Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SoWhy

Edit count for SoWhy
User:SoWhy

run at Wed Sep 24 18:51:00 2008 GMT

Category talk:        1 Category:             5 Image talk:           1 Image:                151 Mainspace             4951 MediaWiki talk:       1 Portal:               2 Talk:                 661 Template talk:        9 Template:             39 User talk:            930 User:                 182 Wikipedia talk:       145 Wikipedia:            603 avg edits per page    1.70 earliest              20:01, 25 March 2004 number of unique pages 4520 total                 7681

2004/3 7   2004/4  1   2004/5  0   2004/6  0   2004/7  0   2004/8  10   2004/9  30   2004/10 0   2004/11 0   2004/12 9   2005/1  1   2005/2  0   2005/3  4   2005/4  13   2005/5  15   2005/6  14   2005/7  1   2005/8  0   2005/9  0   2005/10 0   2005/11 5   2005/12 9   2006/1  107   2006/2  87   2006/3  37   2006/4  29   2006/5  30   2006/6  20   2006/7  36   2006/8  118   2006/9  72   2006/10 55   2006/11 27   2006/12 50   2007/1  69   2007/2  95   2007/3  40   2007/4  209   2007/5  89   2007/6  47   2007/7  48   2007/8  47   2007/9  49   2007/10 93   2007/11 80   2007/12 71   2008/1  91   2008/2  50   2008/3  78   2008/4  79   2008/5  150   2008/6  269   2008/7  2526   2008/8  1544   2008/9  1170

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 144 [2]List of NCIS episodes 48 [3]Italy national football team 37 [4]List of Stargate SG-1 episodes 36 [5]NCIS (TV series) 33 [6]The Next Doctor 32 [7]Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 24 [8]The Boy with No Name 24 [9]The Stolen Earth 23 [10]Amy Macdonald (singer) 22 [11]Tenth Doctor 22 [12]List of NCIS characters 20 [13]Grand Theft Auto IV   20  [14]Travis (band) 15 [15]Torchwood 14 [16]Indiana Gregg

Talk: 36 [17]The Stolen Earth 35 [18]List of Stargate SG-1 episodes 28 [19]List of NCIS episodes 27 [20]Grand Theft Auto IV  26 [21]Turn Left (Doctor Who) 19 [22]Journey's End (Doctor Who) 16 [23]Indiana Gregg 15 [24]The Next Doctor 12 [25]Of Montreal 10 [26]Google Chrome 9 [27]Jenny (Doctor Who) 8 [28]Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time 8 [29]Midnight (Doctor Who) 7 [30]Sam Vimes 7 [31]Tenth Doctor

Category: 2 [32]NCIS episodes 2 [33]Atheist Wikipedians

Image: 4 [34]Sam & Max - Situation Comedy.jpg 4 [35]NCIS-HollisMann.jpg 3 [36]NCIS-04x09.jpg 3 [37]Sam & Max - The Mole, the Mob and the Meatball.jpg 3 [38]Heroes - S02E11 - Powerless.jpg 3 [39]NolovelostEnhanced.jpg 2 [40]Sam & Max - Reality 2.0.jpg 2 [41]Tinytoons.jpg 2 [42]NCIS-04x20.jpg 2 [43]NCIS-04x12.jpg 2 [44]NCIS-04x14.jpg 2 [45]NCIS-04x16.jpg 2 [46]NCIS-04x18.jpg 2 [47]Sga-s03e05-0.jpg 2 [48]Heroes s01e20.jpg

Portal: 2 [49]Stargate/Things you can do

Template: 7 [50]NCIS television 3 [51]WikiProject Doctor Who 2 [52]Infobox Stargate character 2 [53]Tb 2 [54]Discworld books 2 [55]Snow Patrol

Template talk: 3 [56]Antisemitism 2 [57]Infobox Musical artist

User: 81 [58]SoWhy 14 [59]SoWhy/monobook.js  11 [60]Synergy/Non serviam 9 [61]SoWhy/Talkheader 8 [62]SoWhy/header 7 [63]GlassCobra/Editor for deletion 4 [64]SoWhy/UBX/Teapot 3 [65]SoWhy/RfA review Recommend Phase 3 [66]SoWhy/huggle.css 3 [67]SoWhy/UBX/Windowsforgames 2 [68]Leahtwosaints 2 [69]Afarila 2 [70]ComputerGuy890100 2 [71]SoWhy/Talkheader/Archivebox 2 [72]Maedin

User talk: 116 [73]SoWhy 72 [74]SoWhy/Archive 1 39 [75]Maedin 37 [76]SoWhy/Archive 2 10 [77]Xenocidic 7  [78]MER-C/archives/23 6  [79]Wikieditor2008 6  [80]Gb 6  [81]Therearenospoons 6  [82]My Account 6  [83]Nixeagle 6  [84]Edokter 5  [85]Paradoxes 5  [86]AndreaMimi 5  [87]Fasach Nua

Wikipedia: 91 [88]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 53 [89]Village pump (proposals) 48 [90]Administrator intervention against vandalism 27 [91]Administrators' noticeboard 25 [92]Requests for page protection 13 [93]Huggle/Whitelist 11 [94]Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6 9 [95]Huggle/Feedback 7 [96]WikiProject Doctor Who 6 [97]WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode table 6 [98]Bot requests 6 [99]Requests for adminship/Okiefromokla 6 [100]Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8 5 [101]Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 2 5 [102]Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2

