Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Joturner

final (65/29/7) ending 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Joturner (talk • contribs) – Joturner has been with us on Wikipedia since June 2005 (actively since December), and has contributed nearly 4000 edits in his spell here. He's contributed to many Islam-related, and current events-related articles. He's also been active in the different aspects of the policy side of the coin, from AFD to RFA, good articles to In The News candidates, the reference desk to Wikiprojects. He's also engaged in warning vandals, getting his hands dirty in that side of the pedia. He also uses edit summaries often. A good, well-rounded user, I expect he would meet most users' standards for an admin, and I don't see why he shouldn't be given the mop. NSLE (T+C) at 06:42 UTC (2006-03-23)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with gratitude. Jazakallah khairan. joturner 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support as nominator! NSLE (T+C) at 06:47 UTC (2006-03-23)
  2. Support eagerness to clean up wikipedia - but also prepared to accept councel -- Agathoclea 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support. Has shown dedication to this project in almost all aspects and in all types of space (e.g., user/main/project/talk/etc.). Should be a fine admin and the community won't have to worry that he will overuseabuse his "mop & bucket". Pepsidrinka 11:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Vandal fighter, good length of service and edits. No reason to deny him. Ifnord 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Per Pepsidrinka. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support very good from my observations in the Striver-gate nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) No vote pertaining to concerns raised by others. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Large experience and no evidence he would abuse the mop. Fetofs Hello! 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support per above abakharev 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC) User had removed this vote, striking it out instead NSLE (T+C) at 00:48 UTC (2006-03-26)
    Sorry, guys, did not want been dramatic. I, personally, do not vote for RfA's with below 3000 edits in the mainspace. Have not look into the edit counter, my mistake. No reasons to oppose or even vote neutral (that is basically the same). Best wishes with your RfA abakharev 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Joe I 00:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - Richardcavell 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per nom. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Looks like a great encyclopedia builder. –Joke 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - Looks good as per above. Nephron 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Good editor + won't abuse tools = easy choice. Rx StrangeLove 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support will be an excellent admin --rogerd 04:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support excellent candidate mmeinhart 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support--Jusjih 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Seems to be a good editor that will not abuse admin tools. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Gread editor - Knows what he's doing. Information Center 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, looks OK. Salaam aleikum! JIP | Talk 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support A great contributer. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Has done great work here even outside Islam related articles. GizzaChat ©
  22. Support per nom. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, great editor. --Terence Ong 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. SupportDanielDemaret 14:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - Joturner is a honest and reasonable guy. I'm confident he will act impartially in any dispute, or recuse himself if he can't. Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong support This user seems to be very level-headed, well reasoned, and makes positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I see no problem in his user page, and having looked over his edits on the cartoon controversy page, I must say that I am impressed. Frankly, I'm somewhat disturbed by what I perceive as the anti-Muslim sentiment shown by some of the oppose votes. I don't want to get into a whole thing, but I don't think that showing your biases on your userpage is a bad thing, and I haven't seen this user's belief's interfere with positively editing the encyclopedia. Makemi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Grön sv 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]
  30. Support you might have rushed this a little, but support of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. I feel that he is more concerned with helping to build a npov encyclopdia than with converting us all to his religion (its 2006 and I am embarrassed that I even need to say that). Fair, hardworking, and will make editing easier for all of us. youngamerican (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, Meets my 100% requrements. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - definitely good admin material. Green Giant 21:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support Wikipedia is "Tragedy of the Commons" writ large on the 'net; and, like the mythical 'Cong village, must be first "destroyed in order to save it" (if it is possible to save it at all). Therefore, I heartily endorse every single one of the invading army of Islamist al taqiyya obfuscating propagandists to positions of Wiki authority, on the grounds that the faster they are all approved, the quicker this thing will become a 100% Laughing Stock, and burn to the ground.