Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:22, 17 May 2006

Joturner

(34/1/0) ending 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner (talk · contribs) – I first came to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages Project as a whole, would benefit if I were to be given adminship. joturner 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Absolutely. joturner 03:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I co-nominate. Computerjoe's talk 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please treat this as my co-nomination too. Better late than never! --Bhadani 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support again. Still see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. -- DS1953 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
3. Support jaco♫plane 04:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Good editor, won't abuse tools. Could use more like him. Rx StrangeLove 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
5. I beat the Nominator support Shh, humor me. Anyway; excellent user, no problems at all. Mopper 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Edit conflict Support No problems here. --Srikeit 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per all above,  :) Dlohcierekim 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
8. 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)
9. Support Wishing you the best. michael 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. Your userpage is even better now. :) Johnleemk | Talk 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - per above. Kukini 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --TantalumTelluride 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Roooowwwwwr, I'm a lion!!! Mop? Definitely. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. Support per above abakharev 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong support Knowledgeable, civil, experienced, and confident--Joturner would make an excellent administrator. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Strong support, we need more admins and this is a perfect candidate. --Rory096 08:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Great user. DarthVader 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Co-nom! --Computerjoe's talk 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Palmiro | Talk 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. Support: good editor. Jonathunder 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Rfa cliché #1 RadioKirk talk to me 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Solid user with good contributions on all fields. --Tone 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support--Jusjih 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --ForestH2
33. 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. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. This time - a sure support. He has displayed maturity during his talks. --Bhadani 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Neutral

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 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages namespace:
Article: 39.44% (1972) | Article talk: 16% (800)
User: 3.26% (163) | User talk: 19.58% (979)
Misplaced Pages: 14.7% (735) | Misplaced Pages 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)

• See Joturner's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

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)

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)