Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Joturner

[edit]

Final (123/45/4) ended 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner (talk · contribs) – I first came to Wikipedia in June 2005, but began to only occasionally engage in the project not long after some active participation in July. However, since mid-December, I have put in five active months into Wikipedia, amassing over 6,200 edits. I participate in many aspects of the project, putting a significant amount of work into both articles and project pages; I participate in both RC patrolling and article for deletion discussion. Last month, I put a significant amount of work into raising an article to featured status and this month I am an avid editor of the Main Page Errors page, making sure the threshold to the English Wikipedia is looking its best. I communicate a great deal with other editors via the user talk pages and the article talk pages, allowing me to improve my people and communication skills. I always remain civil even in the heat of the battle; I have earned two barnstars for my continued civility and my talk page is a testament to the positive interaction I have had with other editors.

I accepted a nomination back in March, but it didn't pass with 69% of voters (not including neutral voters) supporting my nomination. Since then, I have kept the suggestions and comments of the oppose and neutral voters in mind, and continued to contribute to Wikipedia, expanding my editing scope and remaining active for a few more months. More recently, I filed an editor review for myself and contacted many of the oppose voters from my first RfA for feedback. I am always willing to accept criticism and improve accordingly; that resiliency is essential for an admin candidate. And so now, based on the comments in my editor review, general comments from the community, and my range of beneficial contributions to the project, I believe I, as well as the English Wikipedia Project as a whole, would benefit if I were to be given adminship. joturner 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Absolutely. joturner 03:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Vote count, end time, support, opposition, technicalities, campaigning, notification, responding, religion, editcountitis, length of tenure, time since last nomination, neutrality, bias, civility, incivility, eagerness, humility, trust, and distrust aside, I know consensus when I see it. This is certainly not consensus and therefore there is no need to continue this debacle. joturner 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I co-nominate. Computerjoe's talk 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please treat this as my co-nomination too. Better late than never! --Bhadani 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We've decided to extend this nomination to solidify the community consensus. Please review all the relevant information before giving your views and provide expanded reasoning so consensus can be determined. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support again. Still see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support And my earlier comments apply, look at his contribution history. Jo clearly has been able to edit very effectively in a NPOV way. JoshuaZ 04:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support jaco♫plane 04:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I beat the Nominator support Shh, humor me. Anyway; excellent user, no problems at all. Mopper Speak! 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Edit conflict Support No problems here. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per all above,  :) Dlohcierekim 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Just remember that your userpage is your "face", and as such it must be neutral. Otherwise, I see no evidence that you'll abuse admin tools.--MONGO 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to oppose--MONGO 20:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Wishing you the best. michael talk 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I was just checking over failed RfAs and looking for admin candidates, and I was mindful of Joturner; I'm still surprised that he bombed out last time. - Richardcavell 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Your userpage is even better now. :) Johnleemk | Talk 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - per above. Kukini 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --TantalumTelluride♪ 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Roooowwwwwr, I'm a lion!!! Mop? Definitely. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Joturner and I have often contributed to the same AfD and RfA discussions. I have sometimes come to the same conclusion as Jo, and at least as often we've come down on different sides of the debate. But his reasoning has always been excellent and made me think again about my position. I have every reason to believe he'll be a fine admin. Gwernol 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support he'll do well with the tools. I've always been more than pleased with his contributions -- Samir धर्म 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above abakharev 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Knowledgeable, civil, experienced, and confident--Joturner would make an excellent administrator. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support, we need more admins and this is a perfect candidate. --Rory096 08:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Great user. DarthVader 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Co-nom! --Computerjoe's talk 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Palmiro | Talk 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - last RfA showed you can take criticism calmly, which is exactly the type of attitude we need in an admin. You can be trusted with the mop, I'm sure. Kimchi.sg 12:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I haven't had much interaction with this user, but I've seen them crop up here & there & have liked what I've seen. A review of contributions hasn't changed that impression. Civil and focused on a better encyclopedia, I think that this candidate will make a thoughtful admin. BTW, I am impressed with the user page. It's personal space - I see no need to 'tone it down'. The fact that the content of the user page does not creep into the edits I've seen shows me that this editor has a good grasp of NPOV. Colonel Tom 12:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Joturner is an editor who has shown that he knows our policies and can be trusted. I was also impressed by the manner in which he responded to his failed nom. The userpage stuff doesn't bother me, if it serves to remind editors that there is a living, breathing person behind the username that's probably a good thing. Rje 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: good editor. Jonathunder 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Rfa cliché #1 RadioKirk talk to me 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Solid user with good contributions on all fields. --Tone 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support--Jusjih 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --ForestH2
  31. Support. Joturner has done a superb job with Current events and finding errors on the main page, and from what I've seen his edits are well-reasoned, and NPOV. Below, Joturner notes conflicts with User:Striver; he's not at all alone in that respect. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. This time - a sure support. He has displayed maturity during his talks. --Bhadani 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Quite thoughtful and clearly trustworthy. I recommend anyone concerned about NPOV problems read the second citation provided by Prodego. Xoloz 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak Oppose Last time I voted neutral, so this time I wanted to be very sure about my vote. I looked through some recent edits, and here is what I found: First, what I didn't like, with the reason why: could be more civil, civility, not assuming good faith (although this (and later comments) refutes Doc glasgow's claim), no apology for a possible mistake. And now what I did like, again with the reason: helpful. Prodego talk 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I change my vote to support. (here is the link mentioned above [1]). Prodego talk 17:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--seems quite serious about doing what's best for the encyclopedia and growing as an editor.--Eva db 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. While understanding Doc glasgow's objections, I'm going to support this nomination. As an agnostic, I'm impressed by the nominee's religious devotion, particularly by the articulate and personal manner in which he expresses it. Beyond that, he appears to be a good editor. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I've been wracking my brain about where I've seen this user before, but I'm sure it was positive. After looking over this RfA and the user's contributions, I have no reason to believe that he will abuse the admin tools. This user shows general familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and has a history of good edits to a variety of different topics. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I stated on this editor's previous RfA that I'd support with the passage of a little more time (and more experience). Seems likely to be a good admin.--Alabamaboy 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support for many reasons, including involvement, helpfulness, just being good for the project in general, but the most hopeful thing I see is this second link of Prodego's. That was a textbook example of what a Wikipedia editor should do in that situation. -- Deville (Talk) 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support And I must say you've got the coolest looking userpage. Ever. Bastique▼parlervoir 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support ForestH2 already voted