--Mike18xx 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - no relevant reason to oppose. We all have our two cents. --Jay(Reply) 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --TantalumTelluride 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Although I don't know Joturner very well, this 'talk' alone leads me to believe that he'd make a very fine admin. Netscott 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Strong support. I think that the POV issue is being over emphasized. I've seen this user in action on AfD's and RfC's on issues related to Islam related articles. He takes a very civil and moderate viewpoint on a number of contentious issues. I have been very impressed by his ability to stay cool when the heat gets turned on (may I add, far beyond his years, to the user who mentioned age as an issue below) -- Samir (the scope) 00:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support: Excellent contributions. This graphic is particularly good, and I was extremely satisfied with his speedy response when I had a question about it. No evidence of "POV-pushing"—in fact it appears to be the opposite. I don't see what the fuss is about his user-page. I found it fascinating. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Slight concern over the userpage but his non-userpage edits have been almost uniformily excellent, and his ability to reason with others seems very good. Concerns such as his userpage and personal beliefs should not be nearly as relevant as his edit history which is excellent. JoshuaZ 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Looks good. AucamanTalk 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Looks like a great editor. The best of luck! Weatherman90 21:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support - He is a muslim, so what? I'm an atheist, so what? The only people here showing a non neutral point of view are those who vote against him because of the content in his user page or because he only edits about Islam. I'm Portuguese, am I being non neutral for not creating articles about Brunei? Afonso Silva 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Observing his wonderful contributions, I feel that he will make a great administrator. Best of luck to you! SouthernComfort 23:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Utmost Support -- I'm highly disturbed by the oppose votes I see here. This editor is outstanding, with enviable energy and intelligence. His edit sums are diligent and clear; his comments on talk incisive. I'm particularly pleased with his cool and neutral participation in a recent RfC (and please see his comments on corresponding talk). He's a tireless vandal-fighter with a good balance of edits in project, template, and image namespaces as well. This user is outstanding admin material. I can only suspect that opposition hinges on anti-Muslim bias -- particularly offensive considering that this editor is a model of impartiality in articles that draw much more than their fair share of biased editors. Joturner should be commended for walking honorably where others fear to tread. John Reid 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support--Mido 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, Good editor? Check. Most importantly, Good Judgement? CHECK.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. pschemp | talk 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Assumption of Good Faith Support. Never heard of you, but you seem to be unlikely to abuse the tools, and your contributions reflect that assumption. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support - user is able to seperate his editing from his beliefs (as should we all), which makes him a useful and knowlegable asset. We should strive to avoid systemic bias - Wikipedia's coverage of Islamic articles is generally woeful (even the articles that do exist are, for the most part, calamitous). Voting to oppose someone because he has strong personal beliefs when there's no evidence of these ever affecting his work on Wikipedia is appalling bad faith. Proto||type 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support as per nom Leidiot 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. I have seen nothing to indicate that this editor will misuse the tools. He is entitled to air his personal beliefs in his own user space without retribution. -- DS1953 talk 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Strong Support --Jibran1 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Strong Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support per DS1953. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support, user says he won't let his POV interfere with his judgment. I see nothing to suggest that his word is not valid. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Diversity of background and opinion is what makes Wikis work. Religious beliefs and editcountitis are absurd grounds for opposing a RfA. Adminship should be no big deal, so I support any established user experienced with structural and procedural tasks and with no history of abuse or misbehavior. GT 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. As per GT above. RicDod 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Support! -- Go Team Taliban! "It was not until the summer of 2004 that I started to find the solution and the meaning of existence in Islam, the true religion....My proudest achievement did not involve back-breaking work or an excessive amount of intelligence. Instead, my proudest achievement required getting a new sense of faith. (Ah, yes: A critical-mass of admins is almost within out grasp! Soon, yes, soon, we will own Wikipedia and the top ranks of Google search returns for every political and historical query! Mwahahaha!) --Mike18xx 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, but you can't vote for me twice Mike. joturner 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Au Contraire! The dead shall rise from their graves to poll; and the chads shall hang -- it is the democratic way.--Mike18xx 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. That he won't allow his faith to interfere with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is a reason to support, not oppose. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have all the personal anecdotal evidence I need to conclude that not only will his faith "interfere with Wikipedia's NPOV policy", but that it is the primary reason he is here in the first place (as it is the reason for every Islamist editor presently making the place a shambles regards anything resembling accuracy as opposed to neutured pablum). Thus my Monty Pythonesque s-s-arcasm.