Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from discussion page.

  • Comment - So the only people who merit adminship are not even the ones who lack strong opinions on anything, but those who take pains to wipe out any evidence that they might? RGTraynor 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Your comment would not look so foolish, if you had actually read what I wrote. I accepted that admitting presuppositions may be helpful, but using userspace to promore, advocate or present your beliefs is a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about. --Doc ask? 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Which is certainly not what you wrote; your objection was based on the implication that Joturner's religious beliefs would affect his use of admin powers. Now it's on the premise that they're a misuse of userspace and thus he doesn't have a clue about what "Wikipedia is about?" (You might want to check out WP:CIVIL, by the bye.) RGTraynor 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→May I lend an opinion? Quite simply put, I think that the objections of CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email and Doc ask? are illconsidered (and downright stupid). You are opposing someone's RFA because he/she is too religious? How can you guys stand here and speculate that Jo will abuse his Adminship powers because of his religious views? Have you studied his edits in the past? Have you ever found him guilty of "religion pushing" (for lack of better words)? Does he force anyone to see things his way? (Don't tell me about his userpage. As an editor, you are allowed to tell of your interest and personal beliefs. He is not trying to tell anyone "my religion is the way to go." On their userpages, other users write that they are gay, straight; left winged, right winged; athiest or otherwise, and no one bats an eyelid). Joturner has worked hard, and he has gained the respect of many people. Yet, you guys are gonna stand here and predict that he might abuse his powers in the future. Both of you are taking a "better safe than sorry" approach to this RFA voting, which is not what Wikipedia is all about. What ever happened to assuming good faith and accepting people for who they are?
    Doc, your comments are some of the most ill-advised I've ever read. You are the one that are ignorant of what Wikipedia ia about. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Doc's entitled to his opinion; he also has an expectation that he not be harrassed, particularly by members of Esperana, for stating it. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - since people seem intent in misreading what I have said (and I'm not sure if they are trolling me, or just don't get it) let me explain one last time. I am not opposing this candidate because of his strong religious views. (My own views are probably just as strong - but that's beside the point.) My quibble (and it was always a minor one) is that since all editors should be trying to overcome biases, proudly declaring them at length on your userpage (as opposed to quietly mentioning them for the record) is ill-advised and unhelpful. We should try to lay aside, not celebrate, our views on wikipedia. To be clear, I am not opposing the candidate for POV-pusing: I see enough evidence that he does not do that. I am opposing him for what I see as poor judgement in continuing to use his userpage to celebrate his POV - I think serious editors and admins should not do that. I fail to see how that in incivil - indeed the accusations of stupidity and incivility are not assuming good faith and bordering on personal attacks. --Doc ask? 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My two pence

Based on the contents on his User page, it has been said, “doubts about this editor's commitment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia” - ok. However, there is nothing illegal there. In my opinion, it is just a commitment of his faith and belief, and he is toning down the same as suggested. On the other hand, certain user pages contain user boxes and other information which may be illegal at least in some of the countries where wikipedia is viewed, and from where wikipedia is edited. Like Mindspillage and several others, I do believe that User pages also belong to wikipedia, and they should conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Bhadani 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is very troubling

15:21, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fadix (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:20, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Karl Meier (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:20, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:BlueGoose (+ request for editor / user page review) (top) 15:17, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bhadani (→Request for Editor / User Page Review - + replies from my talk page) 15:17, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Joturner (→My dear - + reply) 15:12, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sandstein (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:09, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Stifle (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:08, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:MONGO (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:08, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:MaxSem (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:07, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:The JPS (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:06, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blnguyen (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:06, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JJay (+ request for editor / user page review) 15:05, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TruthCrusader (+ request for editor / user page review) (top) 15:02, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Joturner/Milestones (+ 6000th edit to milestones) (top) 14:58, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zeq (+ request for editor / user page review) 14:57, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Looper5920 (+ request for editor / user page review) 14:55, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bhadani (+ request for editor / user page review) 14:54, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pecher (+ request for editor / user page review) 14:53, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tickle me (+ request for editor / user page review) (top)