Wikipedia talk: 55 [103]Requests for adminship 23 [104]WikiProject Doctor Who 14 [105]WikiProject Stargate 5 [106]Blocking policy 5 [107]WikiProject Albums 4 [108]WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 19 4 [109]Featured list criteria/Archive 1 3 [110]Requests for page protection 3 [111]Requests for adminship/Cirt 3 [112]Naming conventions 3 [113]WikiProject Doctor Who/Assessment 3 [114]List of administrator hopefuls 3 [115]Verifiability 2 [116]Requests for adminship/JamieS93 2 [117]WikiProject Discworld

If there were any problems, please [118]email Interiot or post at  [119]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

WMF and non-discrimination
I have begun a thread on ANI related this, here under the existing review of Andrew Kelly, and whether opposing someone in such a community fashion for not being a Christian (or the other way around) violates any kind of applicable non-discrimination laws or WMF policies. rootology ( C )( T ) 12:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What, do you expect the cops to come and arrest me? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions pruned from main RFA
As a neutral party requested to review the RFA, I have pruned some particularly off-topic or inflammatory discussions from the RFA discussion, and moved them below. fish &amp;karate 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From Andrew Kelly's oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose: This user will just be one more anti-Christian admin. Wikipedia has enough of those.  The userbox mentioned above goes way too far.  It is a personal attack and just plain wrong. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that this user is biased? A user box is just an adornment and nothing else. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (editconflict) I have a very strong POV on certain issues, capital punishment for one. But I challenge you to go through my edits and see what side of the fence I fall on. You should not be able to, if I have been editing neutrally. The same applies, probably even more so for SoWhy; his edits always seem to reflect a careful thought-out neutrally-worded response. You have no evidence that this user will be anything but neutral to religious people. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  22:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew Kelly, just to let you know, your userboxes are offensive to people as well. A userbox on his personal page is meaningless. It's only a problem if he starts putting his opinions into articles. -- how do you turn this on  22:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Scary Mary, I can see where this is going. Short of a swastika, or crazy anti-science sentiment, I can't think of any opinion that should stop someone becoming an admin. Let's draw the curtain and let the drama feast cool folks. — Realist  2  22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Crazy anti-science statement? Like AK's "This user believes Evolution is a false theory" userbox? Erik the Red  2    01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if someone said "I hate Wikipedia" on their userpage, I'd be very inclined to vote oppose :-) -- how do you turn this on  00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the enemy with the nuclear button isn't good. — Realist  2  00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew Kelly, I'm guessing the reasoning for your oppose is fear that, with the tools, he'll make anti-christian or biased edits. Things to remember: Firstly, on wikipedia anything is reversible; if he makes blatantly biased edits, they can be reverted and he can have his 'hammer taken away. Secondly, people are quite capable of simply walking away from topics where their neutrality could be called into question. Ironholds 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, anything on Wikipedia is reversible, but that does not mean that it will be reversed. If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them.  And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins.  Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with.  I will not change my vote. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to wipe my screen, are you for real? — Realist  2  01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am "for real." What makes me sound unbelievable? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your adherence to organised religion, for a start George The Dragon (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming its the "most admins are atheists" statement; have you encountered "most admins"? I'd charge that your accusations of possible bias due to SoWhy's religious feelings are in turn biased by your own. May I suggest we move this to the talk page? I'm wearing out the colon/semicolon key. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew, just read your paragraph back to yourself slowly. Wikipedia just doesn't work like that. — Realist  2  01:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * George The Dragon, that is a personal attack. I guess you hypocrites feel no need to follow the same rules that you shove in everyone else's face. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This from a Christian admin: your comment was beyond ironic. — kur  ykh   01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets calm this the heck down and keep away from personal attacks. I'm going to move this to the talk page so any dramah doesnt infect the rest of the RfA. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Outdent can everyone calm the frick down? Regardless of your feelings on the legitimacy of AK's oppose, criticising his religious choices is not the way to go. People are entitled to vote whichever way they want on RfA's, and its up to the closing crats to ignore any opposes or supports they feel are particularly mindless. I understand where AK is coming from, despite having a difference of opinion; while everyone has biases, the issue with those being known biases is that it makes any decisions they make with the tools in relation to say, a church article, automatically suspect. Having said this, I trust anyone with the maturity to gain the tools has the maturity to stay away from topics they might be biased about. AK: I support your right to oppose for whatever reason, but claiming that most admins are atheists, and in addition that this automatically means they're anti-christian, is ridiculous. I deeply apologise for any comments mocking your religious choice rather than discussing the point at hand; if anything these "defenders of the faith" as it were (pardon any possible joke) are playing right to your point.