--Mike18xx 23:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support, I've taken the oppose votes on board, but they don't really build a smoking gun. Steve block talk 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. I was going to sit this one out as I don't have any personal interaction with Joturner, but the ridiculousness of TruthCrusader's oppose demands a support just to cancel it. That may be the most blatant "I do not trust you because you believe something I do not"-statement I've ever seen on an RFA, and the "I wish you the best" is just patronizing coming on its heels. Shaking his head in disbelief, BanyanTree 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    I am entitled to my opinion, that is a God given human right that neither you nor anyone else can take away from me. TruthCrusader 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but you're not necessarily entitled to exercising it on Wikipedia. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    That is a typical liberal tactic, scream about free speech but than try to deny it to others who do not share their views. Perhaps if you READ my comment, I never said I wasn't supporting him due to his Islam, I said I was not supporting him because I am nervous about ANY OVERZEALOUS adherant to ANY religion from being a Wiki admin. Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Hindu, I don't care, The last thing Wiki needs is another admin who cannot maintain a NPOV and I'm sorry, I am not so sure Joturner can be this. And your comment about not exercising free speech on Wiki is totally mis-read. Thank you, drive through. TruthCrusader 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Generally quite impressed with this editor (and quite appalled by some of the justifications for oppose votes); one big question mark for me was the Koran picture controversy, where I utterly disagreed with has calling an RfC, but I think on the whole his judgement is sound and he appears reasonable and fair-minded, more than suitable to be an admin. Palmiro | Talk 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support - would be a great admin. GfloresTalk 23:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support I'm sure he'd make a good admin no matter what his religion. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    The vote from Pegasus1138 was posted after the posted close time. I object to it as being out of order. Merecat 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose. I am concerned that this editor, if granted adminship, might have trouble avoiding a biased or prostelytizing attitude. A review of his personal page [1] reveals a very deep Islamic zeal which I feel does not belong on a wiki user page. However, some reassurances and explanations from him about how he intends to stay neutral on matters of faith, so avoid any editing or admin bias, might cause me to withdraw this oppose. The Bible teaches us that Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man commeth unto the Father except by means of me" and Islam teaches us "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet". Joturner, what do you say about the issue of keeping faith-based arguments out of the wiki? What can you say to assure me of your standards towards NPOV in this area? Merecat 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    I responded in the comments section. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've spoken with Joturner on my talk page regarding this. That dialog, which can be read here [2] leads me to change my vote from "conditional oppose" to "strong oppose". I might support Joturner in another 6 months or a year, but definately not before then. Merecat 20:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- "for now". I've had differences of opinion with Joturner over what constitutes NPOV in Islam-related articles. As he has spent more time on WP, I think his attitudes have mellowed and his understanding of the "Wiki way" deepened, so some of our earlier differences might not happen now. Still, I'd like to wait a few months before handing him the mop and bucket. This is, after all, a fairly early RFA. I hope that this doesn't hurt his feelings, or reduce his commitment to WP, because he is doing fine work now. Zora 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    - - - -This user obviously has nothing better to do than to oppose RFA's all day while only 10% of his contributions this month have actually went to main namespace edits [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] mmeinhart 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have for now a right to an opinion. I meet all requirements for voting. I see it best to use my efforts here at this time.
    It suggestable one should try to limit your comments to the RFA on hand about the canidate in question, and not attack the voters. --Masssiveego 09:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Mmeinhart, you would be best advised to let bureaucrats evaluate votes. Masssiveego has the right to vote on RfAs, whether we like the way he goes about it or not.--Alhutch 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have apologized to the voter on his user talk page and struck out my comment. mmeinhart 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose. I'm an agnostic and so far didn't bother to make that an issue - nor did I expect there'd be a need for it. However, an user page that is almost in its entirety bend on furthering one religion, and, to my agnostic sensibilities, fringes on the zealot, is outright disturbing. Jimbo spoke against user boxes lately, as he feels that display of bias might be contrary to wikipedic goals. I haven't made up my mind so far, as bias while editing is certainly to be avoided - elsewhere it's... just human. So while I don't mind you to shape your page in a way that's appalling to me, your fellow wikipedian, I'd feel more than uncomfortable to see you as admin. Seeing that your editorial interest is centered on the same subject doesn't make it any better.

