Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner: Difference between revisions

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner|action=edit}} Vote here] (59/24/4) 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)[reply]

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator! NSLE _(T+C) at 06:47 UTC (2006-03-23)
2. 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)[reply]
3. Support eagerness to clean up wikipedia - but also prepared to accept councel -- Agathoclea 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. 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)[reply]
5. Support. Vandal fighter, good length of service and edits. No reason to deny him. Ifnord 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Per Pepsidrinka. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Support very good from my observations in the Striver-gate nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Large experience and no evidence he would abuse the mop. Fetofs ^Hello! 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

9. Support Joe I 00:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - Richardcavell 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per nom. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Looks like a great encyclopedia builder. –Joke 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Looks good as per above. Nephron 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Good editor + won't abuse tools = easy choice. Rx StrangeLove 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support will be an excellent admin --rogerd 04:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support excellent candidate mmeinhart 04:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support--Jusjih 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Seems to be a good editor that will not abuse admin tools. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Gread editor - Knows what he's doing. Information Center 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, looks OK. Salaam aleikum! JIP | Talk 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support A great contributer. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Has done great work here even outside Islam related articles. Gizza^{Chat ©}
24. Support per nom. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, great editor. --Terence Ong 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. SupportDanielDemaret 14:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. 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)[reply]
29. 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)[reply]
30. Support Grön ^sv 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]
32. 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)[reply]
33. 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)[reply]
34. Support, Meets my 100% requrements. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - definitely good admin material. Green Giant 21:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. 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)[reply]
37. Support - no relevant reason to oppose. We all have our two cents. --Jay(Reply) 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --TantalumTelluride 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. 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)[reply]
40. 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)[reply]
41. 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)[reply]
42. 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)[reply]
43. Support. Looks good. Aucaman^Talk 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Looks like a great editor. The best of luck! Weatherman90 21:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. 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)[reply]
46. 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)[reply]
47. 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)[reply]
48. Support--Mido 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support, Good editor? Check. Most importantly, Good Judgement? CHECK.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. pschemp | talk 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. 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)[reply]
52. 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)[reply]
53. Support as per nom Leidiot 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. 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)[reply]
55. Strong Support --Jibran1 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Strong Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support per DS1953. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. 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)[reply]
59. 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)[reply]
60. Support. As per GT above. RicDod 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   I responded in the comments section. joturner 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]
3. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   - - - -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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   I have apologized to the voter on his user talk page and struck out my comment. mmeinhart 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   A "serious adherent to the faith of Islam" *is* a "fundamentalist".--Mike18xx 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

7. Too many conflicts based on religious zeal. Zeq 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose To many issues concerning NPOV right now, would support otherwise. Moe ε 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
11. Strong Oppose per Bhadani.  Grue  16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

    For future voters, I responded to this matter on Talk:William Hogarth. joturner 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Reluctant Oppose - not long enough editing history to be admin. Trödel 11:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose I agree with Jonathunder and Trödel. --Mmounties (Talk) 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
18. Oppose changed vote, as per other concerns.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

19. Oppose per radicalist concerns. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
21. Oppose - Nothing personal, I just don't think the edit history is developed enough. --Cyde Weys 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Strong oppose per above. I don't think Wikipedia should have ugh... radical admins. MaxSem 10:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. 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)[reply]

    What am I advocating with my userpage? joturner 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose, possible issues with POV among other things. Stifle 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]