<b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 01:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it was AK who criticized SoWhy's views first. Any oppose based on a fricking userbox is illegitimate and should be stricken and indented immediately. This is beyond ridiculous. RfA is broken because people oppose people who disagree with them and vote based on personal views rather than the editing of the candidate. This is the second RfA I've seen soiled by petty editors who decide that anyone who doesn't believe in their god is unfit to administrate a website. And it's Wikipedia that's biased against Christians? Let me say this, once and for all: Wikipedia is not the next battleground for anyone's war against the infidels. Please take your fire and brimstone off of RfA. Erik the Red  2    02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While the userbox is inflammatory (which is obvious, judging by the reaction of some above) I think that we need to examine this RfA not as judges of religious leanings but as judges of trust. The true question we must ask is whether or not we can trust SoWhy with the Sysop tools, as religion will play little or no role in administrative tasks. Look at this RfA as what it is: an RfA. The user's contributions speak louder than the text of their userboxes. Cheers, ( ar  ky  ) 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But remember, we cannot bring down the wrath of god upon Wikipedia by appointing an atheist admin, can we now? RfA, after all, was created biased and cannot evolve into anything better. Erik the Red  2    02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this clear one final time to all users involved; you do not enhance your own point by making snide, sarcastic comments. It doesn't in any way contribute to the discussion at hand, it just plays into AK's hands. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 02:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, seriously, could somebody archive this already? What possible good could come out of this thread? Neither side is going to change the other's opinion, and neither side has the authority to strike votes/discount opinions.-- Koji Dude  (C) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only thing that could come from this discussion is more drama. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. I think Ironholds' summary is quite correct and there is not much more to say about it. I am sorry, when an user box makes feel people uneasy, but it's the same with any userbox after all. They serve to inform people of my philosophical, political and other interests and characteristics. If I were really trying to push any agenda, I would not advertise it. Fortunately, I am not trying to do so. Actually, I almost never work on articles in that field, because I know that people might think I'm biased. So let's just rest this discussion and move on to other things. There is plenty to do afterall :-) Regards  So Why  07:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's be sensible and figure this out properly. I'll start by putting forward my perspective. I think that a personal attack is a statement deliberately intended to offend another (particular) person, without any other useful merit. For example, the statement "Your adherence to organised religion, for a start" was a personal attack. Making a general statement about a large class of people does have the same effect. If I hypothetically said "All Christians are idiots", then I would still be making a personal attack, because it's not a useful statement, and it's not a helpful statement. However, if I said that I believed that religion had overall been a negative influence on the world, then that's not a personal attack. It's commenting on the content of somebody's beliefs, rather than on the people themselves. So even though a Christian might disagree, or even be somewhat offended by the statement, the Christian must realise that it is no different than a Christian saying (for example) that they thought that laissez-faire capitalism has had a negative impact on the world (something that many people "believe in" in the same sense as they believe in religion – a belief that it works, and that it's the "right" way to live). Certainly, you can argue 'till the cows come home that religion is closer to people's hearts than laissez-faire capitalism. However, the point is that both are outside the domain of commenting unhelpfully on a contributor, and are in the domain of commenting on an idea. After all, an idea can't be offended in any meaningful and relevant sense of the world. Therefore, I don't see it as eminently sensible to harass the candidate about his use of this userbox. He's expressing an opinion, and not an unreasonable one, and not an offensive or attacking one. I'm going to address a second point that Kelly has touched on here. You wrote: "If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins.  Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with." I'm somewhat puzzled by this statement. Are you seriously suggesting that there is a cabal of atheist administrators who go out of their way to get Christian users blocked? There is a common saying used in these circumstances, "put up, or shut up." I will not resort to such rudeness, but I would like to respectfully ask you to find some hard evidence, including examples (you mentioned that you'd seen it happen) of an administrator clearly blocking or declining to unblock because of their religious opinions. I should note that this is now beyond the realm of legitimate (although, I believe, mistaken) offense at a userbox, and into speculation on the motives of the candidate. Please, assume good faith. There is no reason to believe that your assertion is correct, other than evidence of a general feeling (similar to mine) that religion is a poor influence on the world (and let's face it, this argument is a good example of this principle at work). We do trust our administrators not to let personal feelings get in the way of administrative action, and holding an opinion on the beliefs of a particular group is not sufficient evidence to justify a withdrawal of this trust. I should also note that, if we don't want anti-Christian administrators, we should also not have anti-nonchristian administrators. Are you suggesting that a Christian who dislikes irreligion is better-suited for the position? If not, could you explain the difference? I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter. I would like to see some sensible dialogue on the place of these sorts of userboxes. Additionally, if you've determined that some administrators have been making inappropriate blocks based on religion, then it would be prudent for the matter to be examined further, and perhaps some sanctions applied. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  07:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not at all suggesting that some administrators have formed a group of cronies and are out to block all the Christians they can. I am simply stating the fact that many administrators are non-Christians.  This I have discovered simply by reading the user pages of many admins.
 * Regarding the userbox: By insulting religion, he indirectly insults the followers of religion as well. Maybe it isn’t a personal attack per se, but an attack on a large group of people is just as bad.  In fact, one would think that attacking a large group of people would be worse than only attacking one person.