    As for Striver's edits, I don't share the view that his "reasonable ones" are "of significant" number. As for the "many short stubs" he has created, if they have been put up for deletion only "in some cases", I'm afraid that only happened due to despair and frustration confronting the overwhelming task at hand. Hundreds, if not thousands merit so. When once trying to add cleanup tags where needed, trying to avoid the hassles AfDs would entail for me and others, I halted after some dozen. I don't share your evaluation and I'm not pleased when finding you among the members of his guild. --tickle me 09:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - a 16 yr old fundamentalist? Sorry, but there is no way I can give my support. Ageism...in this case yes.--Looper5920 10:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    That is ridiculous and would border on incivility, or personal attacks - "comment on content, not contributor". NSLE (T+C) at 10:57 UTC (2006-03-24)
    Just a correction - According to the chronology on his user page he was 16 when he began researching Islam and is apparently now just short of 18. --CBDunkerson 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is not ridiculous, was not incivil and was not a personal attack. I am actually amazed that you would claim that. I hope that isn't the standard response to those that do not agree with you --Looper5920 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Could someone explain to me how Joturner's edits or userpage show him to be a "fundamentalist"? I see nothing that would show him to be any more or less than a serious adherent to the faith of Islam. Makemi 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    A "serious adherent to the faith of Islam" *is* a "fundamentalist".--Mike18xx 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Most of my family are Christian fundamentalists and describe themselves as such. Are they unwelcome on Wikipedia? Thumbelina 23:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose. The nomination is premature, unwarranted, and appears to have been rushed through. The edit count reveals only 3 months of active editing with 1,297 out of total 3,808 edits made in March, possibly to boost the count ahead of the nomination. Look at the contribution tree to see that Joturner has made very few substantive contributions: the most actively edited articles are 2006, January 2006, Current events, February 2006, 2005 etc. It is quite revealing to hear that he is most proud of his contributions to Prophets of Islam, which is essentially a list of people with brief descriptions. This is not the editing record that enables one to qualify for an admin. The other hugely problematic issue with Joturner is, of course, his religious zeal. Joturner uses his user page to describe how he became a Muslim, but Wikipedia user pages are not intended to flash around our personal religious experiences, which smacks of preaching and is utterly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Here we are all first and foremost Wikipedians, not Muslims, Christians, or atheists. We are here to record human knowledge, not spread religious beliefs. Unsurprisingly, Joturner is a notorious POV-pusher on Islam-related articles, where he seems to have clashed with nearly every non-Muslim editor. To sum up, this is one of the least-justified nominations for adminship I have ever seen. Pecher Talk 11:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    WP:NPA. You are to stop trolling both journer and myself. Furthermore, if you were to read his talk page, I've nt communicated with joturner until the last 48 hours, he couldn't have been "boosting his post count" when he didn't even expect a nomination. NSLE (T+C) at 11:02 UTC (2006-03-24)
    What specifically makes you believe I'm a notorious POV-pusher and that I clash with nearly every non-Muslim editor? joturner 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Some of the people with whom you clashed have already voted above; one can add Mike18xx, for example. This case when you assumed bad faith strikes me as particularly strange for an admin nominee. WP:AFD is a basic policy that new editors must learn in their first days in Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 13:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Might as well give up, Pecher; Wikipedia is inexorably circling down into the supermassive sucking black hole gravity well of the Iron Law of Oligarchy (AKA O’Sullivan’s First Law).--Mike18xx 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Too many conflicts based on religious zeal. Zeq 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose To many issues concerning NPOV right now, would support otherwise. Moe ε 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: this editor shows great promise, and I don't agree his user page is inappropriate (I found it interesting, actually) but I would like to see more than three months of serious involvement. Would likely support in future with a little more experience. Jonathunder 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Very Strong Oppose, not because I dislike him or his edits – he is a nice editor. However, I agree with all the above comments pertaining to reasons for “oppose” votes. I may also add that I am afraid that Joturner’s has not afforded the wiki-community a bigger canvass of his contributions, and thus the community (at least me) find myself clueless, and is left with only guesstimate as regards Joturner’s live experience to judge his reactions to different scenarios, scenarios in which an administrator is expected to act, react, and decide. In case, edits done by him during March 2006 are excluded, he has hardly 3000 edits, and that too to very restrictive areas. For the first six months (June-December 2005), he remained almost inactive (total 684 edits average 3.80 edit per day), and in during the current month, he became hyperactive (congrats!), compared to those months, and has accumulated around 1375 edits. In the remaining two critical months of January and February 2006, he contributed respectively 933 and 937 edits. I wish that he remain similarly active for next few months; endeavor to expand his contributions to a variety of name spaces; and try to engage himself in situations requiring discussion and interaction so that the fellow editors may clearly understand his maturity and ability to wield the administrative tools. Moreover, the reasons indicated by him to be elevated to the level of administrators are not very convincing: did he any time face difficulty or delay in getting any thing done which required any administrator’s attention? Persons have continued editing, including me for longer period and with persistent continuity without even thinking of being an administrator. I suggest him to continue for few more months, and I assure him as an administrator that in case he requires any administrative assistance there are 100s of active administrators to assist him. --Bhadani 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose per Bhadani.  Grue  16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. See Talk:William Hogarth, where this editor notes "I failed this article because it is insufficiently referenced."16:47, 25 March 2006. How does one "fail" a Good Article, especially one with nine references? An ill omen for a future Administrator?--Wetman 04:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    For future voters, I responded to this matter on Talk:William Hogarth. joturner 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Reluctant Oppose - not long enough editing history to be admin. Trödel 11:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I agree with Jonathunder and Trödel. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. VERY strong OPPOSE I am sorry but your zealous devotion to 'Islam', while perfectly ok in your personal life, has no place in the Wiki community. Despite your best assurances, I would not trust you, nor ANY religious zealot, with maintaining a NPOV. I wish you the best TruthCrusader 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Better a religious zealot who makes his POV known than one whose bias can only be discerned from biased edits (which I have seen none from this user anyway. Comment on the contribs, not the person.) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I think you deserve a medal for having the strength to follow your religious aspirations. However, I do not think our userpages should be personal dairies of these events. That said, this actually is not the reason I am opposing you, as I think you have great potential. My opposition is due to an overall lack of experience. Please try again in a couple of months.--MONGO 15:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Seems to be a mostly impressive editor based on a perusal of his edits. However, I have a very hard time supporting anyone for admin that is this hardcore in their beliefs, whatever the issue. I also remember him making somewhat of a mess out of a mass of religious list AfD noms that rapidly degenerated. The user page is also a bit over the top, but maybe that is not important. Could possibly support in the future. -- JJay 23:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose changed vote, as per other concerns.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    Not as a response to Blnguyen, but in general, I responded to several of these allegations of inability to maintain a neutral point of view in the comments section (it's the shorter statement at the top). joturner 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per radicalist concerns. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I'm concerned about the short time he's been here (I sympathise with the concerns about bias, but since I've had no negative experiences of the user I can't comment). The JPS 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - Nothing personal, I just don't think the edit history is developed enough. --Cyde Weys 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong oppose per above. I don't think Wikipedia should have ugh... radical admins. MaxSem 10:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose I'm happy with admins with strong POV, and I'm even happy with folk humble admiting their POV in the interests of openness, but I'm not happy with editors that feel the need to use their userspace for advocacy. --Doc ask? 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) withdrawn on reflection --Doc ask? 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    What am I advocating with my userpage? joturner 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, possible issues with POV among other things. Stifle 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, three months of active editing insufficient.—thames 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I agree that joturner is a good contributor, and although I am also uncomfortable with the zeal displayed on his userpage, I'm not sure I want to hold his honesty in openly displaying his views against him personally. Still, it might not be in the project's best interest for him to be made an administrator; it takes little to imagine a number of newbies or vandals blocked or reverted (quite correctly) by him, looking at his userpage and clamoring in the blogosphere that "Wikipedia has been taken over by the Taliban" or the like. I agree that this would be wrong and pointless, but since there are many other admins who can't be defamed in this way, and since adminship is neither a right nor (IMHO) a trophy, there's no reason to even risk embroiling Wikipedia in pointless online fracases. Together with his low time on the project, this leads me to oppose his nomination at least at the moment. Sandstein 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    When I asked for his rationale on his talk page, he said "Some of the POV concerns expressed by others left me with the feeling that you may not be ready just yet." joturner 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong Oppose BlueGoose 19:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose -- Karl Meier 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    On his talk page, Karl said he voted oppose because "[he is] not convinced by the neutrality of [my] edits." joturner 00:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Purpouses of being an admin not too convincing, seems unexperienced. I have a problem with his userpage and unconforable with this diary thing in a userpage. Sorry. Fad (ix) 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Editor holds strong views - nothing wrong with that - but as far as I can see is most definitely not a POV warrior (quite the contrary in fact). So, I've no problem there. I would however prefer this editor waited a couple more months and had more involvement in project namespace. I've no idea if this RFA will succeed or not, but if it doesn't I may well lean to support next time. --kingboyk 11:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, A dedicated 'pedian but agree with Kbk, spread yourself around a little bit more and this would be support in a couple of months. Deizio 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. As per kingboyk. My interaction with joturner has been very limited (and not exactly positive), but I find most of the reasons given to oppose rather...groundless. (And I say this as someone who interacts with Muslim fundamentalists almost on a daily basis.) My main concern is the short amount of time he's been here and the limited number of articles he's focused on. (It doesn't help that most of his edits to those articles are relatively minor.) The edit count is not an issue; I became an admin with slightly over 1000 edits. Neither is his userpage; I found it quite interesting. However, I'm leaning to oppose because his contributions aren't exactly confidence-inspiring. I'm sure he's a great guy, as his comments below show. But I'm not confident that he's spent enough time here yet. Like kingboyk, I'd probably support in a couple of months if joturner could expand his editing horizons. :) Johnleemk | Talk 11:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Joturner does not appear to be a POV warrior as others have stated. I would support this editor for admin except that the editor needs a few months more experience (IMHO). I also want to dispute the claims by others that there is something wrong with his user page. To Joturner's credit, he has been very open about who he is and what he believes. There is no evidence that Joturner has made POV edits to Wikipedia and if anything he has been a very good editor. I hope he will come back for another RfA in a few months and that people will not hold his personal beliefs against him. --Alabamaboy 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral A little too much of a Muslim bias, but to nice too oppose. Jonathan235 04:03, 29 March 2006
  6. Neutral. I think, contrary to the best intentions, explaining one's worldview on userpages makes avoiding edit conflicts about neutrality more difficult; it becomes a magnet for accusations of bias. That said, those who self-consciously recognize and make known their potential biases are generally better at staying neutral. I encourage Joturner to remove most of the religious content from his userpage, but that shouldn't be a cause to vote against him. I would support based on his responses here, but I haven't dealt with him as an editor so I refrain.--ragesoss 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Honestly the anti-Muslim sentiment here is shocking, how is this relevent to Wikipedia? You don't preempt trouble by saying this user might violate policy in the future, there is no reason to believe that! However, Neutral, I would prefer one more month of steady editing. Prodego talk 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Joturner's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • In my request for adminship, above, I said "I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit." It's unfortunate that others will not do that for me. Up until this point, I've received only positive comments on my user page, but now it looks like it is causing large issues. If they continue and appear to be significant enough, I will change it, although I feel the prohibition of point of view and bias, even on user pages, shouldn't extend to a ban on individuality. We are all Wikipedians, but we are all people too.