14:52, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zora (Request for Editor / User Page Review) 14:36, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rama's Arrow (→Rama's Arrow - + thoroughly confused support) 14:32, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rama's Arrow (→Feedback on Userpage - + reply from my talk page)

Zeq 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a cut and paste from JoTurner's contribution list from approximately here. Personally I see an editor who took oppose comments from his previous RfA to heart and asked those who opposed him to comment on improvements he made to his User Page in response to that critisism. That's exactly what I'd expect him to do. Well done Joturner for responding well to feedback from the community. Gwernol 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The sheer volume of this shows that he is campaigning hard. Someone who takes critism to improve himself does not run and tell everyone about it a week before 2nd attempt at adminship. Zeq 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to campaign, I would have contacted support voters from my last RfA. I, in fact, didn't contact any support voters from my last RfA to comment on the editor review page. The reason, of course, is that they were most likely already okay with the page and thus would not be able to provide any constructive criticism on the user page. You also said, in your oppose vote, that I duplicated the request for review on twenty-nine pages. Perhaps you got that number from the number of oppose voters in my last RfA, but as the evidence you provided says, I in reality only contacted seventeen editors, the oppose voters who mentioned (or at least seemed to have mentioned) that they had a problem with the user page. As Gwernol stated, I was simply trying to get feedback on my page and improve it. So it seems I was in a lose-lose situation: had I kept it, it would have seemed biased, but now that I removed it, some people would think I did that just to improve chances to become an admin. joturner 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course. They already voted for you. So you send an image of "change" to those who oppose you and 2 weeks later being nomonated again with all your supporters participating. How many people voting for you are those you voted for their RFA ? Do you think adminship is a "present" one must reciprocate to each other ? Zeq 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I would beg to differ: it is rather very encouraging to invite critical comments. In his last RfA, I had opposed with a lengthy comment, and this time I was forced to change my perception about him. BTW, I would request you to please continue here – I am referring to your declaration on your userpage about not editing wikipedia for next few months. --Bhadani 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tickle Me's Comment