 * As far as hard evidence goes, I have not written down the names of users that I have seen blocked or told off by administrators so I do not have a list handy. But I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it, so I will let that argument fall by the wayside and I hope you will too.  But, as I have stated on my talk page already, I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website.  The userbox told me, in no unclear terms, that the user in question is a non-Christian.  Therefore I opposed.
 * --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrew, I think it's a shame you use sectarian criteria and personal sensitivities to determine whether an editor is suitable for Adminship rather than considering the totality of his or her contributions and conduct on the 'pedia to come to a conclusion. Nevertheless that's your right and I, for one, respect it. That said I hope the closing Bureaucrat discounts your !vote when considering whether or not SoWhy should be promoted. Be well, X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You respect my vote but hope it isn’t counted? Perhaps you need to brush up on your definition of respect.  Would you like to take your foot out of your mouth and try again? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies Andrew, I've not expressed myself as clearly as I would have wished. I respect your right to express your view on these matters. That said I think your view on what should render an editor suitable for Adminship is flawed and contrary to the interests of the 'pedia. I'm also disappointed that you've allowed your personal sensitivities over something as trivial as a userbox to intrude into your deliberations, nevertheless I hold that too to be your right. In light of those things I hope the closing 'crat gives your !vote the weight it deserves. Best wishes, X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? I've only just come to this page and read, essentially, a whole bunch of arguments with no reasonable logic behind them (except Werdna's and Ironhold's comments). "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" is not an attack of any sort since it makes no comment and any one individual or groups of religious people. It's just this users particular opinion and is no more offensive than a Christian saying "I think the world is empty without God" or similar statements. Before I get accused of being biased, I'm a Christian as stated on my user page, so it's clear I'm not biased in this view. Heck, maybe one day I can actually pass an RfA since I've proved I can be neutral? ;) Secondly, if anyone has an issue with a userbox, take it up at the userbox talk page. If it exists on Wikipedia and has not been deleted for being offensive, then you cannot deny a user of administrative tools just for using it! Finally, Andrew Kelly, you mentioned above that we're "hypocrites". That's interesting, coming from someone with "This user is pro-life", "This user believes that life begins at conception" and "This user believes that evolution is a false theory and that Creation is right" posted on his talk page. Do you not realise that those statements could be sincerely offensive to other users, too? Please, learn a basic principle on Wikipedia: Do not get involved in things where you cannot act neutrally. Until you prove SoWhy has acted in a manner contrary to that statement, you have no real basis to oppose which means it's unlikely to be counted by the 'crats. Someone archive this, I doubt there is much more to say. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Andrew Kelly: I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website That's an appalling thing to believe and an unbelievable thing to have put into the public domain. That's blatant prejudice. You demean the hundreds and hundreds of hardworking Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and yes atheist/agnostic admins on this Project. You demean yourself. And worse, you demean your own religion. I'm appalled. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing good is going to come out of this, everyone should just drop it in my opinion. RFA's in general have seen too much drama here recently. The closing crat will give Andrew's oppose the weight it deserves. Everyone needs to just move on, try some article editing maybe :). This discussion has no potential whatsoever to benefit the encyclopedia. Landon1980 (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - These comments are appalling, quite outrageous actually. — Realist  2  14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a conversation. As a Christian admin, let me just say that if confronted with a request for unblocking, I do not take the user's religion (or lack thereof) into account. It is completely unrelated and should have no effect on the decision to block or unblock. Useight (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion here is misplaced. I understand the opposers' concerns that they think they are being attacked and thus think they should defend themselves. But if the userbox itself is, in their point of view, offensive, wouldn't a nomination at WP:MFD solve the problem? Because based on that, all users using it are attacking all religious editors and thus the problem ought to be discussed at its source. Or you could propose a new guideline that all admins (or all users) are forbidden to use userboxes that are only expressing the opposition to a certain idea/concept. I am not for this (as I think that opposing a concept does not mean opposing it's advocates) but if you really think there is a problem with such userboxes, then opposing this RfA will not solve it. It needs a larger discussion and I would be happy to participate in such a discussion. Regards  So Why  14:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer project; you choose to spend your time making this encyclopedia, and you are at fault for expressing your opinion via a userbox? I think not, and thus I don't see any reason whatsoever for you to have to remove it. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because we used to have an admin who went Sideways (literately; the origin of this phrase is from Userbox Wars) with the mop and caused an uproar with the Christian Userbox back in the peak of the Userbox Wars in 2006 does not prove or mean that any subsequent admin who is an atheist would do just the same or abuse any similiar admin action in such a fashion. Ironically, by starting this question we might be sparking off the next Userbox Wars, with devastating consequences on the processes and the project. Be careful what you ask for, because you might get it and it will set back RfA and XfD (perhaps, even RfB, remember the 6-month dry spell?) back processes back by another 2 years and render any RfA Review reforms that we badly need useless. Ask any other Userbox Wars survivor and they'll understand what I mean fully. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From Realist2's support