Although I am personally passionate about my religion, that zeal has never extended to my contributions to Wikipedia. I realize that as an encyclopedia and website that is supposed to appeal to all people around the world and all faiths and backgrounds that we are supposed to remain neutral.

Last month, during the early days of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I voted to keep the cartoons on the article page, at the top, with no special notification despite my personal objection to them (see poll results). I talked to users who repeatedly removed the cartoons from the article, most notably in User talk: Erdemsenol ([11], [12], [13]). My rational speech on that page even caused me to earn a barnstar.

My sixth most edited article is Depictions of Muhammad, which again is something I personally oppose, but yet find useful for Wikipedia. For that article, I uploaded several pictures of the Prophet ((1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), including one that depicts him in hell (that would be number six). Again, my personal religious objections didn't extend to Wikipedia. In addition to uploading those images, I contributed to writing that article.

I have always done my best to correct shows of piety, especially in Muhammad where it is most prevalent ([14], [15]) as well as in other articles ([16]). I've attempted to improve the neutral point of view in Islamic articles, as recently as just a few hours ago when I brought up the potential bias created by presenting so many articles that shout hosannas toward Muhammad ([17]). I also around the same time talked to a user about his reasoning for repeatedly deleting the picture of the Prophet[18].

I will continue to show that neutrality if I were to become an admin and even if I were not to. Your concerns are certainly very valid, as religious bias (as well as all bias) would impede to delivery of information. I may be confident about my religion or a pious (or if you must, "fundamentalist") Muslim, but you will see that those beliefs do not extend into the article content of Wikipedia. My user page, which has not up until this moment been an issue, simply documents an ongoing event in my life. I don't intend to proselytize, as it simply documents facts and does not do anything to lambaste the views of other religions. Although I may have committed to one religion, I find all religions fascinating (hence the userbox saying "This user believes the world is a happier, safer and saner place because of religion."). The introduction of my religious views into articles will not be an issue as an admin or otherwise. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes to the Closing Bureaucrat

  • Note to the closing crat Mike18xx (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has a support vote above(bordering on NPA) seems to actually be an anti-Joturner editor, and the vote should probably be discounted or treated as an oppose vote. JoshuaZ 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think his vote should be discounted. He in fact voted for me twice, both times supporting. I would like to make another note to the closing crat, but I will say that later, after the vote closes on Thursday (or Friday depending on your time zone). joturner 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
However, his comments are a bit contradictory to his votes. And yes, they are personal attacks (but is he really the only one making personal attacks?) joturner 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To closing bureaucrat: Now is the time for you to earn your money. When you ran for your office you promised to exercise good judgement and not merely act as a number-counting robot. Please fulfill your promise and put in the extra effort demanded by this RfA. Support for the candidate is wide, deep, and well-considered; opposition (for the most part) narrow, shallow, and -- may I say it openly? -- bigoted. John Reid 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    It would be incredibly nice if you could avoid making personal attacks, and further, avoid lumping every opposer together. So like, please don't do that? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to closing bureaucrat(s): Echoing what I said on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, I hope you (or maybe you all, if this becomes reviewed by several bureaucrats) can take a good look at the votes on this page before making a decision. As you most likely can see, there are more than a few oppose votes that could be, and have been by me and others, interpreted as personal attacks or inspections of religion rather than discussions of my merits as an editor. Furthermore, many of the oppose votes speculate on actions in the future, such as violations of NPOV, that have no backing presented by voters. And even still, there are other oppose votes or withdrawal of votes that hinge entirely on votes that fit in one the previously mentioned categories (i.e. they simply cite that others have these concerns). I invite any and all voters to present evidence of this radicalism, fundamentalism, and constant inability to maintain a neutral point-of-view that so many oppose voters spoke of, for I know there is none. I realize that there are also several decent oppose votes that state concerns that I could possibly address, but like I stated on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, it is impossible for me to address those concerns (such as radicalism and NPOV) for which there is no evidence of.