Oppose, my earlier concerns are still relevant. Seeing that your a Salafi doesn't make it better. Moving contended text to a subpage doesn't help. Asking for a review of one's own user page, editing it to improve chances for a RfA and moving one's editing focus away from Islam as announced, contrary to stated interests, just to further one's RfA, strikes me as bewildering. I don't trust that zeal. --tickle me 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment about being a Salafi is irrelevant. Firstly, it's not true; I'm not a Salafi. That was someone else saying I looked like a Salafi. I never agreed or disagreed and in fact, at that point in time, I didn't even know what a Salafi was. Second, mentioning that (even though, once again, I'm not a Salafi) may be considered a personal attack since you're using that as part of the reason for opposing. And third, I fail to see the problem with someone being a Salafi anyway. As the Salafi article states, Salafis themselves insist that their beliefs are simply pure Islam as practiced by the first three generations of Muslims and that they should not be regarded as a sect. It also says The non-violent Salafis insist that the violent groups are not really Salafis. Not all Salafis are violent terrorists or militants. It is highly unlikely an editor would congratulate me and then say I was a violent Salafi; that doesn't past the sniff test. But regardless, I don't consider myself a Salafi.
About the subpage... stemming from Rama's Arrow's concerns that the section might be perceived as a call to Islam, I removed the full text from my page. However, as you can see from my talk page and its archives, I have received nothing but positive comments about my page. And thus, I went with a comprimise, removing the vast majority of the text from the user page and moving it to a subpage so only interested editors (and there were many) would venture to the page. After additional concerns came up in the RfA, I decided to remove the link to the page, but simply neglected to request speedy deletion for the sub-page. At the point you posted the link to the page, there wasn't even a single page linking to the sub-page and thus could only be reached by very observant editors (like yourself) who decide to find out what pages exist in my user space. I have now nominated the page for speedy deletion and it is very likely it'll be gone by the time you read this.
As I told Zeq, the review of my user page was just that, a review of my user page. I wanted to get the opinions of the editors who I believed were my toughest critics. If I were to go based on what had already been said about my user page (that is, go by the comments on my talk page) I would have gotten a completely different, and much more favorable, view of the page. If I really wanted to campaign, it would probably have made more sense to contact the support voters. But I didn't. When I have asked people during this RfA period to comment on userpage changes, I don't even mention the RfA[1] so other visitors to the talk page won't be drawn to the RfA (don't want to vote stack). I simply mention that a removed completely what I thought was the most contentious section and ask for more specifics on the problems with the user page. I don't see that as campaigning; I see that as a genuine request for feedback on the page. I'm doubting that anyone voting based on the user page wants me to just leave it as-is so they can continue to say how much they don't like it. joturner 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Commenting here on your religious beliefs, whether you're a Salafi or not, is not a personal attack. RfA is exactly the place to discuss the person, not the content of Wikipedia, so please do not take offense at people scrutinizing your beliefs. Having trust in admins is extremely important for the Wikipedia community, so it's quite alright for people to voice concerns about your beliefs if they feel that your adherence to a certain ideology, whether real or not, undermines their trust in you. Pecher Talk 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I'm not especially offended by the comment and I won't really make a big deal out of the idea of it being offensive. joturner 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
"I don't consider myself a Salafi", "I never agreed or disagreed": indeed, however, your refusal of kosher food is particular to Salafiyya, or else, Shi'a, and does make sense only as tacit affirmation. Besides, that radical tone is perfectly in sync with your user sub page, that you had deleted. You could've waited till after the RfA, so others could evaluate it's content. Contrary to others, I don't mind you to expose your views in the first place: I mind the views, deleted or not. "Salafis themselves insist that their beliefs are simply pure Islam [and] that the violent groups are not really Salafis": true, but I don't concur with that self-assesment at all, neither do most western scholars and politicians. And yes, it makes me suspicious that you ressort to it. While Salafis certainly are allowed to opine as they see fit, I regard their zeal, bigotry and political extremism as unbecoming for admin power.
You have been lauded here for asking for review and editing you page accordingly to further your RfA. Im bewildered by the insincerity on enWiki, as it's not about cosmetics and representation - it's about content and views. You are certainly not the only one to blame, as self promotion, administrative thank yous, campaigning, inhibited display of personal life, proselytizing and zealous urge to admin power is quite in order here. --tickle me 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy's Question Six

6. Your nomination has been advertised, among other places at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild. At least five editors casting support votes since the time of this post are members of the Guild. Do you feel it possible that this process might have compromised the integrity of this vote? Would you be willing to discount support votes conceivably gained as the result of advertising?
A: I don't feel it is up to me to say. Certainly the comments on my RfA, although not specifically requesting that people vote for me, seem to be directed towards a certain crowd. It may or may not have compromised the process and it may or may not result in some support votes being stricken. However, I feel it is up to the closing bureaucrat to decide.
I apologize in advance if my answers were not sufficient or poorly written. I wrote these very early in the morning (4:00am-6:00am). Feel free to ask more questions if you so desire. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the people Aminz informed have voted both support and oppose, so perhaps they'll cancel each other out or even be more detrimental than beneficial to my RfA. joturner 10:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Answer to (Timothy's) question #6 by Aminz: Timothy, it was me, Aminz, who added Joturner's RfA on The Muslim Guild and to be honest, my aim was to inform "all" editors I knew who were working on Islam related article: Here is the list of editors I informed:
Non-Muslim editors I informed about this:
  • InShaneee
  • Netscott
  • Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
  • Cyde
  • Zeq
  • Karl Meier
  • Tom harrison
  • Aiden
  • Timothy Usher
  • Pecher
  • Zora
Muslim Editors informed by me:
  • Anonymous editor
  • BhaiSaab
  • Palmiro
  • Bless sins
  • Jibran1
  • Mystìc
  • Striver
  • Ibrahimfaisal
  • Irishpunktom
  • Salman01
Those that I don't know about their religon but were informed since I noticed they are working on Islam related articles:
  • Jeremygbyrne
  • FayssalF
Now, I would like to ask you a question Timothy: Where you aware that I have informed many Non-Muslim editors as well? --Aminz 10:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You may have been well-intentioned, but it would have been if you had not notified anybody about my RfA. It seems like you may not have violated any parts of the proposed survey notification policy as you really did simply provide a link to my RfA, but I'm going to go remove the notices on the pages you mentioned anyway. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course I was aware of that. That's not the point. It's not whether you've operated in good faith, but whether the integrity of the vote has been compromised, and whether the candidate will accept such votes in order to gain adminship.Timothy Usher 10:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


