Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2

message: Moved from discussion page.
*Comment - So the only people who merit adminship are not even the ones who lack strong opinions on anything, but those who take pains to wipe out any evidence that they might? Ravenswing 15:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Based on the contents on his User page, it has been said, “doubts about this editor's commitment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia” - ok. However, there is nothing illegal there. In my opinion, it is just a commitment of his faith and belief, and he is toning down the same as suggested. On the other hand, certain user pages contain user boxes and other information which may be illegal at least in some of the countries where wikipedia is viewed, and from where wikipedia is edited. Like Mindspillage and several others, I do believe that User pages also belong to wikipedia, and they should conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Bhadani 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My two pence

message: 15:21, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fadix (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:20, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Karl Meier (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:20, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:BlueGoose (+ request for editor / user page review) (top) 
15:17, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bhadani (→Request for Editor / User Page Review - + replies from my talk page) 
15:17, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Joturner (→My dear - + reply) 
15:12, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sandstein (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:09, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Stifle (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:08, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:MONGO (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:08, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:MaxSem (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:07, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:The JPS (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:06, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blnguyen (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:06, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JJay (+ request for editor / user page review) 
15:05, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TruthCrusader (+ request for editor / user page review) (top) 
15:02, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Joturner/Milestones (+ 6000th edit to milestones) (top) 
14:58, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zeq (+ request for editor / user page review) 
14:57, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Looper5920 (+ request for editor / user page review) 
14:55, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bhadani (+ request for editor / user page review) 
14:54, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pecher (+ request for editor / user page review) 
14:53, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tickle me (+ request for editor / user page review) (top) 
14:52, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Zora (Request for Editor / User Page Review) 
14:36, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rama's Arrow (→Rama's Arrow - + thoroughly confused support) 
14:32, 13 May 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rama's Arrow (→Feedback on Userpage - + reply from my talk page) 
Zeq 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a cut and paste from JoTurner's contribution list from approximately here. Personally I see an editor who took oppose comments from his previous RfA to heart and asked those who opposed him to comment on improvements he made to his User Page in response to that critisism. That's exactly what I'd expect him to do. Well done Joturner for responding well to feedback from the community. Gwernol 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sheer volume of this shows that he is campaigning hard. Someone who takes critism to improve himself does not run and tell everyone about it a week before 2nd attempt at adminship. Zeq 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I wanted to campaign, I would have contacted support voters from my last RfA. I, in fact, didn't contact any support voters from my last RfA to comment on the editor review page. The reason, of course, is that they were most likely already okay with the page and thus would not be able to provide any constructive criticism on the user page. You also said, in your oppose vote, that I duplicated the request for review on twenty-nine pages. Perhaps you got that number from the number of oppose voters in my last RfA, but as the evidence you provided says, I in reality only contacted seventeen editors, the oppose voters who mentioned (or at least seemed to have mentioned) that they had a problem with the user page. As Gwernol stated, I was simply trying to get feedback on my page and improve it. So it seems I was in a lose-lose situation: had I kept it, it would have seemed biased, but now that I removed it, some people would think I did that just to improve chances to become an admin. joturner 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. They already voted for you. So you send an image of "change" to those who oppose you and 2 weeks later being nomonated again with all your supporters participating. How many people voting for you are those you voted for their RFA ? Do you think adminship is a "present" one must reciprocate to each other ? Zeq 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would beg to differ: it is rather very encouraging to invite critical comments. In his last RfA, I had opposed with a lengthy comment, and this time I was forced to change my perception about him. BTW, I would request you to please continue here – I am referring to your declaration on your userpage about not editing wikipedia for next few months. --Bhadani 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is very troubling 

message: Adding these comment to my vote ruined the numbering, so I've moved them here:
As you've dutifully answered my questions, you deserve an explanation for why I'm not changing my vote.  Your answer to question one was exactly what I wanted to hear, as you correctly discerned.  Couldn't have been better.  But your denial that the user page changes and Mosque FAC were components of your drive to gain adminship isn't credible.  Of course they were.  That you'd state otherwise deprives me of the confidence in the sincerity of your other answers that I'd need before supporting.Timothy Usher 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really nothing more I can say; if you don't believe me, I'm not going to force you to. However, I believe it's not right for you (or anyone else) to take every action that occured between my last RfA and this RfA as campaigning. joturner 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved comment

