Wikipedia:Editor review/Joturner

User:Joturner
I failed a request for adminship in March. I'm hoping to run for adminship (or rather be nominated for adminship) again within the next month or so. However, I want to get some feedback on whether some of the objections (and neutral positions) have been addressed. Most notably, I'm curious about what people think about my re-designed user page (the original page was point of contention by some in my last RfA). In addition, I'm curious about whether enough time has passed since my failed RfA. I originally put June 1 as the date I wouldn't accept nominations (and subsequently moved that date up to May 25 so as not to conflict with real life activities occuring June 4 to June 8). However, due to the "close, but not quite" nature and some interesting oppose concerns from my last RfA, I've begun to wonder whether there really is a need to wait. See the answers to the questions (especially to number two) for further information I wanted to put in this opening statement but didn't want to repeat. joturn e r 22:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * The majority of times I've talked to you is on RFA. Great contribs there! Computerjoe 's talk 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to explore your ability to make judgments, and I picked religion becoz I know you're passionate for Islam and it was the big issue in your RfA. I commend your initiative in using an ER for self-improvement. In regards to your userpage issue: take the example of user:Anonymous editor - he's another man who converted to Islam and is passionate about it. Previously he made it a point to put that info on his page. But he slowly made it sober, just a note that he is Muslim, and now nothing at all. What I think you should do is reduce the coverage of religion on your page with something about other topics. Its perfectly ok and interesting to learn of your personal journey, but perhaps a more succinct page may inspire more confidence about the sobriety of your edits. I would advise that you should use this opportunity to make clear your attitude on dealing with Islam-related issues on Wikipedia - people would want to know what line of thought and judgment you would use as an admin. I wish you all the best - you did wonderful work with mosque. Rama&#39;s Arrow 13:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another concern is the question of subtle work. For example, you talk of proselytization. Now the explicit descriptions you give of what made you convert to Islam, while entirely speaking for yourself, might be construed by some as an attempt to induce others to look into Islam with an angle of conversion. Within the confines of NPOV and five pillars, I've noticed a tendency of revisionism by some users that comes tantamount to advocating one's own perspective. I'd like you to make clear your position and thinking on such sensitive issues, becoz it may be the question on the back of several people's minds. Rama&#39;s Arrow 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll heed your advice and remove the section chronicling the stages of my conversion as you seem to have provided a good reason for doing so. However, I'm in the process of writing something to replace that text so I can maintain the look of my user page. Once I'm finished, I'll make the change. joturn e r 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion may please be treated as my review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Request_for_Editor_.2F_User_Page_Review, and I wish him all the best in real life, as also as a wikipedian! --Bhadani 15:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your story and conversion to Islam is very interesting and I wish you the best in your life. Your contributions, especially those relating to your faith, are an asset to this encylopedia; I would gladly vote for you in an RFA. michael talk 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As one of user voted in oppose I think that Jo's new userpage is much better, but userpage does not always reflect user's beliefs. Anyway I'm gonna support Joturner in his hext RfA because I see that he's a valuable contributor and learns his lessons well. Max S em 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since most of your contributions to Wikipedia are related to religion, it is very fitting that your user page has a religious theme. It is one of the most interesting user pages I've ever seen. You choose to reveal more personal information than most users do, but there's nothing wrong with that. You have made some major contributions on some contentious articles, but you seem to present a perfectly neutral perspective. You also seem to understand Wikipedia policy, as evidenced by your participation in many various aspects of the community. I could certainly trust you with adminship. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride ♪ 20:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm writing in reply to your message on my talk page, and will restrain myself to commenting on your user page. I opposed your RfA not because of your work as an editor (which, on the contrary, I find highly creditable in every respect), nor because of your personal beliefs (which you have demonstrated have no bearing on the quality of your work as an editor). Rather, I was concerned that your user page, with its strong expressions of personal beliefs, might confuse newbies that are subject to administrative actions by you as to the motive of these actions. If you e.g. were to ban someone who vandalises Islam-related articles, the vandal could give superficial credence to a claim like "Extremist Taliban Wikipedia admins have censored me!" by linking to your user page. We just do not need mainstream media / muckraker blogs picking such a thing up and dealing with it in their usual clueful fashion.