  45. Strong support - I was impressed by this editor's attitude on various issues. —Khoikhoi 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, I couldn't care less about someone's userpage or personal beliefs, and Prodego's link removes any POV concerns I might have had. BryanG 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. Pepsidrinka 01:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support The user seems neutral and rational. --ManiF 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Kusma (討論) 02:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Per above and my last support two months ago. GizzaChat © 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support as nominator for his first request. Deserves it. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-05-18)
  52. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support but with a nod to Taxman's editcountitis concerns below. Joturner is a great contributor and will make a fantastic admin. His userpage is/was fine (or certainly no worse than those of many other editors/admins) and I encourage him to bring back the timeline. — GT 07:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --Canderous | Talk 09:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Andy123 talk 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per DS1953 (#1) and Mackensen (#37). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, I'm satisfied that Joturner is an NPOV editor (even editing against his own POV when necessary), understands and follows policy, is respectful and reasonable to others; I'm also impressed by his dedication, bringing articles up to Featured status, and he is quite articulate, especially for 17. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, a lot to consider here but I'm happy to support. Jo, you know a lot of people will be watching your mopping very closely. If you continue to develop as an editor you'll do fine. Deizio talk 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be okay with people watching me closely. The scrutiny would only help me "develop as an editor," as you said. joturner 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support His contributions to the articles far outweigh any minor concerns I night have. Joelito (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strongly Support I am also in. --Aminz 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strongly support. Love your userpage as it now stands. I hope you'll put the talent you showed in making it to use more in creating content and less in mucking about with admin powers. Grace Note 06:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, I've followed Joturner's editing style for awhile now and I've found it to be very fair and reasoned. In my experience he has demonstrated a very real capacity for being neutral in his editing on the religious topics that both he and I frequent. Good luck Joturner! Netscott 08:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, a qualified and considerate editor.Bless sins 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak Support, I'm a little concerned about whether he is able to compromise sufficiently (or, at all) in volatile situations. I believe he is learning, though. Ted 08:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Easy one. Dedicated to task at hand. - Irishpunktom\talk 09:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, pleasant, and level-headed. His religious beliefs have never seemed to impinge negatively upon his contributions to Wikipedia, and there's no real reason why they would in the future. Proto||type 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Great user, will be a great asset to the admin community.. He has very good technical knowledge of the wikipedia as well.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Mackensen. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC) No longer supporting. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak Support I dont know much about him, but the few times we meet was in opposite sides of disputes. Although we did'nt come to any concensus, i perceived him as reasonable. --Striver 11:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. What!? I didn't already...Support. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 12:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - No doubt Joturner and I will disagree from time to time, but I'm sure he'll be fair in his admin actions or recuse himself if he can't be. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Jibran1 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support He's willing to listen to the community and I think he will be a trustworthy admin. I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm willing to assume good faith on this one. --kingboyk 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - believe this user will rise to the task. bd2412 T 15:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support -- Deserved. Szvest 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  81. Support - For the second time. Afonso Silva 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Great editor; good person; will make a fine editor. Bucketsofg✐ 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Seems to be a great user in all regards. The user page is not an issue for me. Canderson7 (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. - I can see an editor, who despite having his own POV is able to edit neutrally - OTOH his POV is even needed to balance the adminteam as a whole. Agathoclea 11:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. There are very few Muslims administrators around and wikipedia is POOR when it comes to Muslim related articles. Many articles have many mistakes and few also just a propoganda against Islam. For example see Dhimmi article. I hope you will help in making such article more neutral. --- Faisal 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you expect joturner's adminship to contribute to the improvement of Islam-related articles? By joturner's blocking disagreeing users and protecting Islam-related articles in the version favoring your POV? Pecher Talk 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I never said I would do that; see the answer to User:Timothy Usher's first question. I can't tell whether Pecher is implying I said that at one point or whether he just thinks Faisal believes that (for now, I'll stick with the latter). joturner 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter, of course. I'm afraid Faisal sees adminship in general and your adminship in particular in a completely wrong light: to improve the quality of articles, one need not be an admin, not even an editor with a username, by the way. Therefore, I feel it necessary for you to make it very clear for Faisal that he will not be able to "take advantage" of your being an admin if your nomination passes. Pecher Talk 17:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, Pecher, is doesn't hurt to assume good faith once in a while. --Telex 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Telex, assuming that it needs Muslim administrators to improve articles on Islam as Faisal does is wrong and not a good thing, and I don't appreciate the gap that widens here, it leads the wrong way. That said, developments seemingly can't be hindered anymore. So the response to the Muslim Guild might be a non Muslim Guild to ensure NPOV, if not by consensus, than by debatte. --tickle me 14:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish if you could understand the meaning of neutral I had written above. Without understanding its meaning one cannot make Dhimmi a neutral article. Pecher when did I said that J. will block you from imposing your POV in Dhimmi? It is your imagination and nothing else. --- Faisal 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - I see no compelling reason not to. Strong religious views should not be a bar to adminship. --Telex 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - while some of the overt religiousness on your userpage frightens me, I see no evidence that you let your faith lead you to POV, and I see no reason why you should not have the tools. Lankiveil 23:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. support Shanes 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --M@thwiz2020 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support version 2.0. Great user, will be a fine administrator. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. All experiences with this user have been positive. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Joe I 04:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Hopefully WP:100 support... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. --Ian Pitchford 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Intelligent and nice personality. Unhesitant to communicate differences with other editors, and wherever reasonable, lead him to compromise. Just as most of us seek the meaning of life and harbour the answer on something else, he is currently found it in Islam. Surely it is only one step of his long journey, so let him grow. For me, his prior version of user page was nothing more than reflection of sincerity. - madyasiwi 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - good and neutral editor. Very close to 100. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - looks like I make an even 100. Respect for Wikipedia seems another "strong personal view" of this editor, which should allay some people's concerns. Hopefully Axiom 26 is now in doubt! David Oberst 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - I initially supported last time then got scared off. In hindsight, as I knew from the beginning how he was dealing with Striver, trying to keep NPOV, my reaction to switch was ill-informed,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  101. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support will be a good admin --rogerd 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support only seen good things from this user.--Alhutch 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per Gwernol. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. I was originally concerned about this user's ability to maintain NPOV in religious matters (mostly because of how his user page looked before the last admin request [2]). However, after looking at some of his edits, I am now convinced that he is fully able to edit NPOV. -- Heptor talk 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I have observed Joturner to be balanced and civil. I think he shows respect and fairness. Tyrenius 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, good nomination. Royboycrashfan 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. youngamerican (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I added this RfA to my watchlist in order to keep a close track of J's comments and reactions to oppose votes, as well as his general edits regarding this discussion. Since I don't like to switch sides, I wanted more info before actually voting, and I feel I'm ready. Jo, I'm still concerned about the way in which you will actualy act as an admin, since the sole idea of wheel warring (or other equally dangerous episodes) over religious issues terrify me; but so far I have only seen you take the matter wisely and with good judgement. I'm willing to trust you. Please, honor our trust. Best of luck to you, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - I look forward to more valuable contributions from Joturner. --Ben Houston 04:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, been watching this one for days before realizing that I forgot to add my own vote in. I admire Jordan both in the context of Wikipedia and what he's revealed about his personal life via his user page (although I would advise shortening it some). Will make a fine admin. Tijuana BrassE@ 06:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, (Changed from neutral) seems like a really open-minded and knowledgeable editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Perfect nominate for the job --K a s h Talk | email 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support After reading through the objections, it seems that even in the worst light, Joturner comes off as a very reasonable person. As for his userpage, it seems a little excessive (though not much) but it's mostly his actions that count in my book. I don't subscribe to the view that we need more Muslim admins though (maybe more Muslim editors, but admins are supposed to serve the community not impose their views). Who I think we need as admins (and I believe largely have) are reasonable people like Joturner. Good Luck. Captainj 12:50, 23 May 2006
  116. Support; no signs of edit warring or incivility, and lots of experience here. I'm thoroughly intrigued at those who want less information about a candidate's beliefs—we all have biases; better to admit them than pretend they don't exist. Being a strong muslim carries no less bias than being a strong agnostic. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "who want less information": As for me, it's not the display of information, but the content. Judging so, I take Joturner as a Salafi, and I don't like the way WP is going in that respect. --tickle me 23:52, 23 May 2006
    Tickle me, please stop saying I'm a Salafi. I already stated that I'm not one and your reasoning behind continuing to believe I am (not eating kosher food) is both a) unfounded (I have never said that I don't eat kosher food) and b) factually incorrect (not eating kosher food has nothing to do with being a Salafi). In addition, I am largely uninvolved with the conversation you refer to in your second link as it was Aminz who mentioned this RfA to others (of whom five opposed). joturner 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "not eating kosher food": yes, I'm inferring that. "Although I have heard of the many rulings regarding the consumption of food slaughtered by other People of the Book, my ultimate objective is still to eat the traditional halal meat" leaves no other sensible interpretation. "not eating kosher food has nothing to do with being a Salafi": It's not a Salafi axiom indeed, it just follows of the doctrine and is thus indicative. --tickle me 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - --Zereshk 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - per above. -- Deepblue06 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per 25 (Colonel) above, POV doesn't "bleed through" to other areas. The only contrary evidence I could find was this, and it's a fairly mild. As to reasonable concerns about his userpage, I would strongly support if joturner would create a personal subpage of his userpage for nonwikipedia stuff. Excellent userpage, btw. He strikes me as exceptionally level-headed even in heated debates about Islam-related topics. --Chaser (T) 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Bureaucrat; the following votes were added after the official RfA ended.
  120. Support per MPerel. — TheKMantalk 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, this vote, and all others after it, came after the 4:07 (UTC) end time. joturner 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Weak support, controversy isn't enough of a reason to deny adminship to an otherwise good user. Just be careful out there. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support, I don't think someones RFA should be opposed based on their choice of being "agressively religious on their user page." Most of the opposition votes seem to be deeply rooted in paranoia of having someone "different" as an admin. I reject it. Also, I don't understand people who state that the candidates improvement in recent months since the previous RFA is just part of a campgaign. That makes no sense! IF he did not incorporate changes in his behavior to answer the criticism from the previous RFA, he would be damned. And apparently, he is damned for doing so too. Wonderful logic we have going here. --Blacksun 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Late Support; User page certainly now seems balanced (and quite beautiful), and user has been impressively fair and level headed with regards this RFA, although a wider edit spectrum would be nice. smurrayinchester(Talk) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose whilst quietly admiting your presuppositions may be helpful (so others can let you know if your bias slips in to edits) using a userpage to promote religious views and give personal testimonies leaves me suspecting this user may struggle to leave his worldview at the wiki-door. Tone down the userpage, and I may change this vote. --Doc ask? 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Change to neutral, since he's gone some way to meeting my concerns (thanks)- I'd like to see him go a little futher though. Userpages are not myspace - too much personal stuff does not instill confidence in NPOV. --Doc ask? 09:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I am sorry to have to do this. Having reviewed the votes at Joturner's first RfA and his userpage, I am struck by the stridency that he displays. I think being a thoroughly religious person is a terrific thing - I am one myself - and though it's fine to declare one's religion on the userpage, Joturner is being very aggressive about it, and it makes me quite uncomfortable. Joturner, I generally wish you luck in your RfA, and I suspect you need and deserve the tools, but I could not support. If you pass, I hope you are triply careful when dealing with the articles on which you hold strong partisan beliefs. (Finally, I trust nobody will make this into some stupid jew-votes-against-muslim thing. That would be a damn shame.) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tony Sidaway 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC) The proselytism on that user's userpage gives me serious doubts about this editor's commitment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I also take note of Zeq's finding that this user has spammed talk pages in an active campaign for this adminship. That is absolutely unacceptable and I echo Zeq's note of concern addressed to the closing bureaucrat.[reply]
    NO VOTE/ABSTAINOppose after reviewing this, I decided I best vote my opinion and not try to vote support this time just to be nice since I voted oppose on Joturners last Rfa. I examined the userpage again and realize that it is simply not in keeping with WP:NPOV....I was also struck by comments about some admins on the userpage, namely Axiom 13:"A Wikipedia admin can get away with many actions that would cause him to fail Wikipedia:Requests for re-adminship. There's nothing like our favorite rogue admins; but it would take a unprecedented incident for any of them to be de-sysopped."--MONGO 20:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll respond to this one only because I have a feeling you misunderstood what I meant about the rogue admins. I was trying to say that that is an unfortunate thing. I will not, and don't intend to, become a rogue admin. I have always advocated accountability for admins. Note that on that proposal page I state:
    • About admins being held more accountable for their actions: It's terrible when admins become more lax once they pass their request for adminship. Under the current system, it's almost impossible to get an admin desysopped, even temporarily.
    • About ArbCom being less hesitant to desysop admins: Agree, they should be less hesitant (but not too liberal).