 * Does that first part really serve any purpose, or is it just supposed to be a kick in the crotch?-- Koji Dude  (C) 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A kick in the crotch, I’d say. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a lapse of AGF on your part, oh wait...— Realist  2  03:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * “Assuming good faith” has its place in the world, but not when someone calls your beliefs a “bizarre conspiracy theory.” You can’t assume that every comment is made in good faith.  That would be ridiculous.  And, by the way, I notice that you did not assume that my comment was made in good faith.  Thank you for revealing your hypocrisy for the world to see. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - Your words Andrew, not mine. — Realist  2  14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really you two, keep this on the talk page. You're both taking this way out of hand. DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  22:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Realist: What is exactly is your point? Typically when someone quotes another person, they offer some kind of explanation as to why.  Were you just trying to prove that you know how to copy and paste? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimmi Hugh's recanted support

 * Strong Support Because his Contributions are positive enough for me to make this WP:POINT without neccesitating the rise of a bad admin, but more importantly because his own personal opinion pissed off a load of idiots (that's my opinion, zomg don't argue with me, it's like the law and stuff that I can say whatever I want without rebuttal) and it's fun to see them make asses of themselves with contradictory Freedom of Speech comments, while sitting back and laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky who supports senseless murder of people with differing opinions. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimmi, that wasn't necessary. Oh yeah, you don't have unrestrained freedom of speech on Wikipeida. Erik the Red  2    21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it wasn't necessary for this user to have any negative comments concerning his User Boxes, given his positive contribution history and the fact he's never shown bias (that i could see) todo with religion on actual topics. Also, Vandalism isn't freedom of speech as long as you're still allowed to express those opinions, that was my point, shame you support ignoring the rules for the masses of drone religious idiots but not for the one supporter who takes it all lightly :) - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One, who said anything about a god who supports the senseless murder of people with opposing opinions? Pardon me, but it is the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder.  Maybe you haven’t noticed, but it is the Christian community that is opposed to murder.  And two, if I called you an idiot, you would be crying “personal attack!”  But you call us “religious idiots” and get away with it.  And then you wonder why I think Wikipedia is biased. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope your blocked soon. — Realist  2  03:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A little incivil there aren't we, Realist2? DiverseMentality  (Discuss it)  04:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably so. Though I don't believe I support murder and I don't believe I will burn in hell. Apparently those sorts of general proclamations are not incivil, yet my comment was. Oh well, time for a break me feels. — Realist  2  04:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't beat yourself up. "abortion loving atheists" is about the most hateful overgeneralisation I've seen in quite some time, and I fully agree it merits a quick and silent ban. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 11:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was not any more a generalization than the comment which I was responding to, the one that said that religious people are all in favor of senselessly killing those who do not agree with them. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually (and consider yourself honored, i wasn't going to respond until I got a nasty hypocritical message on my Talk Page), I said that your God "supports senseless murder of people with differing opinions". I've yet to see a religious text that doesn't include that in one area in on form or another. I wouldn't generalise about religious people, because I'm not an irrational creep. I know many religious people who don't support senseless murder, and I wouldn't come here and insult them. However, religions do my nature have standard opinions that the practitioners of thos faiths abide by, or at least group themselves with. Atheism on the other hand, is a label you force on us because we don't need to have some central order telling us what to believe, so some people support abortions, others don't, and despite how rude I have been, I'm sickened that comments like that which you have made about millions of real people is considered acceptable, while mine about an imaginary figure in a series of books (who does infact support as I said in those books and as acted out by his Pope) is apparently highly insulting. - 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me one place in the New Testament where God says He loves murder. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From Keepcases's oppose

