Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo

Username: Pastor Theo User groups: rollbacker First edit: Jan 17, 2009 19:39:42 Unique articles edited: 2,619 Average edits per page: 1.87 Total edits (including deleted): 4,889 Deleted edits: 618 Live edits: 4,271 Namespace totals Article	1412	33.06% Talk	731	17.12% User	74	1.73% User talk	669	15.66% Wikipedia	1240	29.03% Wikipedia talk	13	0.30% File	118	2.76% Template	7	0.16% Template talk	6	0.14% Category	1	0.02% Graph Month counts 2009/01	402	2009/02	1038	2009/03	731	2009/04	680	2009/05	668	2009/06	708	2009/07	44	Logs Pages patrolled: 733 Files uploaded: 122 Top edited articles Article

* 107 - List_of_people_on_stamps_of_the_United_States * 22 - Pope_John_Paul_II * 14 - Woonsocket,_Rhode_Island * 11 - Kingsbridge,_Bronx * 9 - Bronx_Community_College * 8 - Ghosts_of_Gettysburg * 8 - Religion_Communicators_Council * 8 - Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Monaco * 8 - Ady_Stern * 7 - Portrayals_of_God_in_popular_media

Talk

* 4 - Fourth_Universalist_Society_of_New_York * 3 - It's_a_Mad,_Mad,_Mad,_Mad_World * 3 - St._Gabriel's_Roman_Catholic_Church_(Bronx,_New_Yo...   * 3 - Eastern_Construction_Company    * 2 - Museum_of_Work_and_Culture    * 2 - Religion_Communicators_Council    * 2 - Golden_Boy_(song)    * 2 - Institut_de_N'Djili    * 2 - Ivan_Mihailov_(boxer)    * 2 - Champlain_Valley_Unitarian_Universalist_Society

User

* 69 - Pastor_Theo * 3 - Pastor_Theo/Archive_1 * 1 - Synergy/Durova * 1 - A_Nobody/RfA

User talk

* 101 - Pastor_Theo * 7 - Balloonman * 5 - Immortalkid09 * 5 - 7jbecker * 3 - FlyingToaster * 3 - Keegan * 3 - A_Nobody * 3 - JDiffo * 3 - The_ed17 * 3 - Cadaid

Wikipedia

* 73 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention * 16 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 14 - Reference_desk/Humanities * 8 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_4 * 8 - Requests_for_adminship/Cyclonenim_3 * 8 - Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Hupp * 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_1 * 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Derrick * 5 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_11 * 5 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_15

Wikipedia talk

* 6 - Requests_for_adminship * 2 - Deceased_Wikipedians/Proposal_to_establish_practic... * 1 - WikiProject_Zoroastrianism * 1 - Meetup/Connecticut * 1 - Articles_for_creation/The_Steamship_Historical_Soc... * 1 - WikiProject_Christianity/Members * 1 - WikiProject_Soap_Operas

File

* 2 - YogiBearThreeStooges.jpg * 2 - Blackwell.gif * 2 - SamRayburn1962.jpg * 2 - Alice_Paul_stamp.gif * 2 - CarverStamp.jpg * 2 - WillaCatherStamp.jpg * 2 - HenryOTanner.jpg * 2 - CopernicusStamp.jpg * 2 - FlowerPotMenSanFrancisco.jpg * 1 - 0SBAnthony.jpg

Template

* 4 - Postalhistorybycountry * 2 - Abbott_and_Costello * 1 - Bronx

Template talk

* 6 - Did_you_know

Category

* 1 - Horse_racing_venues_in_Hungary

Deleted contributions
I have looked through Pastor Theo's deleted contributions for the last month:


 * 25 June: Caneurism Converting invalid A7 to PROD. ✅
 * 19 June: Nneka Kassandra Judicious PROD. ✅
 * 15 June: Dig a Hole (tagged A1) Leaning towards G2 for this, but it's not clear cut. Symbol question.svg
 * 6 June: Good Samaritan Catholic College (tagged A1) This is a clear G10 IMHO. The title of the article should also be taken into consideration.
 * 2 June: Sangamon star (tagged A1) There's more than enough context here. It's a (hilarious) newspaper (that packs a hilarious punch).

In the last month, Pastor Theo has done a lot of good work, including many, many good A7's, PRODs and AfD. He also makes good use of G10. My only suggestion would be to use a more descriptive edit summary than simply "A7", but that's just my personal preference. ✅ decltype (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Give the boy a new tool and within days he's using it to evaluate potential candidates ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbols updated per request :) decltype (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My take, the Good Samaritan Catholic College is fine tagged as an A1 or G10. The entire content was "I hope Ms. XXX gets hit by a bus." G3 is even an option here, but while G10 might be the best option, it is not the only one. A1 works because while we might be able to deduce that Ms XXX works for the school we don't really know. The article doesn't give us enough context to know anything about the school. As for the Sagamon Star, yes, I agree, A1 was not correct. There is more than enough information to identify it, but it was clearly pure spam right down to asking for you to visit the sight and pay $10 to advertise with it. Thus, while the reason was wrong, the article was still a CSD candidate. While getting it right is important and a consistent issues would be enough to get me to oppose, a few items that are mistagged (but still CSD deletable) won't stop me from supporting.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me neither, the overall impression was very good, and certainly no reason to oppose (for me, at least). I looked at many more, and these were the "worst" I could find. decltype (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving per: This is the civility police... Get a room!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall's support and subsequent discussion

 * 1) 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)
 * Are you equally bewildered by the "highly trivial nature" of many of the supporters? I somehow doubt it. Does "Of course" strike you as a particularly good rationale for supporting? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't badger the supporters, please.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  07:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea for you to ponder on. Why don't you mind your own business and butt out of what you don't understand? --Malleus Fatuorum 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Charming.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  11:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with discussion in this section, but MF, as much as you despise me, and as much as I actually like you, you know better than to carry on a discussion with 'butt out' and demeaning others. You have quite a firm grasp on the English language, and I would suggest you put it to good use. Law type!  snype? 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The one-sided nature of your comment does you no credit, as neither does Marshall's childish response below to him. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no nature to my comment, only a comment. As far as being one-sided, it absolutely was - it was my side. I also could not, nor would ever be able to anticipate a future comment by any other editor who is opining below. Credit is no good Malleus, as anyone who follows this economy should know. Law type!  snype? 13:06, 6 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)
 * And now that Malleus Fatuorum has insulted me again, I'll add that I can see why he would want to oppose a candidate who he thinks would enforce WP:CIVIL. I take this little discussion as showing that, contrary to Iridescent et. al., Wikipedia does most certainly need admins who will foster a collegial editing environment.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you're capable of seeing what's staring you in the face, much less understanding it. Are we going to DEFCON 2 now, with a strongest possible support. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to continue insulting me until you get the last word?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell. It's difficult to know what you'll choose to consider "insulting". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Belittling my intelligence is likely to do it. Fact is, Malleus Fatuorum, I understand your objections to Pastor Theo, but I'm disregarding them because as far as I can see, they amount to "this guy is worried about civility" (so what?), "this guy is opposed to long-term blocks and bans" (good, because any idiot could get around either; making Wikipedia work requires more intelligent answers), plus you're worried about his ability to judge the weight of an argument (which just means he's made calls you disagree with). None of that amounts to a good reason for you to make this amount of drama on an RFA.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And hence I take exception to your belittling comment about "the highly trivial nature of the opposes". I'm not insulted by your remark though, I just consider it typical of the civility police's belief that it's only others who are required to be civil, not them. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who knows me will tell you, I'm pretty far from "the civility police", Malleus Fatuorum. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)