    • So, essentially, what I was saying is that, at the current time, admins are able to get away with actions that many would oppose them on another nomination for. However, again under the current system, it isn't likely major action would taken against these undesirable actions. As an admin, I would stick to my duties. joturner 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like you...and with that said, I respect that you have found a spiritual path that works for you. This isn't personal so you know, I have close friend who is from the Sudan and is a Sunni. I just think a major toning down of the religiousness of your userpage is in order and by doing so, you'll make your affiliation a mystery and in better keeping with our attempts to present a neutral face. My vote to oppose isn't easy, my friend, so I will simply abstain now. NO VOTE.--MONGO 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per all above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. This editor has issues. Period. Anwar 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't say that; its quite disrespectful. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that...Anwar's comment is completely incivil.--MONGO 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:ATTACK. Also I think you should be more specific when you say "issues." GizzaChat © 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest Anwar's vote be disregarded until he provides real reasons. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Anwar's vote is disregarded, then the vote is rigged. He had has the same rights as anyone else. If he doesn't,then the whole voting process is a farce. By the way, I know nothing of the person, on whom the vote is being taken. This issue does not involve him. The comment is simply directed towards the voting process itself. Thak you. Wallie 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm reminded of HolyRomanEmperor's RfA. Don't disregard votes just because you disagree with the reasons. Nothing will get users more angry than that. - Richardcavell 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose -- per Prodego (despite that Prodego is supporting) --T-rex 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose. I opposed last time because I disagreed with the approach he had taken to some edits and because he had made a mess out of some AfD noms. The user page, which looked like this [3] at the time, was not a big factor for me. It seemed a bit over the top to me then, but within acceptable boundaries. However, this user has updated his user page and the new page, I believe, has crossed the line into a level of activism that has no place here. Statements like "Terrorism should be removed from vocabulary" or "A nation will meet its doomsday not long after it begins to forsake the right to privacy and the right to equal treatment. The United States is unfortunately starting to do that in the name of the War on Terror" are too ideological. An admin needs to be an impartial referee and I no longer believe this user can play that role. I previously felt that Joturner needed more time before becoming an admin. I still think that more time is required. -- JJay 10:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the second of the two statements you referred to, but left the first one alone. I believe the first one is okay because it is substantiated by the fact that the United Nations considers terrorism the equivalent of peacetime war crimes anyway. joturner 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. I'm glad you removed your statement that said the US was on the path to doomsday. However, I must admit that I have little confidence that you will not use your user page to continue to espouse strong political views in the future. As long as the comments were limited to religion I was not particularly bothered. Politics is far more divisive, though, and I do not think any users, admins or non-admins, should be posting personal political reflections on the user pages. You are also mistaken regarding the UN and terrorism. The definition of terrorism as the peacetime equivalent of a war crime was proposed by a consultant in a 1992 report to a UN agency. It is merely one of many, many definitions that have been suggested over the years. It was never adopted by the UN. In fact, the UN has singularly failed to agree on a working definition of terrorism and continues to debate the issue. Moreover, whatever the definition, it has never said that terrorism should be removed "from vocabulary". -- JJay 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Prodego. DGX 16:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I have come across this user's page on a few occassions and he looks like a great person. While I appreciate his hard work here and eagerness to do the right thing, his user page strikes me as more of a "blog" than a Wikipedia user page. I have concerns about "minting" an administrator who seems to be ignoring Wikipedia policies concerning the user page. Elizmr 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per all above. -- Karl Meier 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose concerned about POV issues.  Grue  10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose – Message To closing Bureaucrat: What have changed since Jotuner first RFA[4] ? That he campaigned hard, leaving any user who objected him a message saying how much he has changed[5] (this is duplicated 29 times see: [6]. In fact, he did not change. Interaction with him is hard. He was very pushy in trying to get his favorite article (mosque) to be featured article and refuse to accept any changes to the article that made it less POV. His "ownership" of that article alone is an example of why more power should not be trausted to him. Giving this editor adminship would just show the weaknesses of the current RFA system. What is wrong with someone being an editor for couple of years, for learning tolerance to otherviewpoints before asking for the 2nd time to become an admin ? I oppose for all the reason stated above. Zeq 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to this on this RfA's talk page. joturner 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the response joturner describes his situation as "lose:lose". Not true. The problem is his overeagerness to become an Admin. This is also seen by his wish to "close this RFA". The bottom line he shows over eagerness in this whole attempt to gain access to the tools. He simply could have waited another year. What is so wrong in letting time do his job, some things just take more time... Zeq 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 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)[reply]
    I responded to this on this RfA's talk page. joturner 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Tony Sidaway and tickle me. Pecher Talk 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose pending answers to the questions I've posed below..Timothy Usher 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I have no doubt he would make a good admin and have admired his ability to compromise in the past. However, I feel that as a neutral party charged with resolving disputes, such an overt adamacy about his religion would greatly hinder his credibility. —Aiden 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I can see J. really wants to be an admin and has taken many steps to achieve this. He has been quite receptive to all criticism and has written to everyone who opposes his Rfa using very respectful language in an attempt to address their points. All this makes me want to support him. When I look at his user page, I feel he is genuine, sympathetic and likeable, and this makes me want to support him too. However, I am concerned that once he becomes an admin, when he no longer has a goal he wants to achieve that requires broad community support, he may not be so fairminded and responsive. Over the last two weeks I have unfortunately seen admins act in a very unbalanced way, seemingly motivated by their own biases. I am not saying that J. would do this, however it is undeniable that he subscribes to a very strong ideology. I am concerned that J might use his position as an admin to push his ideology here. I would say that J. should continue to be a valued member of the community and produce and contribute to good articles as he has done thus far. I'm not sure how being an admin would really enhance his ability to do achieve this. Elizmr 04:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Reluctantly oppose. I know you're a good editor, but even after an unsuccessful RFA two months ago (this is too short a wait IMHO) which raised these very issues, your userpage makes me feel that you're still not ready to be trusted with the responsibility of being an administrator - because it's not clear to me whether you're going to treat Wikipedia as an NPOV encyclopedia which has rules, or a webhost where people are free to do what they want so long as they stay out of each other's way. Alphax τεχ 01:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. With some considerable regret, as I do think J is a nice guy who means well, but the concerns raised by the other oppose votes are serious. Elizmr said it best, my concern is that with such a strong POV and a history of involvement in contentious articles where that POV leaked through, what assurance do we have that won't recur after the adminship passes? Also some of the votes on other RfAs I find myself disagreeing with enough to wonder if he gets the whole adminship thing. Too much moral judging and editcountitis... Perhaps in some future RfA, after some more seasoning, I would support. Oppose ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per POV issues. I can't say for certain that I trust this user to handle adminship civilly and fairly. Ral315 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Elizmr, Alphax and Lar. Zaxem 09:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Does not demonstrate the judgement and impartiality of an administrator--CltFn 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Oppose per Prodego. Raichu 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Excellent grasp of policy, very smart and clearly well-meaning. However, even though it is not immediately apparent, this user appears much too anxious and eager to wield the mop. Remember, the mop is not the tool of the brave Wikihero, but the implement of the humble janitor. Cool your ambitions a bit and remember that administrators serve the community. Good luck — you'll probably make it. - Corbin Be excellent 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Reluctant Oppose. I just can get past this editor's user page and the fact that, prior to the concerns voiced here, he considered the content a good idea. I like my admins as i like my one night stands - the less i know about the individual personally, the better it works for me (thats a joke, btw, should Mrs Rockpocket be voicing her opinion here). This, combined with the feeling that he really, really wants this adminship, leaves me uncomfortable. I'd like to see him let his edits alone vouch for him here. Sorry. Rockpocket (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Corbin, Elizmr and Lar.  RasputinAXP  c 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I have seen Zeq going overboard with cheap shuts, but this time around, I think some of his arguments makes some sense and haven't, at least adequatly, been addressed and which are enough for me to oppose. Fad (ix) 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, with regret. Joturner writes well, particularly so for a teenager, but the extensive new-convert da'wa on his userpage suggests that neutrality is going to be an issue.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose unfortunately. Seems like a quality contributor to the encyclopaedia. However, I share the many POV concerns raised above and this, coupled with an editor who works in controversial topic areas, is too much of a risk for me. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Oppose I am still VERY worried about this his user page. I am sorry, I have seen nothing to convince me to change my mind from the last vote. TruthCrusader 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per concerns raised above. G.He 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Bureaucrat; the following votes were added after the official RfA ended.