It is exactly the point. This is the RfA for an editor who wants to edit on Islam related article. There is nothing wrong this informing "all" users working on Islam related article. Please give a definition for advertising. To my mind, had I only informed Muslim editors, it was advertising. Please give your definition and if we agree on the definition we can further analyze the matter. Thanks --10:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Another question for Timothy, Can you please tell us how many people among Non-Muslim editors whom I have informed have given negative votes? And then tell us what is the percentage of supporting votes required for one to pass the RfA. Just a fair question I believe, Isn't it? --Aminz 10:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Let the candidate answer the questions for himself, will you? There are six of them, and I take them each seriously.Timothy Usher 10:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Question #6 had nothing to do with Joturner. If someone is to be punished, it is me. Joturner even didn't know about this. --Aminz 10:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The division of wikipedia editors into Muslims, non Muslims and others is the first step to be taken in order to reserve articles relating to religion to their adherents. It's disgusting and frightening by itself as well, besides it's well in sync with this project of yours and with Joturners user page. I'm deeply suspicious about a devout Muslim's ostentatious respect for any religion, which is contrary to any major madhab's stance. See the kosher food issue above, which makes me even more wary. And indeed, I see the Muslim Guild in that line, to which Joturner and you belong. I don't like seeing future and present administrators as members. --tickle me 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Tickle me, before answering everything, I sharply disagree with your classification of me and Joturner into one group. Joturner never supported those of my edits you are reffering to. You wrote: "The division of wikipedia editors into Muslims, non Muslims and others is the first step to be taken in order to reserve articles relating to religion to their adherents."
Tickle me, I think that Muslims tend to edit Islam related article; Turks tend to edit articles related to Turkish; Mathematicians tend to edit articles related to Math. I think divisions are already shaped by culture, not by me. Your argument, though, seems to be deeper than what I am arguing here. Can you please clarify more? Timothy said Muslims are notified, I said no; everybody is notified and I gave a list of those Non-Muslims who were notified. The context of my division was a response to Timothy. But your clarification will be appreciated. --Aminz 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
you wrote: "It's disgusting and frightening by itself as well, besides it's well in sync with this project of yours and with Joturners user page."
I can't get your argument here. I created that Project_Page in order to share something with other Muslim editors. It was an un-wikipediaic thing to do and I didn't meant it to be. I, personally, wanted to discuss and get the feedback of Muslim editors regarding the usage of arabic words in wikipedia. Your usage of the words "disgusting and frightening" is not appropriate. You can of course argue (as Joturner did) that we should keep faithful to wikipediaic things even in our own userpages. --Aminz 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You said:"I'm deeply suspicious about a devout Muslim's ostentatious respect for any religion, which is contrary to any major madhab's stance."
Your suspicious is personal but being contrary to any major madhab's stance is your personal pov. Qur'an states that God has made the rituals and religons of other people beautiful to their eyes and thus commands Muslims not to insult gods of other religons. --Aminz 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As discussed, the Muslim Guild was notified of this RfA. Every listed member who has voted here has voted to support the RfA. These votes (minimally) should be disqualified as the result of targetted advertisement for this RfA.Timothy Usher 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
But then what about the oppose votes? Zeq, Karl Meier, Aiden, you, and Pecher all voted oppose. It's up to the bureaucrat to decide, but since oppose votes are weighted more than support votes (in that it takes at least three support votes to cancel out an oppose vote), I don't see the issue. joturner 23:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As discussed, everybody was notified of this. It is shocking to me that you accuse me of doing "targetted advertisement for this RfA". Be happy! I will leave wikipedia soon. Wait for a couple of more days and you will get rid of me. --Aminz 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, this has occurred many times in the past and since it still continues, I'm led to believe that there is no policy on it. That being said, until there is one, this one incident can not be held to be in the wrong while other similar incidents occur without censure.Also, Joturner cannot be held responsible if other people want to post his RfA somewhere. If he was held liable, I would go around and post various RfAs of people I don't like just to get their RfA's integrity questioned. Pepsidrinka 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment

Adding these comment to my vote ruined the numbering, so I've moved them here:

As you've dutifully answered my questions, you deserve an explanation for why I'm not changing my vote. Your answer to question one was exactly what I wanted to hear, as you correctly discerned. Couldn't have been better. But your denial that the user page changes and Mosque FAC were components of your drive to gain adminship isn't credible. Of course they were. That you'd state otherwise deprives me of the confidence in the sincerity of your other answers that I'd need before supporting.Timothy Usher 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's really nothing more I can say; if you don't believe me, I'm not going to force you to. However, I believe it's not right for you (or anyone else) to take every action that occured between my last RfA and this RfA as campaigning. joturner 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can say it was not campaigning, but look: people objected to your userpage and you changed (I'd say for the worse), people objected to your lack of experiences and you wrote Mosque to a featured article (though I have argued and still do that an article sourced to murky websites cannot be featured and the number of errors and omissions there is just inappropriate). It's just reasonable to conclude that you REALLY want to become an admin and you're doing your utmost to become one. Because this time you have nominated yourself it's also reasonable to conclude that you want to become an admin as soon as possible. It wasn't a good idea on your part to deny that you were not motivated by your desire to get adminship; as Timothy said, it's just not credible. Pecher Talk 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Question for Timothy

Timothy, you were very concerned that some Muslim editors were informed of this RfA (while I informed all editors working on Islam related articles) . We know Tickle me asked Aiden to change his neutral vote but it was perfectly okay to you. I don't know your definition of "targetted advertisement" but can you please let us know that according to your definition, is Tickle me's request of Aiden a "targetted advertisement" or not. --Aminz 08:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, on the one hand, we have an entire Muslim Guild, every one of whom who's shown up here has voted to support - and that's not counting those who merely browse the page. Then we have Aiden, who changed his vote from neutral to oppose. Solution: ignore all "Muslim Guild" votes and change Aiden's vote back to neutral for purposes of tallying.
It's neither appropriate nor acceptable that a Guild identify WP editors by confession, as the Muslim Guild page explicitly does, and then organize astroturf swarms of vote-spam to promote its own religiously-qualified members to adminship.Timothy Usher 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Timothy. Vote-stacking along religious lines is entirely unacceptable and undermines the entire value of Wikipedia as a neutral, secular encyclopedia. Comments, like those by Faisal ("There are very few Muslims administrators around and wikipedia is POOR when it comes to Muslim related articles."), basically saying "we need more Muslim admins" show an unhealthy desire to promote a person to adminship just because he is a Muslim. We cannot afford the Wikipedia community being split into Muslims and non-Muslims thanks to this soort of behavior. Pecher Talk 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My impression on the RFA page itself was that some Muslim editors voted for, and some against- is that not the case? I said in my support vote that I didn't believe in the idea of having more Muslim admins since admins serve the community (and this not an election in the political sense). I think this needs investigating properly, perhaps by a Bureaucrat (I'm not suggesting that Joturner should be penalised for something someone else did in, I assume, good faith, but this does need to be looked into). It would be a disaster if these sorts of votes became quasi-political elections with quasi political/religious or any other parties. Captainj 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Like I have said before, the people Aminz contacted included several people that opposed as well, but that keeps getting ignored. And considering oppose votes take at least three support votes to cancel them out, that should be more seriously looked at. I am just as annoyed by Aminz's solicitation of votes but this is for some reason being held against me, instead of him. The division of people into religion is also being brought up, but it wasn't me doing the dividing. I mentioned that I am a Muslim on my page (and once again, note bureaucrat Jwrosenzweig's userpage, which is no big deal) and so I wasn't surprised when someone brought it up. But I feel as though there is an unnecessary introduction of religion here. If you have a problem with the division on the Muslim Guild page, which seems to not have bothered too many up until now (Muslim or non-Muslim or those who wish not to disclose), that is fine. If you have an issue with how Aminz has divided the people he contacted by religion, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with me and my RfA. And comments from voters are now being questioned. Not sure what that has to do with me either. There are things said by those on both sides that people aren't going to necessarily agree with, but it's up the bureaucrat to decide whether they are valid. joturner 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Like I have said before, the people Aminz contacted included several people that opposed as well, but that keeps getting ignored."