 * No one wins here, really. Freedom of speech allows users to place, within reason, any opinions they have on their user page. In the same way, people here can oppose for whatever reason they wish. I disagree with this oppose, especially because of the whole 'Wikipedia is not censored' policy which lets users to post these views, but that doesn't make this oppose less valid. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wore my swastika t-shirt to my job interview at the deli the other day. I just can't understand why I didn't get the job!  I was so much more experienced than the other candidates...the fact that I believe (and advertise) that the world would be better off without Jews is irrelevant. Keepscases (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [added here after the fact to prevent confusion that would ensue if I placed this elsewhere] For the record, I find this incredibly offensive. To compare someone with a "the world would be a better place without religion" userbox to the Nazis is not only illogical, but demeaning to the six million of my people who were killed by the Nazis...  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepscases, have you ever heard of Godwin's law and the its corollaries?--Nate1481 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing religious intolerance, and the swastika is a relevant, well-known example of that. Remember, saying the world would be better off without ALL religions, means that the world would be better off without EACH religion.  Meaning the world would be better off without Judaism, the world would be better off without Christianity, etc.  In case I have to spell it out, my example is meant to show that the "only his CONTRIBUTIONS should matter" argument is absurd.  Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but I will never vote for a candidate who thinks it is a good idea to display such a divisive, potentially offensive userbox.  Keepscases (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually he is expressing an opinion, that is not intolerance, forcing that opinion on others is intolerance, it is a reference to religion its self not the believers and does not advocate genocide or mass murder as you have implied. Also saying that dose not make the user an atheist. More critically, the holocaust was more to do with ethnicity than religion as plenty of non-practising Jews were caught in it.
 * You are just as entitled to your opinion as he is, my comment was on as comparison that was designed to prejudice other opinions. --Nate1481 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean Free speech? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, second, third forth etc. There is no right to free speech, sure the community in general tolerates reasonable speech, but it isn't a right. Similarly WP:NOTCENSORED is based around article content, it isn't an invite for a free for all. See also WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and probably numerous others. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This'll be the last post I do here in fear of clogging up the page, however, felt like I should reply. WP:NOTSOAPBOX is also based around article content. WP:NOT is based around self-promotion, I see none of that here. WP:NOTANARCHY states "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia", where is SoWhy interfering with the creation of an encyclopaedia? WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND is against personal attacks, conflicts of interest and acts against incivilty. Again, I see none of that.
 * Basically, I don't think it's fit to class his opinion on the world being a better place without religion as a "free for all". —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess my point wasn't clear, it wasn't if it directly fits any of those, it's about if we have free speech and are uncensored in relation to our activities here, we don't and are not. As I already noted the community tolerates a reasonable amount of free expression. As to if such statements are within the level of reasonableness is of course a personal opinion, if someone wishes to object to it and feels strongly enough that if influences their opinion on that person, then that is fine. Essentially I read the response as saying that because wikipedia is not censored and a free speech makes such things permissible and therefore the objection unfounded, which as above is not the case. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm.. I smell Godwin's Law. We're talking about very distinct situations here. I personally agree with the candidate – the world would be a much nicer and happier place without religion. That does not mean that I believe in making it a happier and nicer place by killing all of the religious people, or by gassing them and so on. Your analogy is thick on rhetoric and emotional impact, but it's really a faulty one.
 * In terms of the substantive matter, I don't agree that believing that religion is a negative influence on the world is damaging to the community. We all have our disagreements and differing philosophies. I think that people are taking things here as a "personal attack" because they feel that it attacks them as people of religion, rather than the concept of religion generally. It should be noted that my reading of the userbox is not that he feels the necessity to murder all religious people, but that he'd rather that religious people became irreligious, surely not a big problem in the scheme of things.
 * And of course, none of this has anything to do with whether he's going to be an effective administrator :-) &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepscases, please consider that some might find it mildly offensive that you apparently think atheists and people who believe that "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" are 100% congruent groups. There are many non-trivial disinctions which you don't even acknowledge (or know of). There are e.g. tolerant Christians, tolerant Buddhists, and even a few tolerant atheists. I for one would call myself a tolerant ignosticist. I personally regard strong atheism (i.e. the belief that there is no God) as no less of a belief than any other religious belief and I regard as utterly ridiculous and unproductive most of the fighting over such an individual and private matter as faith. I don't believe that the world would be better off without religion, but I think we could do without intolerance. To that effect, you are partly right that the userbox displays some intolerance. But consider the hypocrisy in making that point at the expense of not even acknowledging spiritual distinctions that are very important to some. Believing that "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" is not the same as being an atheist or anything else really, and to say so is unnecessarily antagonising completely unrelated groupings of people, in several ways at once. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While your point is well taken, please note that my comment was prescient; the "incredibly offended" L'aquatique and other users seem to feel that these opposes are simply because the candidate is an atheist. And that's not what this is about. Keepscases (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ::Before anyone else brings it up, I read the Andrew Kelly discussion and it appears that that user is indeed opposing simply because the candidate is an atheist. I don't agree with that rationale, and he appears to be the only opposer who has expressed it.  Keepscases (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Although originally the user said that the userbox in question just went way too far, and that I agree with.) Keepscases (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about two things.
 * 1) Has an actual edit from the nominee been found that relates to this objectionable position? Has it effected their ability to edit Wikipedia from a NPOV?
 * 2) Isn't this extensive back and forth demonstrating the point? Heh, I know, I know... strong disagreements would still be had in the philosophical sphere... but I doubt it would result in opposition votes. - RoyBoy 02:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From B's oppose

 * Well, respect is not the same as acceptance. I respect all editors here who try to make Wikipedia better, no matter what they think or believe. But it does not mean I have to lie about how I think, does it? I have always tried and will always try in future, no matter how this RfA ends, to not let any of my views influence my editing and so far I cannot recall any incident where it did. I supported candidates for adminship in the past whose philosophical views I do not agree with, based on the firm knowledge that they will not let these views influence their editing. I did not really expect that there will be so much outcry over one userbox (seeing that others use it as well, both that one and it's pro-religious counterpart). I apologize if that implied that I'd be biased against religious editors and/or articles.
 * As for the minor edits, I always thought minor edits were those that do not need any review but I thought clarifications or minor rephrasings without changing the meaning are minor as well. Thank you for telling me, I will be more careful in the future :-)
 * As for the speedy, you are correct of course. That was three months ago and I regretted it afterwards, but it has been removed already. I tried and learned from it hopefully. Regards  So Why  07:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are appropriate fora for advocating your belief about religion - an encyclopedia is not one of them. If your user box said "this user is not religious", that's fine, but this user box goes beyond a simple statement of faith or the like.  This message creates a potentially uncomfortable situation for a religious user to interact with you.  It would be no different than if a Christian user had the userbox "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place if everyone were a Christian".  The stated goal of a lack of religious freedom and diversity is troubling. --B (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is one, User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldReligion. It is the counterpart and is used by at least one admin as far as I remember, without anyone objecting to it on his RfA. So I never though the negative version could create such controversy. Regards  So Why  12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I count zero admins at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Tal642/my_userboxes/SanerWorldReligion ... that probably says something. --B (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I count at least one: User:Sephiroth BCR, and checking the history, had it in place at the time of his RfA, in January of this year.  Maedin \talk 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From Naerii's oppose