  31. Oppose per above concerns, with specific reference to Alphax's statement.--cj | talk 05:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, this vote, and all others after it, came after the 4:07 (UTC) end time. joturner 05:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't try to wikilawyer, please. People may vote until the vote is closed. Pecher Talk 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS is the reason WHY I will continue to strongly oppose this person's attempt to become an admin. How DARE you, sir, try to stifle the voice of dissent because of a 'time' issue. TruthCrusader 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ALL the opposing votes after this should not be considered. Or start a new/fresh voting. Why wikiepdia had time associated with voting to begin with if voting has to be continue after the fix time limit? I want to post that protest on some Admin pages. --- Faisal 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that this is not an election, its a method for the community to express their views. The closing 'crat is very capable of making his/her own judgement on what should and should not be taken into account. It is not in the nominee's interest to appear to influence the process yet the comment above suggests, to me, futher evidence of a continuing pattern of subtle wiki-spindoctoring around the RfA process. It may not be in direct conflict with policy, but the accumulative effect appears - to some editors at least - that joturner is doing everything within policy to ensure this request passes. This isn't helped by the fact that no "time has passed" notice was posted on the "support" vote list. There are now two late supports that stand unquestioned while it appears that joturner was waiting for the clock to pass the deadline so he could call time on dissent. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it simply doesn't look good. It is, in my opinion, unbecoming of a potential admin. Rockpocket (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to Rockpocket's comment may be futile, but the reason I didn't post a comment regarding support votes after the end time was because the first support vote after the end time came at a point when I was not able to edit Wikipedia. I didn't call for any votes to be discounted; I was only pointing out where the voting had stopped at the original closing time. I realize that people can vote after the closing time. The bureaucrats can do whatever they want with the RfA. joturner 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment in talk. Rockpocket (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she does have a point, regardless of if you consider this an election or not, each votes have an ending time, and people have to respect that. Fad (ix) 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Rockpocket, and so did the bureaucrats: they extended the voting by a day or two as the consensus is not clear cut.

    Joturner cared for his RfA as early as 17. May on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, and reminded them of closing time there and here. On the first RfA he thanked Mike18xx for his vote, given out of spite and derision, insulting Joturner as taliban and fundamentalist. He opposed strongly suggestions to discount that vote. Reiterating, I call that campaigning extremely hard, this has been expanded on here and on talk. I don't like it, and worse, Joturner denies this. He has shown to be an excellent user, true, but I don't have confidence in his adminship at all. --tickle me 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm denying it because it's not true. I'm not going to admit something I never did. In addition, I find it very ironic that you are accusing me of campaigning when it appears as though you are "campaigning hard" to make sure I never, neither today, three months from now, nor three years from now, become an administrator. joturner 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the behaviour you have exhibited during this RFA is beginning to convince me that, without a fundamental change of attitude, you should never become an administrator. --Nick Boalch\talk 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the votes must not be considered. Timothy believes Joturner is a liar, an untrustable person, and one who denies his motivations (based on some arguments of course). Why should Timothy trust that such a person would not misuse his power (Timothy please correct me if I am wrong anywhere up to here). Timothy cleverly made people not to trust Joturner. I believe the recent flood of opposing votes just after closing of the adminship page and in the very last hours is a result of Timothy's comments. Otherwise there shouldn't be any reason as to why people just opposed Joturner near and after closing of his RfA. --Aminz 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All votes are legitimate until a bureaucrat closes the nomination. People are smart enough to take Tickle me's comments into account or discount them entirely when making up their minds. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joturner. "it's not true" - I don't take this lightly: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. "campaigning hard": yes I am, and I don't deny it. --tickle me 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Per concerns raised on the talk page, changed from support. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per above. Myciconia 07:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  34. Oppose, has enough edits alright, would consider a support if they weren't predominantly in the same area. — May. 24, '06 [10:00] <freak|talk>
  35. Oppose, changed from neutral per various concerns, inappropriate canvassing. --Nick Boalch\talk 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Reluctant oppose, essentially per Rockpocket. I respect the high quality of Joturner's contributions as an editor, (that which I have seen), but I still maintain that an userpage, and especially an administrator's userpage, is not the place for extensive, potentially divisive content unrelated to Wikipedia. Sandstein 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose User appears to be rallying muslims together to support his adminship. This is irresponsible and behaviour that is not expected of an admin. JHJPDJKDKHI! 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ? There have been allegations of campaigning, but I don't see where religion fits into this... Master of Puppets That's hot. 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Sorry... I really like the guy (he's always pointing out errors on the main page articles, and we appreciate it!) and hate to see people even bringing his religion up as something to oppose him over, but it hasn't even been two months since his last nomination. I would like to see a bit more patience. I'd say just keep up the good work, and bide your time. Adminship isn't that big of a deal, and neither is not being made admin. You're a good editor, so continue on the right path, and I would gladly support you in the future. Sadly, oppose. (And I know this is past the post-date, so BCrats can take it or leave it. Thanks.) --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose as CrazyRussian. I don't know the candidate, but the discussion here is not convincing--Al-Qairawani 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak Oppose Actually a very good editor, but the embers from his last RfA is yet to cool down. It is barely 2 months since his last RfA. In a couple of more months, my vote could be a Strong Support. Moreover, he seems in a hurry to be an Admin. Timelessness 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose The user seems to be in a hurry to get the Adminship. It is just a short time since the first RfA. Stormz 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak Oppose As per above. Though in a few months time, if joturner does refile his nomination, I may most probably support him. Kandal the Vandal 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Very Weak Oppose The only concern is that he hasn't changed his user page, even though in his last RfA, that did emerge as a major area of concern. otherwise a very good and diligent user, who has mostly maintained a level headedness that is not easily see. Trooperz 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose I have followed this RfA from the beginning, and am concerned by the candidate's attitude in engaging users who cast oppose votes. While I think Joturner would make good use of admin tools, I look for a less combatitive demeanor. Aguerriero (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Joturner's desire to have this RfA closed so quickly when clearly discussion continues leads me to believe that he is too process-bound and too immediatist for me to comfortably support him, especially in conjunction with the concerns raised by other voters. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Per Doc's concerns I find this user's userpage very disturbing, but there appears to be little evidence that he has let his beliefs influence his editing. Hence I don't feel able to oppose, but I also don't want to support someone who does appear to see the project as a platform for religious proselytism. --Nick Boalch 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose above. --Nick Boalch\talk 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: I followed Joturner's last request for adminship quite closely, although I don't believe I made any actual recommendations on it. What worries me most is that a large number of substantial concerns were made about his user page, and he has not changed it at all to try and alleviate these concerns. Also, some of his responses to the oppose votes (particularly numbers 22, 26, and 28) concern me. --Hetar 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually did change my user page substantially since that point. And I contacted all of the oppose voters from last time requesting comments on my RfA. Not all of them responded, by some posted comments on my editor review and on my talk page. From that, and comments prior to that, I got the impression that for the most part, people were okay with the page. joturner 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Joturner has been kind of enough to point out the changes, and to make further changes (including removing the conversion story) which have greatly improved the user page. While at this point some of the comments mentioned above still concern me, he has been nothing but professional and courteous, and it would be unfair of me to continue to oppose. --Hetar 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This user seems quite impressive, level-headed and unafraid to try to do the Right Thing, which I feel is very important; as such, I can't oppose. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of an admin who dedicates so much of his userpage to personal, unrelated-to-Wikipedia philosophy. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to vote yay or nay and don't have enough information yet. I'm not so concerned about a user page that reveals one's POV, even in such detail. What's important, does this editor maintain NPOV in his edits? Can anyone show me some examples of edits where Joturner's POV perhaps affected NPOV editing? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) change to support, see above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Userpage is more troubling than last time, not less as far as I'm concerned. "Identity: Islam". Somebody who considers their religion to be their personal identity is not the calm, neutral figure we want as an admin. I feel sad having to say this because deep down I think Joe is probably a fairminded and balanced editor, but his user page needs to reflect this. Publish your religious essays elsewhere would be my best advice. --kingboyk 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. --kingboyk 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (changed vote to Support). I am really not sure. I do see a problem with an admin having too strong religious feelings, but after reviewing his edits, I don't really see that it shows in his edits. I am completely open to changing my vote both ways, if either if I see more of either positive or negative contibutions. The "worst" thing I found so far was a quite lame edit war about position of a template [13]. -- Heptor talk 12:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I commented more thoroughly on Heptor's talk page, for the interest of other voters I will say that I don't believe that should be considered edit warring since I only made one reversion (back to the original) and requested others involved to discuss the matter on the talk page. joturner 13:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never considered this to be a serious thing, I meant "lame" like in "doesn't have any serious meaning". Pardon me if I was unclear. I am still searching/waiting for any edits that show that Jotuner does detach himself from his personal beliefs when he edits, or the opposite. -- Heptor talk 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (changed vote to Support). I don't know he seems like an okay guy, but I haven't seen enough to fully trust him with the admin tools.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Support Good editor, won't abuse tools. Could use more like him. I've become worried by a couple things that went on here, changed to neutral. Rx StrangeLove 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Joturner, a disconcerting item among an otherwise great candidacy is your extreme overemphasis on editcounts in votes in RfA going to the point of almost missing what we do here. Edit count completely misses the intangibles of a candidate and voting based on it essentially amounts to not looking into a candidate enough to see the more important things. Some of your comments are even to the effect of "I know I shouldn't focus on edit count..." then followed by a reason fully based on edit count. - Taxman Talk 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a hardline number of edits in mind that determines whether someone should be an admin or not. Regardless, I realize that edit count is not really important, but it is an indicator of activity. I will often cite edit count in an oppose vote to indicate lack of involvement with certain areas, or all, of the project. Lack of involvement in certain important areas (such as the talk pages) or low activity (many months with few, low-quality edits) to me is something that is worth noting. But perhaps you disagree. joturner 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you have mentioned above is substantially better than past comments I've seen from you, but what you're still doing there is using edit count which is a poor proxy for involvement in certain area of the project which is a very poor proxy for whether an editor can be trusted with the tools. Editcount is at best an indicator of activity which you do note, but you go on to use it for too much more. RfA should be about determining if we can trust a user not to abuse the admin tools and nothing more. I must also admint to being disconcerted with your userpage. Disclosing biases is one thing, promoting a view is not what we are here for. - Taxman Talk 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to give anyone the impression that I don't want to listen to what the community has to say, and so I see that there are a significant number of editors who find/found my user page as proselytizing. Thus, I removed entirely the section that chronicled parts of my conversion. Other than that I, personally, don't see what else would fall under religious advocacy. The use of religious symbols and stating how many follow each religion really should not be a problem; it's not advocacy. In fact, I only say that I'm a Muslim two times (last section in the introduction and in the category tag). Nevertheless, I am open to hear what you all believe could still be construed as proselytizing. joturner 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing bureaucrat: In response to the allegations by Zeq and Tony Sidaway that I was "campaigning" prior to my RfA, I would like to once again reiterate that I was simply getting feedback on my user page; the statements left for the users in question didn't even mention this request for adminship (which, by the way, wasn't even created yet). If I were indeed campaigning to further this RfA, I would have instead contacted people who more likely would have supported me (i.e. the support voters from my last RfA). Of course, I didn't do that. And to further demonstrate how incorrect the claims of campaigning were, let me enumerate the votes of those I contacted:

Total Count (2/7/0)

In addition, on May 20 Zeq contacted Aiden, who subsequently changed his vote from neutral to oppose.

Clearly, as I garnered far more oppose votes than support votes due to these actions, if this were indeed an attempt to campaign, it would have been horribly misguided. Please take this evidence into account when you consider Zeq's and Tony Sideaway's comments and when you make your final decision on this RfA. joturner 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"simply getting feedback on my user page": asking for feedback on one's user page in an organised manner is bewildering to me in the first place, but certainly not illegal. However, an admin nominee asking for feedback is campaigning in my understanding. Not forbidden either, but I don't like it.
"the statements left for the users in question didn't even mention this request for adminship": indeed not, they mentioned the last RfA and announced that you edited your user page addressing voiced concerns. On your last RfA thank you note to all concerned you mentioned a possible second try, and made that clear on your RfA too: "If this RfA fails without any further process or action, you can be sure to see me back here in a couple months".
"Clearly, as I garnered far more oppose votes than support votes due to these actions, if this were indeed an attempt to campaign, it would have been horribly misguided": the result doesn't disprove a campaign's intentions.
You went out of your way to ensure success by editing your user page, deleting things that were not helpful, you even had admins delete the most unhelpful content for good. You posted RfA thank yous (all do that, unfortunately) and asked for review. You switched notably to non Islamic subjects as announced on your last RfA, though this is the center of you interests. The only exception was mosque, that you made a featured article, working very, very hard in record time. A very good article indeed, and yes, that is good for WP, but I concur with Timothy that it constitutes campaigning nevertheless. And no, I don't think you're honest about that at all, and that widens my mistrust voiced on the RfA talk. --tickle me 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that since the voting time finished there has been this influx of oppose votes? see [14] Agathoclea 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that many of opposes are weak. Don't we expect the rate of oppose votes to have an approximately constant rate over time? Let me suggest some theories: There can be two reasons behind this I believe: 1. Either something special has happened yesterday 2. or someone has called people to vote against Jouturner. (2) seems more reasonable since most of the opposes are weak and are made in a short period of time.