One can ask why they are getting ignored?
"I am just as annoyed by Aminz's solicitation of votes but this is for some reason being held against me, instead of him."
I didn't solicite for votes. I just informed "EVERYBODY" I knew. I can see that your impression and your getting annoyed is because of Timothy. Timothy, see how you are influencing others. You have good reasoning ability but are misusing it. --Aminz 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of his being annoyed with Aminz's solicitation of votes, Joturner should not have removed Aminz's comments from other people's talk pages. What Aminz did was most certainly not vandalism, just poor form, and those who such comments as spam could have removed them from their talk pages themselves. It's just inappropriate to edit other people's talk pages, and it was certainly not a reflection of sound judgment expected from an admin. Pecher Talk 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Joturner behaved appropriately under the circumstances. I view it as legitimate removal of vandalism. --Ben Houston 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily call it vandalism, as Aminz, I'm sure, was acting in good faith. However, this is a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't or a Catch-22. If I hadn't responded to criticism, people would have called me out for being stubborn. But now that I have responded to criticism, it's "campaigning". I said thank you to people for voting, but that was somehow campaigning. I essentially said that I wouldn't give up and I'd try another time. Campaigning as well. I ask a legitimate question regarding policy on commenting. Campaigning. I ask to have an unnecessary page deleted from my user space. That's hiding evidence. I say that I'm not a Salafi; not good enough. Because someone gets the impression that I am one, I suddenly am one. This RfA may be bound for failure, but eventually I hope that editors will be able to get over these pre-conceived notions and judge me, and all future RfA candidates, not by what they have imagined the person to be in their minds, but rather what they are. joturner 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You are neglecting a third option: respond to criticism, and then wait awhile before re-nominating yourself for adminship. When you make some of the necessary changes, let everyone know you've done so, push the Mosque to FAC and then say, "look what I did, now can I be an admin?" that is rightly seen as campaigning.
Despite Aminz' comments on the main page, I did not call you a liar, but your denial of this particular point does appear to be a lie, and shows that you are willing to do so in order to succeed in this RfA. This, in turn, casts doubt upon your other answers, such as your intention to steer mostly clear of Islam-related articles, and not to resort to admin powers in relation to them.
The unanimous support you've received from the Muslim Guild, which explicitly designates editors as "Muslim" or "non-Muslim", of which you are a member, and wherein a notice of this RfA appeared, indicates the hope and expectation among a good number of your supporters that your statements will prove inaccurate, and that the changes to the userpage and recent avoidance of Islam-related articles are merely temporary concessions to the necessity of succeeding in this RfA. We can't know for certain, but all the evidence points in this direction.
Giving it a little time might have gone (and still might go) some way towards building trust.Timothy Usher 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Re this comment, let me be more blunt. Timothy, stop making one sided arguments! --Aminz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, you wrote above: "This is the RfA for an editor who wants to edit on Islam related article. There is nothing wrong this informing "all" users working on Islam related article."
Your comment suggests that you yourself don't believe his stated intentions to generally steer clear of involvement of Islam-related articles to be sincere. You take it as a given that this remains is his main interest on WP, as his pre-campaign userpage and editting patterns make crystal clear. Indeed, as a fellow member of the aforementioned Guild, isn't that the foundation of your interest in his candidacy?Timothy Usher 22:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I didn't know that Joturner has decided to "generally steer clear of involvement of Islam-related articles." If it is so, then I don't know why some people opposed him?
As to what you call, "pre-campaign userpage and editting patterns", I think Joturner, for whatever reason, likes to mention in his userpage that he is a convert to Islam as some others like to post other things on their userpages. He changed it because people were objecting to it for a couple of reasons, e.g. if an administrative action is taken by this user, people will think he has done this because of his religion. So what?!
"Indeed, as a fellow member of the aforementioned Guild, isn't that the foundation of your interest in his candidacy?"
Timothy, not being a "member". But I admit my personal interest in his candidacy is not limitted to but includes his religon. I am of course in general interested in candidacy of all editors I know (e.g. you, Aiden, Zora, Zereshk, etc.) I don't deny that Joturner's religion has affected the way I am viewing his candidacy. But this is quite natural. People just don't confess it. People from the same religion, country, university major, etc. have more things in common and feel more closer --> may tend to trust each other more. Again I ask, so what?