 * So, presumably you are going to move to oppose on Juliancolton's RfA, too, based on this new criteria? No offense whatever to Juliancolton, and I hope he doesn't mind me pointing it out for this purpose, but he has a userbox proclaiming his belief that every American has the right to bear arms and that happens to be something I disagree with strongly.  It's a polarising topic, the debate still drags on in the United States.  But you'll notice that I supported Juliancolton nevertheless, because how he feels about firearms, and whether or not he chooses to express that, and whether or not other people choose to let it make them look stupid, really has nothing to do with his suitability as an administrator.  And that is, I believe, what we are here to decide...?   Maedin \talk 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This argument is nonsense. Every American does have the right to bear arms.  It's written down somewhere. Wily D  15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But his point stands. Just because they do have the right doesn't mean they should.  So if I had a userbox that said "The second amendment really does refer to militias and doesn't describe how to handle meaningful gun policy in the 21st century" it would be akin to Julian's.  Do we say that certain opinions are ok for admins to display and certain opinions are not?  What if I had a userbox that said "I think republican policies are better than democratic policies", can I be an admin?  Where does this line exist for userboxes that are too polemical for administrators but not polemical enough for MfD? Protonk (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we allow every voter to decide for himself or herself? It amazes me that proponents of "freedom of speech" become surprised when people are actually (gasp) judged based on what they say.  I think users have every right to display that userbox; hell, they can have one that says "I hate black people" for all I care; but they WILL and SHOULD be judged based on their choices of how to express themselves. Keepscases (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. But no one is suppressing you.  No one is censoring you.  We just happen to be asking questions and making responses.  This is nominally a discussion, so if an opinion or claim is presented that is questionable or controversial, it will be discussed.  If that is a problem, don't advance the claim.  You are free in your 'oppose' to give whatever reason you like.  Just as I or anyone else is free to support for whatever reason we like.  Both sides should be open to discussing the merits of claims. Protonk (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and I'm not looking to censor or suppress either. The problem is that opposers' concerns have been misrepresented as "you must be calling for the userbox to be banned" or "you must want to enforce a rule that admins cannot have these userboxes".  Speaking only for myself, I want neither of those.  If this RfA should pass, so be it, and if so I hope he does a good job. Keepscases (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it falls flat on its face. I think the earth is a planet that orbits the Sun to a reasonable approximation is a cold, hard fact. It's not contraversial.  I think the Earth is the best planet in the Local Group is a potentially divisive opinion.  Americans have the right to bear arms - cold, hard fact.  The world would be better without religion - empirically untested opinion.  These are different. Wily D  16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Really?  Come on.  The application of the 2nd amendment (even after Heller) is exceedingly controversial.  It is not a statement of empirical fact to say "I think americans have the right to bear arms".  Partially because of the ambiguity of the 2nd amendment and partially because the converse is fuzzy.  What about "I think a woman has the right to choose"?  What about "I think the world was created 6,000 years ago"?  We can't just sort these in to neat categories of "fact" and "opinion". Protonk (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The line exists right here. "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" is a completely inappropriate and uneccesary statement to make on your Wikipedia user page. And for the record, I'm an atheist. This is not about my or his beliefs, it's about the fact that he thinks there is somehow value in posting them in such an agressive manner on his user page.  naerii  17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I obviously chose a topic which was easy enough to turn into an argument of content rather than process. You are getting dragged into discussing the second amendment, and my comment to Naerii only used it as a close-to-hand example: the second amendment is irrelevant here.  So, pretend it was a different userbox!  The crucial point here is one of process, as it often is.  The process is that any opinion stated by anyone about anything could be divisive and offensive to just about anybody.  Let's imagine that Juliancolton's userbox was one of the "This user is a carnivore" userboxes with a picture of blood-red meat on it, and let's imagine that I'm a die-hard vegetarian.  I could claim that Juliancolton is, therefore, cruel to animals and doesn't deserve adminship because he is insensitive to the views of all vegetarians on Wikipedia.  Reasonable?  Of course not, but unfortunately I can see it happening.  Let's make it really ridiculous: Juliancoulton loves seafood, as his userbox says.  My father died when I was 10 of an allergy to shrimp and I have an irrational hatred of all things seafood and all people who like it, and I choose to oppose because you are offending my view that seafood killed my father and is somehow inherently evil.  Silly?  Yep.  It doesn't matter what the opinion is, and it doesn't even matter if it's fact or not, there are people who will react with emotion and will see it negatively.  The only thing I was trying to point out is that if Naerii truly believes that all potentially problematic userboxes and opinions should not be proclaimed on the page of any adminship candidate because they make people stupid and are irritating, then I expect to see a heck of a lot of opposes from her in the future and also on Juliancolton's RfA: otherwise, SoWhy is being unfairly treated because a couple of users (at least one with a very extreme view) decided to point out a possibly controversial userbox.  Otherwise, she probably wouldn't have noticed or even cared.  If this isn't her true stance, then she was only reacting emotionally to the politics of this page and the talkpage, and that, in my view, is a very disappointing reason for her to retract her support.  And for the record, it is not more aggressive than the opposite opinion, which no one objects to, and the value of making such statements already has a strong reasoning: that of proclaiming one's biases, and we all have them.  As for "unnecessary" and "inappropriate", I go back to Juliancolton's imaginary carnivore userbox–how much more unnecessary can you get than a food preference on an encyclopedia?  