Once again, I ask that the bureaucrats really take a hard look at what has happened throughout this RfA and the rationales and comments left by support, oppose, and neutral voters, as well as the other comments under this comments section, before making a decision on what happens next. I wish you all the best and trust your decision is well-intentioned, even if it is not the one I am hoping for. joturner 22:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It's all well and good that the "yes" crowd here wants to eliminate the votes of the "no" crowd... However, the reasons stated above basically say "we don't like the support information supplied with the oppose votes, so we want those votes stricken". I interpret that to mean it's better to simply say "oppose" with no explanation at all, if one wants one's vote to be non-discounted. Where is the logic in that? I made every effort to dialog with this editor about my vote and I came away convinced that Jotuner has rigidity of thought. This is a trait which I feel does not bode well for an admin. Now whether or not he's biased due to his self-professed relgious zeal, frankly, I don't know. And the reason I don't know is, as evidenced by the link to my dialog with him (see 1st "oppose" vote), we never reached that point in our conversation. Rather, our conversation stopped because Joturner insisted that there was "no alternative" to an edit he was pushing. Such thinking is not what I agree with, especially since I was offering an alternative - delete the edit in question entirely. Suffice it to say, dogmatic thinking need not be religious, but sometimes it can stem from religiosity and at the same time, sometimes less experienced editors can be dogmatic without realizing it. That, I feel, is why I am opposed to Joturner. And also, I gain no comfort from an editor who insists on trumpeting his closely held personal views so publicly. The wiki is not a church, or a club or a fraternal organization. Rather, it's a loose confederation of editors who seek to create a freely accessable NPOV encyclopedia. The less we do which detracts attention from that central mission, the better. To sum up, the risk of zealousness affecting Joturner's edits is being closely scrutinized because he displays zealous tendencies. Right, Left, Christian, Muslim - makes no differences to me. What I care about is people keeping their personal views in check - that and I want to see flexible thinking. I do not see enough proof of that with Joturner yet. Maybe later, but not yet. Merecat 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Although saying this may be futile and pointless, I can't just let the above go, especially because it could potentially be used against me in the future. To begin with, my last statement was not necessarily alluding to Merecat or anyone in particular; I acknowledged the fact that there were plenty of decent oppose votes. Anyway... the most notable part of Merecat's statement is the part in bold where he cites me talking about "no alternative." That statement was taken completely out of context and I already explained it on Merecat's talk page[19]. In addition, he talks about "offering an alternative - delete the edit in question entirely." That never happened as we weren't talking about a specific edit but an entire article. Given that I started off my first response to him with "Yes, I am interested in hearing your concerns" and "your concern is very clear," I have no idea where Merecat is coming up with this rigidity. Simply put, Merecat distorted the dialogue entirely; you can see it and judge it for yourself on his/her talk page. joturner 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly support Joturner's RfA and I think that what happened here for the most part smacks of intolerance (there were more reasoned opposes), the final count appears to be below that of bureaucratic discretion. The closing 'crat should follow the process as unfortunate as that result may be. JoshuaZ 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's unfortunate, but I hope what happened here can be used to improve requests for adminship in the future. I'm sure there have been others who have been subjected to this type of treatment, but I want to make sure no future potential admin is declined for adminship because of these types of attacks. If this RfA fails without any further process or action, you can be sure to see me back here in a couple months. Hopefully, the tide will turn or at least the tide will turn enough to result in a different outcome. joturner 05:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
My time spent patrolling recent changes would benefit significantly from the rollback and blocking features. Instead of just giving out warnings about blocks I know I cannot carry out myself, I would be able to quickly rectify vandalism and, if necessary, block repeat vandals. In addition, deletion capabilities would allow me to speedy delete articles that clearly don't belong on Wikipedia, instead of just posting speedy delete templates.