All this said, BUT OF COURSE, there are much more important reasons to my supporting of Joturner rather than his religion. Joturner likes to become an admin. He has tried to keep himself neutral but you don't believe that when he says "he wants to act neutrally in the future as well". It only shows that you are not kind enough. God accepts the repentance of those who turn back to him "in the time of their misery". Many of them again turn back from God right after God has helped them, but God again and again mercifully accepts their apology when they again turn back to him again. Now, Joturner has done everything in proving that he wants and likes to be neutral. Even if it is done with the motivation of becoming an admin, it is still fine. You don’t believe him. God will treat you exactly as you treat people. He will not accept it from you when you promise that you will try not to commit the sin you are repenting from again. --Aminz 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I really am hating this, all this Muslim non-Muslim BS, this simply diverted the attention from more serious issues, as to if this user should be an administrator. Being biased about issues is not reason enough to oppose. The question here, is, is there reasons enough to think that this user can not handle administrator privilages, regardless of if he is Muslim, Indu or what have you? To this question, I said yes! and opposed, and my yes! was rather what I percieved a possible lack of maturity, also, when one accept being an administrator, there should be reasons for that, this issue has not adequatly been answered. Those are the relevant issues, and not ones religious biases, everyone has biases. Fad (ix) 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, religion could have been mentioned here, but it has been blown far out of proportion. I won't say these unnecessary introductions of religion are a calculated attempt to doom this RfA (I hope they are not), but I will say that I don't like them at all. You're supposed to judge the candidates not clutter RfAs with personal issues about religion. You may have some; that's fine. But they are relevant only to a point here. We have gone far past that point. joturner 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
@Bhouston: "I think Joturner behaved appropriately under the circumstances" - There's no definition of vandalism at WP:Vandalism that would apply. At best it could be argued that Joturner acted as an admin prematurely. @Joturner: when you -unrequestedly- pray for me (and anyone else) in the course of your administrative thank you postings, and when you ask for review of your deeply religious user page, please don't allege that caring about this issue is calculated. @Aminz: I never had contact with Aiden, I assume a mistake of yours. --tickle me 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
People have the right to be concerned, for good or bad reasons, the problem is that there are some administrators I have accountered that in my opinion don't fit their title, and once someone is made an administrator it is very hard to revert the situation, because that we like it or not, in various occasions it passes because of lobbying being done and collusions between some members, of course the contrary could be the cases as well. One of my first standards when voting, is ones userpage and their answers to the questions or other users. I always have in mind: 'What would this user bring to the community more once he is an administrator than now?' You asked me two times about the reasons for my opposition to your RfA on my talk page to improve, once after the cases was closed and it did not pass, and for this RfA. And I purpously didn't answer you, because some things can not be fixed like this right away, and maturity was here my first concern. Had I told you to be more mature, I hardly imagine how you could have said, 'OK, I decided to be more mature.' Maturity comes from time and experience and is the product of many little things, which unfortunitly some administrators I came accross were missing. Of course one can be an administrator and then with time become more experienced and mature, but it may or may not come, and that is th entire issue, doubt for me is enough to oppose. Fad (ix) 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, that he so strongly states a POV on his user page is a cause for concern, but only in regards to actually having a strong view on something, because it may indicate a likelyhood of performing POV edits (whether it's a Muslim POV or any other POV). I scrutinised his edits just like I do for any other RfA candidate who I'm not quite so familiar with, and I'm honest enough with myself to admit that I scrutinised his edits a little more carefully because I knew he had such strong POVs. However, I saw nothing in his edits that set off any red flags that tell me he won't be a good admin. The only negative thing I've seen so far is that he seems a little too eager to get the adminship, but I've seen many other candidates be even more eager than him. In my opinion, I still believe he will make a good admin, and my support vote stands. This RfA should not be about the fact that he holds very strong views, but whether his strong views affect his edits and whether they will affect his actions as an admin. In my opinion, they don't, and they won't. I won't question the any of the oppose votes, though. Other RfA voters have their own views, and I don't make it a habit of questioning their votes unless they approach Boothy proportions (and I never questioned Boothy's votes either). --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From discussion on closing RfAs

