruption. As Peter Damian says above, "apparently thinking that being 'nice' is more important than doing what is right". I also agree with the concerns raised above about civility police, content experience and policy concerns (and not just understanding policy but a willingness to enforce it even when it's not "nice"), all of which appears to me to reflect an attempt to extend ministry to the project in a way that I don't think is helpful. Theo is a very nice fellow and I know that he means well, so I find it difficult to oppose his candidacy but I just don't think this nomination is a good idea. Though I'll be very happy to be proved wrong. Sarah 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose nothing personal, but he's only been editing a little over 7 months, with only about 4k edits. I don't like to be picky about the edit count, but I don't feel he has the experienced enough. I would be willing to reconsider after more edits and more time with the project. As far as neutrality or appropriateness of his behavior; I'm not seeing any major problems. You seem to be a respectable member of the community. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   You have every right to consider that not enough experience, but I am somewhat disappointed that standards are moving in such a directin, considering that just a year ago, we were routinely passing people with that level of experience. NW (Talk) 14:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Say what? Of those four you cite, Xeno had 7800 edits at the time of his RFA, Soxred had 7,000, and Good Olfactory had so many (50,000+) that running the count for his RFA crashed the WannabeKate edit-counter then in use. – iridescent 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I was more referring to the time that they had been here. Anyone can rack up thousands and thousands of edits with (semi-)automated editing tools, but the editors who passed RfA last year had only been there for about 7 months, same as Pastor Theo. NW (Talk) 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hmmm... that's disconcerting. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per lack of well-rounded experience writing articles, maybe down the road apiece...Modernist (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "well-rounded experience"? Grandmasterka 07:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to see more than 2 articles with at least 20 edits...more than one article with more than 25 edits; and IMO more than 6 months experience although it was a busy February for him; seems to me to need seasoning...Modernist (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose, per iridescent. Nakon 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Completely agree with the points made by several above, escpecially Friday, Peter Damien, and Iridescent. There are already too many in positions of authority who see their role as forcing everyone else to be nice to each other. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Moved from Neutral after seeing the "Eddie Segoura" comment cited by Sarah, which causes me to think that this user has less "clue" than I gave him credit for. Less importantly, I'm also bothered by the lack of insight displayed by responses to Q11. Here's most of what I said earlier: I am bothered by what I see as a "holier than thou" judgmental attitude (including making reference to his credentials as a pastor) that I see this user expressing in various places, notably in the comments he made on RfAs for me, Majorly (noted above), Ottava Rima, and Markhurd. I hope I'm over-reacting. Background: This user's name was familiar to me, so I looked to see where we have interacted. I smiled to see the diversity of the topics he's worked on. I see that he has done useful work in areas such as tagging useless new images for speedy deletion. I did see that he had made small contributions to several articles on my watchlist (like White Plains, New York) and I found that I am the one who promoted his first WP:DYK contribution (for a nice little article about a race horse). Then I found his RfA contributions, which are numerous. Most are perfunctory "support" !votes (seldom indicating reasons), but several of the opposes and neutrals strike me as "pulling rank' as a man of the cloth. That's a stance that Wikipedia doesn't need in administrators. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Iri's diff and a few above me. I also think you could do with a username change. I think the overtones are a bit much. Syn 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose per the same comment [21] as the others. Frankly, I would have taken that as a bit of silly humor except that apparently you were serious about it. It doesn't seem to be a one-time misunderstanding, either. So no, we don't need that sort of non-nuanced viewpoint in an administrator who can block other editors. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Opose per the comments above about Theo's unforgiving attitude on civility and excessively forgiving attitude to vandals and disruptive editors. That is completely the wrong way round. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not counsel delinquents or opinionated ignoramuses. If that means telling "Randy from Boise" that his comments and / or edits are stupid, so be it. --Philcha (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    In light of the candidate's answer to Q15, is it really accurate to ascribe his attitude towards incivility as "unforgiving"?  