User:Joturner

Joturner (talk · contribs) 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. joturner 22:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

  • 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's Arrow 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. joturner 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. joturner 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I made the qualifiers more related to Wikipedia (and the axioms appear less serious), per Sandstein's concerns about their irrelevance to the project. joturner 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 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. joturner 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. joturner 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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. joturner 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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's Arrow 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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. joturner 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More