Hi joturner. Thank you for your reply to my comment about closing. I did appreciate the reasons for only commenting in the opposition section was probably because there were no late supports at the time of your edits. However, that isn't really the point i was trying to make. To some extent tt doesn't matter what your motives were; an admin will be judged on their actions and, most often, on a most critical perception of what their motives are. Its what your actions around the RfA appear to be, rather than why you did them, that draw concern. In the same vein, it is unfair, especially as you do appear to make a huge effort to be neutral on subjects that are close to you, that people will struggle to see past your startlingly expressive user page. That may well say more about their prejudices then anything else. But the fact remains that does happen and will continue to happen with greater frequency and intensity if you are an admin. In my opinion, it is that lack of judgement - that you feel the need to express yourself in a manner that is not central to improving the project, despite the extensive concern it elicits - that concerns me (and i think, many others). Your position is a righteous one, and you carry it off well, but i can't help think you are risking martyring yourself on a principle, when we need admins that are sensitive to wiki-practice. Best wishes. Rockpocket (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning

Joturner denies that he has been campaigning to get adminship since his last RfA failed. This claim is just not consistent with joturner's contacting editors who voted "oppose" or "neutral" during this nomination and trying to persuade them to change their mind. Here are the examples:

I don't think that this list is exhaustive. Pecher Talk 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Asking for clarification of opinion, responding to a request for some evidence of NPOV, and correcting misconceptions is not campaigning. joturner 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And I never requested that anyone change their vote. joturner 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I did think it was a little strange to be contacted by J. after the "oppose" vote, but I actually did not feel pressured by him; quite the opposite--he told me to do what I want. I think he is being sincere in his description of the motivation for his action above. Elizmr 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
His message to me was perfectly civil and acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I didn't see it at trying to influence me, rather he requested my counsel in what he could do to improve. I was happy to discuss that with him and, yes, I did change to support but I wasn't pressured into it any way. --kingboyk 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Final Statement

I'm not going to repeat anything I said before, but simply state something that I never had the opportunity to address. And that is in regards to contacting the bureaucrats about the nomination. I am not the first one to note the end time of an RfA on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, and so it is not as if that action was unprecedented. Someone else even inquired as to why my RfA had stayed open well after the end time on the RfA talk page. Anyway, I mentioned the RfA on the bureaucrat's noticeboard just to call attention to it in case no one noticed. Several hours later (that would be later, in the morning for me), I began to contact bureaucrats via their talk pages because, yes, I did want it closed quickly, but not because I wanted an easy promotion but because I wanted to stop a situation (either with a promotion or "no consensus") that seemed like it was about to spiral out of control. When User:Taxman acknowledged that he was aware of what was going on and User:Linuxbeak chimed in as well, I was satisfied, as I at least knew they had noticed the situation. There was a part of me that expected a decision right then that would end the escalating situation, one way or another. But when it turned out that the decision was to let the situation continue for a couple more days, I was a bit concerned as clearly things were starting to heat up and arguments were just being repeated, extended, and diverted. However, I didn't withdraw since there was still a possibility for promotion. Later on, when it became clear that consensus was not going to be reached and when it became clear things could only get worse, I thought it was time to withdraw.

So there you have it, an explanation of the bureaucrat contact. Respond here if you must, but it is highly unlikely I will be responding to a response here. Take it or leave it at face value. joturner 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)