Capabilities I look forward to, although often not anticipated by potential admins, include editing the main page. My activity on pages involving current events has made the ability to add items to the In the News section valuable and a privilege I would use cautiously. In addition, I am also looking forward to the ability to semi-protect pages. Although I know semi-protects are not normally done liberally, there was one time that stands out where I witnessed extreme vandalism, but could do little but continuously revert (see the history of Battle of Badr).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Although it has not reached good article or featured article status, I would have to say I am most proud of my contributions to Prophets of Islam. For a very long time, the article was one of the longest on Wikipedia (the fifth longest in fact), as it managed to reach a length of 273 KB[20]. While some editors did see a need to cut down the size of the article, others believed the large number of links (which accounted for the vast majority of the article’s size) were necessary and therefore the article could not possibly be truncated. Nevertheless, I moved the links that used to exist in the article into the individual articles about the prophets and replaced the simple mention of names of the prophets of Islam with short summaries of their contributions to Islam [21]. My work on that page eventually extended into interest in improving articles on the prophets of Islam. Subsequently, I opened WikiProject Prophets of Islam, which hopefully one day will work to improve articles about the prophets and balance out information about them in other religions.
I can also say I have made a significant contribution to 2006, which incidentally is my most edited article. I have made an effort to make sure the article, as well as other current events articles, maintain the world point-of-view that is often forgotten.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
I have on more than one occasion been involved in editing conflicts, but those almost always are quickly resolved by brief discussions on user or article talk pages. Given my interest in Islam-related articles and given User:Palm dogg’s law that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam," the occasional editing conflict is something I have learned to deal with. In terms of other editors causing me stress, I would have to say User:Striver has caused me the most stress. While I acknowledge he has made a significant number of reasonable edits, he has also created many short stubs that have, in some cases, been put up for deletion. His response when articles of his are put up for deletion, most notably in the Muslim athletes AfD, tend to rub me the wrong way, but I feel I have done a great job maintaining civility while still expressing my opinion. I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit.

Questions by Cyde Weys

1. What editing activities on Wikipedia do you most enjoy?
I most enjoy working on adding information to articles as it is so rewarding to see that my knowledge and research could potentially benefit the world. That is especially rings true on the current events page as it tends to be one of the first places on the World Wide Web to document happenings in the world. Although I realize Wikipedia is not a news source, I try to contribute to articles involving current events whenever possible. Making Wikipedia the most current, up-to-date encyclopedia in the world is important to me. In addition, RC patrolling tends to be just as enjoyable as I feel like I am part of the effort to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and fend off the allegations that Wikipedia's willingness to let everyone edit it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia.
2. Pretend you're now an admin. A vandal creates a new account, uploads a Goatse image, and posts it on a Featured Article. He also blanks various sections on science-related pages saying stuff like "This theory is false." What do you do?
This presents an interesting situation in that there is clear, offensive, and provocative vandalism involved and yet there is still the desire to warn new users before taking severe action. In this case, however, after reverting the affected articles, I'd have to suspend the traditional warnings as there is clearly the potential for some continued harmful vandalism (especially if the featured article in question is linked from the main page). I'd block the vandal for a period that isn't especially long (probably no more than twenty-four hours) and post a comment on his or her talk page regarding the vandalism stating that the edits he or she made would not be tolerated on Wikipedia and that further unconstructive edits could result in longer blocks.
The original block period may seem a bit short, but some people make stupid edits like those mentioned in the question simply because they can and think they would not receive any repercussions. After realizing that one could be blocked (especially for a longer period) from editing Wikipedia, they may reconsider their actions and turn to more constructive edits. If the vandalism were to continue however, even to a lesser degree, I would block the vandal for a greater amount of time.
As for the unnecessarily offensive image the vandal were to upload, I would make sure that was deleted immediately.
3. Pretend you're now an admin. A page is protected under office actions but you see another admin reverting the page to its previous content. What do you do?
The first thing I would do is revert the protected article back to the version accepted under the office protection. Before taking further action, I would first make sure that the {{Office}} template was indeed on the page in question and therefore the admin was clearly notified of the office protection (and the consequences clearly outlined on the policy page). In the more than likely situation it was indeed on the page in question (and probably even if it wasn't), I would notify Jimbo Wales of the incident immediately via his talk page. In the meantime, while awaiting his response, I would notify the admin of his violation of the office policy, explain the potential consequences of his or her actions, and also point him to the notification on Jimbo's talk page (in case (s)he wants to defend the actions). I would continue to monitor the admin's actions for a bit to see if (s)he continues to make significantly inappropriate edits. If that does happen, I would have no choice but to institute a block until Jimbo addresses the office revert as well as the subsequent inappropriate edits.
The above 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Joturner_6f55.html"