 * Your userpage redesign has not alleviated these concerns. I agree with Jimbo Wales in what apparently was a recent flamewar on userboxes, namely that userboxes representing divisive beliefs should not be used. The same goes mutatis mutandis for any sort of personal statements. You did condense the Islam-related biographical info, but you added a lot of personal statements (mostly unrelated to Wikipedia) of which I, personally, consider most to be trivial at best, and some to be uninformed or morally offensive (e.g. "War and terrorism can be interchanged depending on the perpetrator"). These statements do not increase my respect for the maturity of your judgement, and those subject to any administrative actions of yours might feel the same. Accordingly, I would encourage you to remove most of what bears on your personal beliefs from your user page, in the same fashion that you would excise soapboxery from an article, and move it to a personal website or blog, which is much more appropriate for such content. Best regards, Sandstein 07:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that many people have, and will continue to, hold my personal beliefs against me. And I am willing to put up with that, as an admin or otherwise. The claim that I am a "Taliban" or an Islamic radical has not ever been and still cannot be supported by any information in my userspace or otherwise (perhaps for some pious = radical, but that's just not correct; and most people see that). But it sounds to me like you are saying that no editor who has said he or she is Muslim be allowed to become an admin on the basis that it is possible that a vandal might make unfounded statements that Wikipedia is being run by the Taliban. It seems unrealistic at best that any mainstream media outlet, or even a blog, would cite an anonymous blocked vandal on Wikipedia. And even if that were to happen, that would hardly spell the demise of Wikipedia. The axioms are not meant to be all encompassing; they are meant to be of varying degrees of seriousness. For instance, there are tall buildings that are useful (like the Sears Tower). And, again, I invite others to add axioms that are not necessarily true all the time and not necessarily in alignment with my opinion. About the war and terrorism item, I altered the rationale (and the axiom) for that so that it didn't sound like I was calling American soldiers terrorists (that's probably what you had in mind), but instead conveyed a point from the terrorism article: The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention has proposed a short legal definition: that an act of terrorism is "the peacetime equivalent of a war crime." In essence, terrorism is often used because it sounds a whole lot scarier (often times in the United States when a major crime has occurred, the media will convey that "terrorism has been ruled out in this incident" although the precise designation for the incident is largely irrelevant). Nevertheless, the reason I contacted you, and other oppose voters from my last RfA, was so I could get opinions of my user page. This editor review as a whole is for getting feedback on the user page and me as a whole prior to an RfA. So far, I have gotten mostly positive feedback on my user page throughout my tenure at Wikipedia and even in this editor review. However, if the general opinion changes drastically towards concurring with your opinion and if my personal beliefs were to ever become detrimental to Wikipedia (as an admin or otherwise), I would be happy to comply with removing the information completely. However, I'd like to assume good faith that the Wikipedia community as a whole will be able to accept people of all religions and beliefs (as it seems you have, despite your worries) as a website accessible to people all around the world. joturn e r 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply, and I share your belief, or hope, that Wikipedia can and should assimilate productively incorporate people of all cultural backgrounds. I would like to point out, though, that my concerns are in no way specific to Islam, and I would certainly not object to a simple "This user is a Muslim" userbox. My concern is, more broadly, that giving a prominent place to religious, political or otherwise divisive subjects on one's userpage is unlikely to contribute to our goal of building a global, NPOV encyclopedia, and may work against that goal in various ways, one of which I have laid out above. It should definitively be avoided. Best, Sandstein 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the qualifiers more related to Wikipedia (and the axioms appear less serious), per Sandstein's concerns about their irrelevance to the project. joturn e r 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage (Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)


 * From the comments I made to several of the oppose voters from my last RfA: I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page. joturn e r 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * During December, I did a good amount of work on the Mosque article. Subsequently, in April, I worked to improve Mosque to featured status (and I was successful). In March, I reduced the Prophets of Islam article from the fifth-largest on the English Wikipedia to one of decent size. Nevertheless, although I feel my knowledge about Islam has been put to good use by working on these types of Islam-related articles, I've been quite active in other areas of Wikipedia. I've participated in vandal-fighting, as you can tell by my contributions (although I tone it down a bit because I don't want to give people the impression I just do it to inflate my edit count). For awhile, I've been involved in current events, and assisting in nominating ITN items. But over the past month, I have been interested in the Main Page, working to correct errors on it. Looking at the history of the newly created page reserved for pointing out Main Page errors shows that. joturn e r 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * I cited in my last RfA the fact that User:Striver's tendency to create articles that I feel are unnecessary bothered me. However, since that time in March, I have had no issues with him. Interestingly enough, although not over editing per se, my last RfA was the source of the most stress for me on Wikipedia. My feelings regarding the RfA are probably duely noted in the comments section of the RfA, but overall I felt that some editors used my religion, noted on my user page, as a point of attack. As a result, many other editors began to cite neutral point of view concerns or concerns that I may be a radical Muslim. On the matter, I admit that my user page was (and may still be) too much about religion, but I feel if user pages dedicated to showcasing nudity (that's not that actual page by the way; it's work-safe) can be tolerated, I don't think there is anything wrong with a page that promotes religious unity. I felt I dealt with the stress created by the RfA quite well by simply stating how I felt about the comments about my religion and attempting to demonstrate that I was not a radical Muslim and indeed was able to maintain a neutral point-of-view even on Islam-related articles. I actually received two barnstars for maintaining civility throughout the RfA. Nevertheless, I re-designed my user page a bit to make the page less Islamo-centric and more universalist. joturn e r 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Additional question from Rama's Arrow Hi Joturner, I'd like to understand your mindset in the role of an admin. The issue of political userboxes has divided Wikipedia's community. Jimbo Wales expressed concern that such userboxes were divisive in nature, and that we are all Wikipedians here, and advocates outside. Given this debate, what do you think of the fact that Wikipedians are by and large very expressive about religion and spirituality? Even non-religious people make a point to let others know that. How do you judge this venue of the userbox debate? Do you think that the same rationale against political userboxes applies to religion, and if you do/don't, how would you weigh in on such an issue in the future? Thanks, Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about userboxes specifically, I believe there is a difference between religious and political userboxes. Someone editing an article about Hindu practices, for example, may want to contact a Hindu to clarify something that may be unclear in even a scholarly source. Or, someone may be interested in getting the opinion of someone of a particular religion (for whatever reason). That sort of benefit doesn't really come into play with the political viewpoints. I am, however, against userboxes that serve to demean other religions (e.g. "This user doesn't like religious people" or "This user believes all non-Christians will go to Hell"). Nevertheless, the information in the acceptable religious userboxes could be conveyed just as well without a userbox that resides in the Wikipedia project space.
 * If you are talking about religious expression in general, I'll echo that I don't feel that it's a problem. In my case particularly, aside from during the RfA, no one has said anything about my userpage being an issue. Most people have called it interesting. As long as the religious expression doesn't demean other religious or come out as proselytization, I feel religious expression (or any other type of expression) is okay. We are all Wikipedians indeed, but we should be allowed to show a little bit of individuality. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to choose our usernames, wouldn't be able to look at past contributions, and wouldn't have user pages. But I respect and agree with the idea that there is a point where individuality goes too far and encroaches on the community's ability to come together to develop an encyclopedia. joturn e r 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)