Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastordavid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Londoneye (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 7 May 2007 (→‎[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastordavid|Pastordavid]]: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pastordavid

Voice your opinion (28/0/1); Scheduled to end 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pastordavid (talk · contribs) - My first interaction with Pastordavid was on the John 1:1 article, during a discussion as to whether and how it should be rewritten. I was highly impressed with his civility and helpfulness in resolving the issue [1], and modesty [2]. After seeing him around more often, it became clear that this is not an isolated instance at all, but is quite simply how he deals with other editors. His editor review shows that this opinion is shared by quite a few editors.

In mainspace contributions, his work has been stellar. He took the article on Maximus the Confessor, which looked like this when he started, and did a tremendous amount of work. The article is now a featured article, and while none of us work alone, his contributions were certainly the driving force. He has also done a good deal of work to John Chrysostom, currently a good article, and has helped in editing and cleaning up many others.

In project space, he has been a valuable contributor as well. While not a prolific vandal fighter, his reports to WP:AIV are appropriate and made after the vandals have been warned. He has also participated at WP:AFD. This standard stuff aside, he has also started a Wikiproject on Lutheranism, worked at the Eastern Orthodoxy WikiProject, successfully working on a collaboration and helping to resolve some copyright and GFDL issues with another Wiki specific to that subject, and helps other editors by providing third opinions and editor assistance. His contributions show a good understanding of policies and practices, and a great degree of civility and patience.