message: Hi joturner. Thank you for your reply to my comment about closing. I did appreciate the reasons for only commenting in the opposition section was probably because there were no late supports at the time of your edits. However, that isn't really the point i was trying to make. To some extent tt doesn't matter what your motives were; an admin will be judged on their actions and, most often, on a most critical perception of what their motives are. Its what your actions around the RfA appear to be, rather than why you did them, that draw concern. In the same vein, it is unfair, especially as you do appear to make a huge effort to be neutral on subjects that are close to you, that people will struggle to see past your startlingly expressive user page. That may well say more about their prejudices then anything else. But the fact remains that does happen and will continue to happen with greater frequency and intensity if you are an admin. In my opinion, it is that lack of judgement - that you feel the need to express yourself in a manner that is not central to improving the project, despite the extensive concern it elicits - that concerns me (and i think, many others). Your position is a righteous one, and you carry it off well, but i can't help think you are risking martyring yourself on a principle, when we need admins that are sensitive to wiki-practice. Best wishes. Rockpocket (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From discussion on closing RfAs 

message: Joturner denies that he has been campaigning to get adminship since his last RfA failed. This claim is just not consistent with joturner's contacting editors who voted "oppose" or "neutral" during this nomination and trying to persuade them to change their mind. Here are the examples:
*User:Heptor 
*User:Elizmr 
*User:MPerel 
*User:Crzrussian 
*User:Ngb 
*User:Trooperz 
*User:Aiden 
*User:Kingboyk 
I don't think that this list is exhaustive. Pecher Talk 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking for clarification of opinion, responding to a request for some evidence of NPOV, and correcting misconceptions is not campaigning. joturner 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I never requested that anyone change their vote. joturner 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think it was a little strange to be contacted by J. after the "oppose" vote, but I actually did not feel pressured by him; quite the opposite--he told me to do what I want.  I think he is being sincere in his description of the motivation for his action above.  Elizmr 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: His message to me was perfectly civil and acceptable as far as I'm concerned. I didn't see it at trying to influence me, rather he requested my counsel in what he could do to improve. I was happy to discuss that with him and, yes, I did change to support but I wasn't pressured into it any way. --kingboyk 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaigning 

message: I'm not going to repeat anything I said before, but simply state something that I never had the opportunity to address. And that is in regards to contacting the bureaucrats about the nomination. I am not the first one to note the end time of an RfA on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, and so it is not as if that action was unprecedented. Someone else even inquired as to why my RfA had stayed open well after the end time on the RfA talk page. Anyway, I mentioned the RfA on the bureaucrat's noticeboard just to call attention to it in case no one noticed. Several hours later (that would be later, in the morning for me), I began to contact bureaucrats via their talk pages because, yes, I did want it closed quickly, but not because I wanted an easy promotion but because I wanted to stop a situation (either with a promotion or "no consensus") that seemed like it was about to spiral out of control. When User:Taxman acknowledged that he was aware of what was going on and User:Linuxbeak chimed in as well, I was satisfied, as I at least knew they had noticed the situation. There was a part of me that expected a decision right then that would end the escalating situation, one way or another. But when it turned out that the decision was to let the situation continue for a couple more days, I was a bit concerned as clearly things were starting to heat up and arguments were just being repeated, extended, and diverted. However, I didn't withdraw since there was still a possibility for promotion. Later on, when it became clear that consensus was not going to be reached and when it became clear things could only get worse, I thought it was time to withdraw.
So there you have it, an explanation of the bureaucrat contact. Respond here if you must, but it is highly unlikely I will be responding to a response here. Take it or leave it at face value. joturner 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Oran e  (t) (c) (e) 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Final Statement