(1) has been a little bit efficient as well , the only possibility can be the recent discussions on the talk page. It is related to Question #6 of Timothy. --Aminz 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Username Joturner
Total edits 6538
Distinct pages edited 2448
Average edits/page 2.671
First edit 23:02, June 25, 2005
 
(main) 2763
Talk 1038
User 203
User talk 1149
Image 49
Image talk 4
Template 266
Template talk 41
Category 1
Wikipedia 938
Wikipedia talk 85
Portal 1
 G.He 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Joturner (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 119 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 20, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 99.71% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 99.86% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day (current): 42.09
Recognized notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites): 5.22% (261)
Unique pages edited: 1863 | Average edits per page: 2.68 | Edits on top: 10.38%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 43.18%
Minor edits (non reverts): 45.54%
Marked reverts: 11.12%
Unmarked edits: 0.16%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 39.44% (1972) | Article talk: 16% (800)
User: 3.26% (163) | User talk: 19.58% (979)
Wikipedia: 14.7% (735) | Wikipedia talk: 1.38% (69)
Image: 0.98% (49)
Template: 4.26% (213)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.4% (20)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I participate in a significant amount of RC patrolling, reverting vandalism and warning offenders. As such, I would greatly benefit from the rollback feature (yeah I know, everybody says that) and the ability to block repetitive vandals. I contribute extensively to the Current events pages and I often point out errors on the Main Page and so I believe it would benefitical if I could edit the Main Page myself instead of bothering other admins to fix minor spelling and italicization mistakes on the Main Page. Going along with the participation in RC patrolling, I would also use the ability to speedy delete useless pages and enable semi-protection in cases of repeated problematic vandalism and disputes over particular articles. I participate in articles for deletion discussion from time to time and also often encounter images overdue for deletion. However, without admin capabilities, I can do little to assist in the deletion of articles and images. And lastly, there have been times when I have not been able to perform obvious and necessary page moves due to obstacles only admins could overcome.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My favorite article would have to be Mosque. I put a significant amount of work into the article in December 2005, bringing it up to good article status. Subsequently, in April 2006, I put an even greater amount of work into the article, bringing it up to featured article status. Working with the mosque article helped me familiarize myself with the featured article process as well as see how I could handle the potentially brutal process. I knew it would be a challenge to get a consensus opinion on the quality, comprehensiveness, and neutrality of the article given Palm dogg's rule that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. Indeed, it wasn't easy, and several hours of major improvements on my part were done between the article's nomination and promotion, but the obstacles along the way only made the attainment of featured article status more satisfying.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I believe that if a Wikipedian doesn't encounter a conflict at least some point after several active months, there is a problem. Thus, it should not be surprising that I have faced a few (albeit not especially major) conflicts throughout my tenure at Wikipedia. As I mentioned in my last RfA, I have been bothered by User:Striver's tendency to create articles that over-emphasize a Shi'a point-of-view. But since the time of my first nomination, I have not butted heads with him (perhaps because I haven't frequented Islam-related articles as much). Additionally, I would have to say some stress was produced by my last RfA because some oppose voters held my choice of religion against me. In particular, some voters labeled me a "sixteen-year-old fundamentalist" (although that comment was later struck out), a "radical", and a "religious zealot," leading many to believe I couldn't maintain a neutral point-of-view. Frustrating as it was to attempt to fend off these claims and accusations (to no avail), I managed to keep my cool and vow to request adminship again (here I am today!). I even received two barnstars for my civility throughout the RfA. More recently, as I mentioned in my introduction, I sought feedback and advice from those same oppose voters in an editor review. No matter how rough the conflict between two parties, there is always a chance to reach common ground.

Question from Ted 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Additional questions are completely optional.[reply]

1. On the talk page for Mosque, some editors stated you have taken ownership of the Article. You answered their concerns (Talk:Mosque#Ownership). Given that concern, how would you have changed your approach to editing Mosque, if you would change? How would you use your administrative tools in such a situation? Thanks for any response you might make. Ted 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Just as a bit of background, the concerns came primarily from the fact that I had done the vast majority of the work on bringing the article to featured status, taking care of all the objections personally. One thing I could have done to address the concern and perception that I was trying to own the article was been less quick to say I would take care of objections raised on the featured article candidacy page. However, I feel that there is a perception by those commenting on featured article candidacies, as well as article for deletion discussions that it is the job of the nominator and advocates of the article in question to address and fix the objections brought up. Of course, that is not actually true; anyone can contribute to improve the article. And so I was worried that if I hadn't stepped up to address each of the improvements myself, the objections may never have been addressed (isn't that the idea behind being bold?). Nevertheless, other editors did make changes to the mosque article during the FAC and I left them alone (unless I disagreed with the changes). All in all, in the future, I could be less enthusiastic about making improvements to featured articles and give others the opportunity to address FAC objections. I don't think administrative tools really could have helped in this situation. joturner 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Ted 08:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Timothy Usher 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC):[reply]

1. Wikipedia’s Islam-related articles are often subjects of strident contention. The talk pages too often become forums for highly personalized commentary, while the articles themselves are subject to edits approaching vandalism (in addition to outright vandalism), often from editors seemingly intent on misreprenting Islam, or casting it in a negative light. If confirmed, will you help protect the quality and fairness of these articles? Are you willing to discipline editors to these pages who are contributing negatively and/or violating WP policies, or to ask other admins to do so?
A: I will help protect the quality and fairness of the Islam-related articles, but to a degree no greater than that which I would apply to articles of other subjects. Nevertheless, I will be very cautious when taking administrative actions on Islam-related pages. I don't believe administrators should be involved in matters that they are personally affected by. And thus, I will primarily use admin tools only against users who participate in outright vandalism, such as this, to Islam-related articles and stay away from the somewhat debatable forms of vandalism. The talk pages do often become heated, but that is often not a cause for administrative action anyway, but instead just some informal (or in some cases, formal) form of mediation. There are hundreds of other administrators and if I feel the soundness of my judgment would be compromised by my choice of religion (or anything else), I'll simply post to the administrator's noticeboard and let someone else deal with the matter. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. As you say, excepting Mosque, you’ve not frequented Islam-related articles much in recent months. You’ve avoided involvement in some fairly high-profile disputes. Does this, like the impressive changes made to your userpage, reflect the desire to succeed in your RfA, or a long-term decision about your editorial direction on wikipedia?
A:Well, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want this RfA to succeed. However, the changes to my userpage were not part of an attempt to get this RfA to succeed, but rather an attempt to respond to criticism of it. I got several comments on the user page back in March about the page and then decided to reform it the following week, well before this RfA. Judging by my talk page, one would have gotten the impression that everyone had liked my user page as not a single person had made a negative statement about the page. And so, this month I sought a more open review of my user page that encouraged some of the less frequent visitors to my page to discuss it and suggest changes to it. If I only wanted my RfA to succeed, I would have simply blanked the user page and added a simple statement about editing Wikipedia. Instead, I left it largely intact, responding to criticism from the editor review and from the two RfAs. I expected to be granted the wide latitude that is normally granted to editors.