JGHowes  ^talk 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    I don't know... Pastor Theo's comments on my RfA ([22] and [23] strongly suggested that the only appropriate response to behavior such as plagiarism and egregious sockpuppetry is to meekly turn the other cheek, and that to react otherwise is to be unacceptably uncivil. --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose - per Iridescent's diff. Project does not need another member of the Civility Brigade offering condescending self-righteous tsk-tsking during heated debate - especially not one armed with the tools. Hastily throwing cold water on any and every heated debate leaves us with nothing more than lukewarm results. Badger Drink (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose. The tipping balance for me was the two comments to Orlady's RFA, diffs for which were given by Orlady a couple of posts up.gadfium 03:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Sarah and Orlady's diffs put me over the edge. I think the reasons they don't please me are outlined clearly enough above. Since this RfA looks like it will pass, I hope you can learn from your mistakes and take the opposers' advice to heart when making tough decisions and comments as an admin. Timmeh 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per malleus, noting that such a statement may very well bring down a wikipocalypse upon us all. Ironholds (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Weak oppose—Per Malleus and Iridescent. I could be persuaded otherwise, but experience and sensitivity in interpreting WP:CIVIL is important. Tony (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My only encounter with Pastor was at my RFA, where he misinterpreted my comments quite significantly. I did not like the way he tried to draw attention to his false conclusion of events by formatting it in bold. I'd have probably opposed because of this, but it's only one poor act of judgement and some would probably take delight in claiming an oppose was a "revenge" vote. So it's a neutral. Please don't try to talk about things you clearly don't understand, because as in this case, you got it wrong. And it's not fair on an RFA candidate when you're drawing the wrong conclusions and making them stand out so others will draw the wrong conclusion too. The comment "Don't blame Malleus for your bad manners" was particularly insulting, as I did nothing of the sort. Majorly talk 11:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral A generally good and clue-ful contributor, but I am bothered by what I see as a "holier than thou" judgmental attitude (including making reference to his credentials as a pastor) that I see this user expressing in various places, notably in the comments he made on RfAs for me, Majorly (noted above), Ottava Rima, and Markhurd. I hope I'm over-reacting. Background: This user's name was familiar to me, so I looked to see where we have interacted. I smiled to see the diversity of the topics he's worked on. I see that he has done useful work in areas such as tagging useless new images for speedy deletion. I did see that he had made small contributions to several articles on my watchlist (like White Plains, New York) and I found that I am the one who promoted his first WP:DYK contribution (for a nice little article about a race horse). Then I found his RfA contributions, which are numerous. Most are perfunctory "support" !votes (seldom indicating reasons), but several of the opposes and neutrals strike me as "pulling rank' as a man of the cloth. That's a stance that Wikipedia doesn't need in administrators. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Simply put, I have some of the same concerns as the two above me, and I don't feel 100% comfortable giving him the tools. iMatthew ^talk at  14:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral This is a really tough one for me, and the issues raised above, although not convincing enough to oppose over, regretfully prevent me from supporting. It seems you have the best interests of the project in mind, but I am concerned with your judgment as raised by Majorly and Orlady above. Timmeh 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral My only interaction with Pastor Theo was during Majorly's RfA. In it, I became concerned by his interpretation that "berating a long-time contributor" was inappropriate. As well as his oversensitivity to the berating, I was also concerned about the mention of the subject being a "long-term contributor": all editors are equal regardless of longevity. Although Pastor Theo avoided referring to WP:CIVIL, I am concerned about giving this user the ability to block others. However, competence at CSD and XfD attested to by Balloonman, PT's general cluefullness (which I think is demonstrated by his careful handling of religious articles to rule out suggestions of a conflict of interest), and his response to question one where he states his intention to work in areas of deletion rather than blocking means I do not think this a reason to oppose on its own. Despite this, I do not support giving the ability to block to someone apparently so sensitive. Since PT has apparently not been in any stressful run-ins with other users I cannot be certain how he would handle the situation were it to arise (and active admins do have to deal with a lot of abuse). Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Wanting to support, but reluctantly having to be neutral I really want to say support; I do. But the concerns raised in the other Neutral votes cause me to have doubts. I partly think that my doubts are biased - I've had no real interaction with Pastor Theo. Whether that increases or decreases the bias in my vote, I am not sure. I just know that I feel a little uncomfortable saying that I support, but that I would be being way too harsh in a vote of oppose. So in the end, here's my vote. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral - most of the above doesn't bother me, but three of those actions I am uncomfortable with: "long-time contributor" is irrelevant in that situation and it worries me that this user is of a "seniority" mindset which is at odds with the Wikipedia community (in theory, anyway); "...Matthew 7:3-5 -- I think some people in the Oppose and Neutral sections need to look that one up." is pretty at odds with the candidate's above statement that he's not going to "set up the revival tent and [start] preaching." (pointing to Bible verses sounds pretty preachy to me); and the public domain stamp dispute just looks like stubbornness to me, the onus was on the candidate and that he never listened to this but continuously tried to put it on the other editor shows poor judgment in that instance. These are all minor mistakes, and I can't think of any editor who has had a better first 6 months (including me), but they're too recent for me to support. Success in this RfA looks likely right now, so I just ask that the candidate takes the oppose(s) and neutrals to heart. I encourage the candidate's response to my comments if he wishes, and won't consider it badgering. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hello, Kotra. Since I am invited to respond, I will point out that my reference to Matthew came after previous comments in Ottava's RfA that brought up references to Catholicism and Martin Luther. Since the talk had already drifted into that subject matter, I saw no harm in joining in -- a review of the RfA shows I didn't introduce religion to the debate, and the full sentence (which is not quoted here and referred to the earlier talk) begins: "And I'm sure a good choir boy like OR will recall..." I've already addressed the stamp issue, which I acknowledge was my clumsy attempt to secure elusive confirmation of Vatican copyright laws regarding the reproduction of philatelic imagery. "Long-time contributor" is just my old-fashioned notion of speaking respectfully to someone with a positive track record. And, yes, I take all comments, both positive and negative, to heart. It would be rude to ignore concerns, especially when these concerns are stated in a sincere and intelligent manner. Thank you for sharing your observations. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your clarifications, which were requested and should not be interpreted by others as badgering (probably an unnecessary disclaimer, but you never know!). Concerning the Matthew reference, I see the full context makes it better than if it were just a random statement, but I still feel that it it sounds preachy in the way it was directed to (unnamed) other editors, of whom there were probably some who do not even subscribe to the Bible (I could have been one of those had I participated there). As a possibly comparable example, consider if a Satanist quoted some behavioral advice from The Satanic Bible (at Talk:The Satanic Bible perhaps, for a similar level of context), saying you need to read it. Perhaps not quite the same, since you were vaguer in who you directed your comment to, but you may get the idea. Concerning the stamp issue, if that was your intention, I agree that it was a clumsy (and antagonistic, in my view) way to do it. I wonder if it would have gone better to simply ask them for help researching it. Concerning the "long-time contributor" thing, you may be right to have that old-fashioned notion, but I think the general view on Wikipedia is that we (try to) apply respect equally to everyone. Ideally, nobody would be berated, neither those with positive track records nor those without. Again, feel free to respond if you like, but if this goes on much longer it may be better to take it to the talk page. -kotra (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

6. I almost want to oppose this RfA as I have several issues which other users have pointed out. I have never seen the diff Iridescent has presented before, but it's particularly concerning. I do, however, feel that you have made good contributions to this project and haven't been uncivil if we ignore the aforementioned diff, and those two qualities are the ones I tend to oppose on most. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. I don't know if a neutral vote is much use to anyone, but I have one anyway. I know Pastor Theo from their AfD work, which I appreciate greatly, and where I found them to be reasonable and well aware of the guidelines, though I find myself a bit less liberal with them than I would be. However, I feel that some 4,000 edits is not a lot, and I want a bit more writing experience from my administrators. But no prejudice against future nomination! (That was my obligatory redundant remark.) Regardless of how this goes, good luck Pastor. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)