How much more unreasonable can you get than an encyclopedia contributor caring what the heck anyone eats and whether or not they care to say so?  This is no more silly–some people have chosen to find a certain thing offensive, and somehow think that SoWhy's right to declare a bias is therefore non-existent.  If the majority of the world were vegetarians, would we boycott the carnivores, here, too?  I am not getting into content here: I am showing how the content is irrelevant.  Can I encourage the editors involved with this argument to step back, step away from the subject matter, step away from the emotion that all of this has generated, and connect with some rational thought?   Maedin \talk 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that your hypotheticals are far closer to the "this user is an atheist" userbox, which is not the one that has led to the opposes. Keepscases (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note the first sentence of my oppose; "I don't have any concerns that he will be biased". As for the second part, with all the "oh but what if he said he doesn't like fishfood" type argument - there is a line, and I draw the line at implying that people who follow religion are somehow lacking in sanity. It is not about the belief, it's about the way he chooses to state his belief. He doesn't have to proclaim on his user page that religion causes (a) unhappiness, (b) danger and (c) insanity. The mistake that you are making here is in assuming that all statements of opinion have an equal level of appropriateness. They don't. Am I reacting emotionally? I don't think so; as I said above, I am an atheist, and apt to agree with the userbox. But it shouldn't be there. There's simply no need to talk about religion so agressively on your user page. And yes, there's no need to talk about a lot of things on your user page, but there's a difference between "I don't like eating meat" and "this user thinks that the world would be happier, safer and saner without religion". I have no idea what to say to you if you can't see the difference. His comments above have just reinforced my view really; it's not about "lying about what you think", it's about knowing where and when to mention what you think. I would never, for example, say "Oh I think the world would be happier and saner without religion" whilst at lunch with my colleagues. And the place that SoWhy has chosen to put that statement is equivalent to going around with it emblazoned on your t-shirt.  naerii  20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, if I did display such a userbox, it wouldn't be nearly as "bad" (for lack of a better word) as SoWhy's. It's a pretty safe bet that most people are religious. Then again, there's a handful of vegetarians. Even so, I don't find SoWhy's userbox offensive enough to oppose, or even !vote neutral solely for that reason alone. This conversation is getting far out of hand; please take it to the talk page if you wish to continue. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised at your response to the userbox, Naerii - especially considering your comments at my RfA back in May. What happened to "People's religious beliefs are irrelevant and should not form any part of the criteria for adminship."?  To be sure the belief is quite extreme...and I strongly disagree with it.  But unlike in real life, the belief only has an impact on Wikipedia if it affects his editing - and on adminship if it affects his use of the tools; such impact hasn't been alleged, from what I've read of the discussion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep! People have different beliefs and opinions. But we have to make sure that our beliefs don't affect our editing. NPOV is the fundamental principle of Wikipedia and all editors should respect this principle. AdjustShift (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But SoWhy's userbox isn't getting in the way of his contributing. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  16:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's why I supported him. AdjustShift (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes, I am a staunch atheist and even I find this entire discussion completely disturbing. It's amazing that it's continued this far - it is completely inappropriate for an RfA and probably an inappropriate discussion on any part of Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned. People's religious beliefs are irrelevant and should not form any part of the criteria for adminship. Ridiculous." That's a fairly significant change in mindset, care to explain Naeri? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I'm not bothered by his beliefs. I'm bothered that he lacks the maturity to state them in a less aggressive and confrontational manner.  naerii  23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, your comment is so obviously misinformed that it's irritated me into wanting to respond in more length. The discussion that you quoted from was where a user was being opposed for stating that he is an evangelical Christian, a statement that is not controversial, polarising or aggressive. The opposes were based on the fact that he held certain beliefs and concerns that he would be biased based on them. If you'd bothered to read anything that I wrote above, you'd see that I've pointed out several times that I have no problem with his beliefs and no concerns about any biases. Your quote was completely irrelevant as I'm not opposing based on his beliefs, just based on the manner in which he chooses to state them. And that really is going to be my final word on the matter. If you choose to carry on wilfully misinterpreting my comments that is your problem.  naerii  23:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see your logic. Clearly, many other editors, some of them respectable admins and some of them religious people in the target set of potentially offended people, found the userbox inoffensive which means that the way he chose to state his beliefs is acceptable by a fairly diverse range of editors. In which case, of course, he could hardly be blamed for thinking it inoffensive and penalizing him for not seeing that when many others don't see is, IMHO, a tad extreme. Additionally, when it was pointed out to him that some people may perceive the box as offensive, he replaced it. Seems like an agreeable thing to do. After all, none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes. If someone is willing to fix them and make amends, do the agreeable thing, what more can you ask for?--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on closure
I apologise for closing this RfA early. This was due to a silly mistake in checking the date. However, the RfA had only 14 hours remaining and, given the low number of comments in recent days, I do not believe that this extended period would have affected the consensus, and I intend to let the closure stand. Warofdreams talk 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * that's fine by me... mine was closed about 8 hours early, so there is precedence for this.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)