But back to your question. Yes, someone did suggest from my last RfA that I broaden my editing horizons. But more prevalent in my mind when I began the transition to other types of articles was how frustrating contributing to Islam-related articles can sometimes be. This is true for editing articles of any religion, but it seems to be especially true for editing articles related to Islam. There are just so many viewpoints that editors want to be addressed in Islam-related articles that it can be quite a war zone. I encountered that when working on the mosque article for featured status. Some editors cited neutral point-of-view concerns and I personally attempted to address that. After the featured article candidacy was complete and I felt a little burnt out by the admittedly excessive time I spent working on the article during my spring break, I decided to leave the task of completing the requested improvements to the article to the requestors, although I don't really believe their actions have been acted upon. So, essentially I believe this is a long-term editorial decision. Expanding my scope of editing has allowed me to interact with more editors and avoid some of the stressful going-ons of the Islam-related articles. It's not that I don't participate in them at all; I feel I still have some useful insight to give to the Islam-related articles. I still participate in discussions in matters about Islam, especially at request. However, I didn't want my entire time at Wikipedia to be about wrangling over viewpoints about Islam; I can deal with a healthy level of wrangling, mixed with participation in some slightly less contentious topics. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. You’ve self-nominated yourself for adminship, just as you self-nominated Mosque for featured-article status as part of your drive to obtain adminship. Were you a neutral observer, would this raise any questions in your mind?
A:I didn’t nominate mosque for featured article status as part of a drive to obtain adminship. I did mention my assistance in bringing the article up for featured status during the intro to this RfA, but that was not what I had in mind when I began to work on making it featured. Many other editors had participated in featured article candadicies and had successfully helped bring articles to featured status. I, at that time, hadn't really participated in bringing an article to featured status. Since I had been active in the Mosque article before, especially in December 2005, and given User:Anonymous editor's suggestion to bring the article to featured status, I decided to use mosque on my first venture into FAC territory. In addition, self-nominations for featured articles and for adminship aren't really all that uncommon. And so, if I were a neutral observer, given the information I provided above, I really don't think the self-nominations would raise any questions in my mind. They're not too uncommon and they're simply sincere efforts to help improve Wikipedia. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. You’ve recently engaged in decidedly negative interactions with Aminz related to questions of religion.[15] What thoughts can you share about the way you handled that?
A: I'm not sure how you interpreted the statement you linked to, but if you were to look at the full discussion, the reason I said there really was no reason to continue this discussion was not because I didn't want to talk to Aminz but because the page in question was removed. Regardless, I feel that I could have toned it down a bit, even though I don't believe it has permanently damaged our relationship as fellow Wikipedians (he did, after all, support my RfA). I personally feel no hard feelings for him because I have always held that my quibbles were about the project and not about him as a person; I have seen great work come from him and I honestly doubt that the sentiment I questioned on the project was neither intentional nor representative of his character. But yes, I could have handled the situation better by, perhaps, being more brief in my statement and being clearer that I was not saying that I thought he was divisive, but rather that I thought the page itself was divisive. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here is my(Aminz) view on the dispute: [16]. Regarding the above, I should say that when Joturner accused me of some charges and when I argued against it (+ I also accused him of misunderstanding of my text; in some cases deliberately); he just said: "There is no reason to continue this discussion", I felt humiliated. I felt he even doesn't consider me worthy enough to answer to my questions. And I felt there is a misunderstanding here that I can not clear up. That was my feeling at that time. But I have forgotten everything now. I supported Joturner's RfA due to the positive things I have seen from him and the possibility that I may have been wrong. Who knows? Maybe. --Aminz 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Your relative youth: do you believe it to be an asset or a hindrance to your ability to fairly judge disputes between editors? Are there cases where you might feel you’ve not the experience to confidently arrive at a fair judgement?
A: I don't believe my age should be a problem. I notice that there are many administrators who are both close to my age and younger. Note also that User:Ilyanep is fourteen years old and a bureaucrat; I would never hold his age against him. On Wikipedia, I feel experience can and should only be judged based on one's experience on Wikipedia, not in life. I see no reason why, for example, a fifteen-year-old who has been editing Wikipedia for two years and is familiar with policy should be deemed less "experienced" than someone closer to thirty or forty years old but new to Wikipedia because of the age difference. So I will say that it is neither an asset nor a hindrance; I believe age shouldn't really be factored and that one's experience on Wikipedia and one's quality of edits should be the primary factors considered. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The remainder of the answers / discussion surrounding this question are on this RfA's talk page

Additional Questions from Raichu:

1. There has been a lot of controversy in this RfA about content on your userpage. How would you respond?
A: I have taken into account many of the comments left by users regarding my user page and have removed content accordingly. But that is not because I just want to become an administrator (although I indeed do). Instead, it is because I wanted to adhere to the principle in the user page guideline that states that If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so.
In its current state especially, I don’t see the user page as proselytizing or promoting my religion. I use religious symbols from various faiths on my user page not to declare one religion superior. Indeed, my user page was once more Islamo-centric, but I changed that after many in my first RfA mentioned that it appeared divisive. I never intended to be divisive, and I don’t intend to be divisive now. Religion is often seen as a dividing force in this world; one does not need to look far to find evidence of that. But when I assembled my current user page last month, I decided to have these symbols from all these faiths side-by-one on one page, each with an associated quote. That is not division. That is an effort to portray many religions together in harmony. And have a look at every quote on my user page. They’re all from figures and texts from different religions, but that all send the same message: equality.
Nevertheless, for the record, let me simply state that many respected editors, including bureaucrat Jwrosenzweig, have mentioned their religion on their user pages and yet still have been able to contribute the encyclopedia with neutrality. I feel that I fall into that category of editors and wish that, admin or not, the Wikipedia community as a whole will be able to see me not as a Muslim editor, but as an editor that is a Muslim. If I have ever misled anyone into believing I will put my religious beliefs before my responsibility as an editor to create an encyclopedia for all people, then I apologize. joturner 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Do you associate your religion with this encyclopedia? If so, how?
A: This question may have been answered at least in part within my answer to the first question (or perhaps I am misunderstanding). As an encyclopedia for all people, one religion or belief should not stand above all others. However, as we are all human beings, I don’t see anything wrong with someone mentioning their religion on their user page. As long is it doesn’t compromise the goal of created a encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I don't think that's a problem. If we couldn't be individuals, we wouldn't get to choose our usernames; I perhaps would be Editor238712. But in short: neither my religion nor anyone else's religion should be associated with the encyclopedia. One can mention in it on one's user page, but it should not creep into the encyclopedia to the point where it appears as though the religion and the encyclopedia are associated. joturner 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner_2&oldid=1147962989"