We can always use another administrator of Pastordavid's caliber. I hope that you will join me in supporting him. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am quite flattered by your generous description of my activities here, and I certainly accept. Pastor David † 22:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The simple answer is that I will help out in those places where my abilities most match up with a need. At this point, I see that as helping out with CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD; I also imagine that my particular skill set could be helpful at WP:AN/3RR and WP:COI/N. In the future, as my I learn from different experiences and gain different skills, I may find myself helping in other areas as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As mentioned in the nom, I am most proud of Maximus the Confessor and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lutheranism. Maximus started as a stub (with POV and sourcing issues, and was not a figure about whom I knew a great deal. I learned a great deal as I improved the article first to GA and then to FA status - although I wrote most of the article myself, I could not have gotten it to FA without the collaborating with the editors who chimed in on the FA review with their concerns about and ideas for the article.
WP:Lutheranism is turning into a very active - and I think pretty effective - wikiproject. Although there are deep theological divides in the Lutheran community, we are largely able to set these aside and work together to improve wikipedia's coverage of Lutheranism - a fact of which I am quite proud.
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 rarely think of them as conflicts, as I tend not to get too riled up about wikipedia, or take things personally. The conflict that is mentioned in the nom is probably my first, which I came to through a RfC. Through calm, reasoned discussion on the talk page, I think we were able to reach a reasonable compromise (nobody was quite happy - so it must have been a good compromise). An on-going "conflict" is my relationship with User:NBeale. A number of editors asked me to get involved in this dispute following my comments on the user's talk page. This particular conflict seems to be ongoing (see this AfD), but I believe that my involvement has kept it from escalating faster or further than it currently is.
More recently, I was asked to look in on a thread on Jimbo's talk page and try and settle things down some (these things just seem to find me :)). My attempt to do so was not particularly well received. I simply stepped away from the situation, and it seems to have cooled off on its own -- as these things are wont to do if we let them.
Dealing with conflict on wikipedia is no different than dealing with it anywhere else in life: no matter how others act toward you, remain civil at all times, cool off when necessary, and always make the same assumptions about others that you would want them to make of you.
4. The username policy prohibits usernames that "promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others", and I think that the spirit of this extends to signatures, since they show up in most of the same places as usernames. If an editor asked you to stop using the cross in your signature, would you do so? ··coelacan 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:It is a relatively new sig, and the short answer is that yes,I would certainly remove it if someone found it offensive. I just the standard one sig until a few weeks ago. I didn't even think about using the symbol until I saw it used in the sig for Bloodpack, and it didn't even occur to me that someone would find it offensive.
The long answer is that I don't think of it as promoting an ideology or pushing religion, I look as it more as a symbol which represents who I am. I would ask others to first look at my edits (or perhaps even ask those members of WikiProject Atheism with whom I have interacted) and determine from that whether I am pushing my POV or my religion. Pastor David † 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? ··coelacan 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, the only thing that seems to be coming to mind (perhaps because it is the most recent) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale. The original AfD closed after 3 days. I think, given that the subject of the article is an editor, one would expect there to be some reaction if the AfD closed prematurely (and there was). While it looks as though the relisted AfD may well have the same result, allowing it to run its course keeps there from being any reason to object to the AfD on the grounds that something was done out of the ordinary (FYI, because of my on-going involvement in the dispute with the subject of this article and others, I have not voiced an opinion on the AfD or DRV). Pastor David † 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule? --bainer (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: On my editor review, I answered this question saying:
"I think that is a hard question to answer, as it is by definition a policy that can only be applied case-by-case. My gut reaction is that if you have to explain an invocation of IAR, then you probably ought not to have applied it in that situation. That is, the application assumes (as I read it) that consensus as to what is best for the encyclopedia obviously falls in a certain direction, but the process is impeding that decision. If such a concensus about what is best for the encyclopedia is not present, the process is there to help reach one. That said, I am not a fan of "process for process' sake", but there are many good uses and reasons for process; most important of which (for me) is helping to determine concensus, making sure that our standards are fair, and helping to keep everyone editing in a neutral, civil manner. Ultimately, I think that situations requiring IAR are sort of like that famous definition of pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
The current discussion at WP:AN/I is an excellent example. It appears that decisions - block, checkuser, etc - are being made quickly and without concern for the "letter of the law" when it comes to process because of compromised administrator accounts. I think this is absolutely the right decision, as (a) it is being done in the interest of what is best for the encyclopedia (namely, security), and (b) it reflects what seems to be pretty thorough-going consensus. Pastor David † 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pastordavid before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support Fine editor who is calm and meticulously fair in difficult situations (please accept this nom!). Sophia 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A cool head and his ability to pour oil on troubled waters suggest he'll make a fine admin, as do the quality of his contributions. William Pietri 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Looks like a reserved candidate who will demonstrate courtesy and professionalism. JodyB talk 02:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. bibliomaniac15 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I can't find anything at all to criticize. You'll make a great admin :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Candidate seems to conduct himself in a cool, reserved manner. Will use the tools responsibly and constructively. —Ocatecir Talk 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, fully. -- LeCourT:C 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support particularly for the considerate handling of the above mentioned dispute.--Xnuala (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Great article work! Would use the mop! Sr13 (T|C) 03:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Keeps it mellow and he edits! the_undertow talk 03:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good editor, very civil in interactions. A fine candidate. --Shirahadasha 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, most definitely. This editor just came to my attention a couple days ago, with this superbly cool-headed and sensitive attempt to defuse a difficult situation. I think we need people with this kind of diplomatic talent as admins. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support He's one of the most effective people in dealing with POV-pushers that I've seen around.DGG 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - It looks good.--$UIT 04:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom and inasmuch as it seems quite plain that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom and above, not much else to say. --Phoenix (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Shows a highly cool-headed, civil demeanor, highly important qualities in an admin. Has done some great, dedicated contributions in FAs and GAs, and in spearheading an active WikiProject. A great candidate for the mop and bucket. Krimpet (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support He seems a very sensible and hard working guy and, with reference to one of the questions he's been asked above, this atheist doesn't see how having a cross in one's signature is breaking any rule about saying one religion is superior to another. He's just expressing what his is. Nick mallory 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Should easily adapt as a great admin; best of luck! Jmlk17 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support and the very best of luck to you. The Rambling Man 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. No problems, and adminship is no big deal. Walton Need some help? 15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - as per Jimbo Wales...----Cometstyles 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No red flags, no reason to withhold support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Your thoughtful answers show courtesy and knowledge of policy. ··coelacan 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Sure (sorry I couldn't review you btw, a bit busy atm) Majorly (hot!) 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I've seen him around and he looks sound.--Londoneye 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Pending answer to Q4, since I see this as a slight issue. ~ G1ggy! Reply 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pastordavid&oldid=128983567"