The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Pastordavid[edit]

(69/2/1); Ended 19:37, 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[edit]

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 used the standard 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]
7. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list?
A:I wonder a bit if asking/answering such a question might not have the unintended effect of drawing the attention of such hackers to particular accounts. That said, I understand your concern and it addresses a very real issue: the answer on all counts is yes. Pastor David † 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I believe the intention is that if the answer is no on any counts, you go and fix it immediately. --Cyde Weys 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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]
  29. Support - already had a lot of dealings with this editor and he's great! No problems here - Alison ☺ 19:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - friendly and hard working editor. Valentinian T / C 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I am impressed both by the candidate's contributions record and his answers to the questions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. almost missed this, support of course. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support. Pastordavid is a thoughtful, industrious editor. Axios! Majoreditor 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Impressive article work, level-headed and wise, friendly. Excellent candidate. —Anas talk? 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Would be a pleasure to have this user as an admin. ehdh 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support Industrious, level-headed and deals with the most annoying of POV-pushers in a calm and cool manner. I'm sure he'd be responsible and productive in his use of the admin tools. Elmo 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SemperFideliS81 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Default support. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. -- DS1953 talk 16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. SupportI don't generally participate in RfC unless I've had some opportunity to experience the editor elsewhere. Your assistance here [3] impressed me, so I'll pile on support Sxeptomaniac 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support- Good experience in different areas, level headed and friendly- would make a great admin Thunderwing 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Outstanding candidate. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Answers to the questions looked good. No problems here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support He's a knowledgeable contributor in a very difficult topic area. I'm most impressed by his adherence to the principle of charity, and his neutrality in judging controversial issues. He has been extremely helpful in our conflict, and I'm 110% convinced he will be an excellent admin. --Merzul 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I've seen him around, and the greatest asset he is to Wikipedia is the fact that he actually knows stuff, a rarity in the community. ALTON .ıl 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Nice guy, very knowledgeable about policy - he will make good use of the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support: I've seen this user around a few times. I don't think he's abuse the tools. Excellent edit summary usage and plenty of experience.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per all of the above. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Pile-on-Support - seen him work, like his stuff. Give him a mop, someone, would ya? Philippe 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. He would probably be the best Christian admin since Musical Linguist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). TML 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I love to see admins involved in WikiProjects. Go ahead. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Excellent answers, good edit summary usage and great contributions. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Seems a very capable editor with the right attitude. —Moondyne 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. :)--SkyWalker 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. support what I've seen of this editor makes me think he will be a good admin semper fictilis 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools. Frise 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Seen this user regularly in my watchlist, don't recall ever feeling I needed to take action after checking their contribution. Has sound judgement and maturity. Let's face it, for pastors religion is far more a part of their identity than the typical religious adherant (as it is both their religion and their primary job, whereas for most people it is just the former). Adding a cross to his signature added nothing to his Christain identification, and either people are going to be able to work with him or not. I see the opposition on this basis as reflecting more poorly on the opposers than on the nominee. GRBerry 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. I like the crucifix and I think you should keep it. Sarah 13:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support John254 00:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support While I don't think the cross should be in his sig, David has removed it and he's handled the opposition to it well. I think he's definitely fit to be an admin. James086Talk | Email 06:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Usually the calming voice of reason in some highly contentious subjects. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per support comments. Captain panda 13:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support - Man, I gotta pay more attention to these. I don't think I've yet met a fairer and more reasonable editor in wikipedia. He has repeatedly handled rather delicate issues fairly and reasonably, and I honestly don't think I've yet met anyone who really doesn't speak very highly of his conduct and his ability as an editor. John Carter 19:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Support. I find it astonishing and deeply disturbing that the opposition and neutral positions held by some editors seem to center on PastorDavid's apparent use of a cross (or dagger) in his signature as a free expression of religion (or as a clever symbol for the talk gadget). I understand that not all English-speaking nations have clauses in their Constitutions which provide for "free expression of religion", so this concept may well seem alien to some, and I certainly understand that as well. Nevertheless, discriminating against PastorDavid or anyone based on their religion and their expression of it is an absolute outrage in "this Wiki-society". Diversity strongly suggests that we need administrators like PastorDave openly expressing his religion, and not be discriminated against, or worse - left to cower in the corner hiding, fearful of attack by anti-religionists or whatever. I can envision PastorDavid as being a great and valuable help in mediating and assisting other religious (or not) Wikipedians with properly editing the vast numbers of religious-related articles. By wearing his religion on his sleeve, as it were, religious Wikipedians who are having difficulties with such editing can find comfort in discovering and communicating with such a administrative-helper. I might even have a tendancy to lean to "neutral" myself if PastorDavid actually backed down and cowered permanently in the corner in the face of religious oppression and persecution from the opponents. Stick to your principles, PastorDavid! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am supporting Pastordavid's RFA, but I believe you are mischaracterizing the opposition. There is no problem with an expression of religion in userspace, such as "I am a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", and no one here has suggested otherwise. There is quite a difference between religious symbolism on one's own userpage, and spreading religious symbolism on other peoples' talk pages. The concerns about the sig stem from the fact that sigs are left all over Wikipedia, not just in one person's own userspace. Dropping a cross repeatedly on non-Christians' user talk pages is likely to be unnecessarily offensive to some people; I anticipated this and wanted to know what Pastordavid's response would be when the inevitable arose. I think Pastordavid has exhibited humility and a thoughtfulness for others in his response. But if "sticking to his principles" meant ignoring those who raised concerns, I would not hesitate to oppose. If you are indeed inclined to go neutral about this, you should know that Pastordavid has already removed the cross from his sig. In any case I'm dismayed by your clumsy conflation of a Wikipedia signature with some Self-Evident Truth that must not be compromised. Please remind me to oppose your RFA when/if it comes up. ··coelacan 08:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback and for clarifying the opposition's positions. On further consideration, I can certainly understand and accept that if PastorDavid left a lot of signatures with cross and religious symbols on some atheist / agnostic (and other non-christian) user talk pages, and elsewhere in article discussion pages, then that could well be perceived by some as a sort of - I don't know - religious assertion of authority, which may be inappropriate. Anyway thank you for the well-intended good-faith threat to oppose my possible future RfA, and also for calling my views and comments "clumsy". I'll try to remember that as well. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. ··coelacan 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Just to be clear, in no way did I feel that reasonable concerns about my sig were any sort of religious discrimination or personal affront. I understood them to be simply concerns for the best interest of the project, and took them as such. Pastordavid 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. ElinorD (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I'm an atheist and it doesn't bother me. Active contributor to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. He's a pastor, so if he screws up he goes to Hell. Therefore he'll be fine.--Wizardman 04:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. PeaceNT 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support you gotta love the self-righteous bastard! --Infrangible 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Using religious symbolism in signatures is utterly unnecessary and rather off-putting to anyone not in the indicated group. It's unacceptable to think we'd have an admin going around signing everything with a crucifix. I can just imagine how well that would go over in certain circumstances. Even if he removes the crucifix now it won't really change my mind — he's already demonstrated poor judgment to me by ever thinking it was a good idea idea in the first place. --Cyde Weys 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I disagree with you on this (or I wouldn't have used the cross at all), as editors use all sorts of sigs to represent who they are. That said, I respect your opinion. I have changed my signature back to the default as I said I would above - not so that you will change your vote, as you made clear you will not - but because if you find it offensive others will as well. Pastordavid 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally an atheist and I don't find it offensive in the least. You aren't forcing a person to follow your religion you are just showing your beliefs. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This atheist that wrote the nomination isn't bothered either. (Actually, I originally just thought it was a "T" for "talk" in a different font, but even knowing the difference now it doesn't bother me a bit.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I say it was offensive? You're putting words into my mouth. My concerns are pragmatic in nature. I've seen way too many religious disputes on Wikipedia over the years, and I know, sure as hell, that an administrator running around with an overtly religious signature isn't going to help things one iota. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have an administrator with that symbol in his signature [4]. Frise 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I include the Dagger (typography) in my sig because of its resemblance to the letter "T", not as a religious symbol. -Will Beback · † · 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a sad state of affairs if a small indication of personal belief is somehow an indicator of bad judgement in and of itself. Is obscuring every admin's beliefs the answer to religious disputes? Sxeptomaniac 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a small indicator of personal belief! It's the largest indicator I've ever seen on all of Wikipedia. It is (or was) in every talk page message that he left, everywhere. --Cyde Weys 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me how a little symbol that can be used as a cross, dagger, or a T is a larger indicator of religion than having the word "Pastor" in his name? Pastor is an obvious religious reference yet the cross is not. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen worse on Wikipedia, believe me. The point has been made on both sides, and for the sake of this good RfA, let's let this issue rest. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose due to a lack of judgment in placing a cross in his signature. As a "public face of Wikipedia" (whatever that means, the username combined with the symbol are troublesome and could cause problems in future interactions. While I do not expect this to sink the nomination, I feel strongly enough to register my disapproval in this manner. Removing it now will not make me change my mind, unfortunately, as Pastordavid also appears to have very arbitrary requirements for supporting RFA, such that a month's edits can apparently change an oppose to support. This denotes a lack of flexibility that I shudder to see in those we grant the extra tools to. -- nae'blis 22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Pending answer to Q4, since I see this as a slight issue. ~ G1ggy! Reply 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it is very conservatively used, as would be expected from this editor: Pastor is a very gentle word, and the cross symbol used is just a superscript dagger, a standard punctuation mark used for footnotes. (In fact, that's what I took it for) DGG 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I was aware of the dagger symbol when I asked the question, but even the † article says the symbol doubles as the Christian cross in certain usages (including the original), and that's how it's perceived by many people. ··coelacan 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it also looks like a 't' as in talk, so I think it is tasteful in this context, or at least it's cute :) --Merzul 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm ... Well, all of the above. Yes it is the dagger symbol, often used as a typographical substitution for a cross. And Yes, it does (convieniently for the purpose for which it is being used) resemble a "t" for talk. It is also common practice in some traditions (Especially Anglican and Roman Catholic, in my experience) for clergy to sign their names with a cross either appended or prepended. It is not a practice that is overly common in the Lutheran tradition - but I have spent a great deal of time in Anglican circles. Pastor David † 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I use the Dagger (typography) as a variant of the letter "T" to link to my talk page. -Will Beback · † · 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category