This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AAA765 (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 24 May 2006 (→Moved comment: A question for Timothy (personal interests to know the answer)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:57, 24 May 2006 by AAA765 (talk | contribs) (→Moved comment: A question for Timothy (personal interests to know the answer))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 20:13, 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)
- Doc, your comments are some of the most ill-advised I've ever read. You are the one that are ignorant of what Misplaced Pages ia about. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
My two pence
Based on the contents on his User page, it has been said, “doubts about this editor's commitment to Misplaced Pages 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)
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) Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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 Misplaced Pages, so please do not take offense at people scrutinizing your beliefs. Having trust in admins is extremely important for the Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)
Timothy's Question Six
- 6. Your nomination has been advertised, among other places at Misplaced Pages 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 evenbe more detrimental than beneficial to my RfA. joturner 10:41, 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
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)