This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tariqabjotu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Jordan! Thank you very much for your kind words and support at my request for adminship. I have always admired your contributions, and I wish you the best of luck on your ongoing RfA. Thanks again, and if you ever see anything I could be doing better, please leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to inform you, although you may have already seen, that I opposed your RfA. If you get it, I'm sure you'll do fine. If not, keep your chin up. I just thought I'd swing by to say that I really do feel bad, and wish you all the luck whatever the outcome. See you around, my friend. --You Know Who(Dark Mark)14:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship
Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - CorbinBe excellent
Well done
Jordan, I think you've done really well this week and I'm glad I offered my support. Having just been through a non "dead-cert" RfA myself I know what it was like to get even a few opposes, so to get so many and deal with them all must have been very hard and at times very demoralising. I personally don't hold any strong views on religion but if I did, and if I chose to write about those views and experiences therein I like to think they wouldn't affect my ability to be an effective contributor and admin. I also don't know why it didn't end on time? Anyway, I hope you continue to edit, to answer your critics and to maintain the dignity you've shown this week. Looking forward to a strong RFA #3 if / when you feel up to it. Deiziotalk23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you've just withdrawn your RfA. Just wanted to drop you a note to say how sorry I am that it failed to reach consensus. Earlier I had thought it was heading towards a successful conclusion and I was very sorry to see it go the other way. I disagreed with many of the oppose comments, some of which seemed to me to have forgotten about WP:AGF and weren't prepared to acknowledge the tremendous work you've done on Wikipedia. Please continue to contribute your wisdom to WP - we need you. You'll have my spport the next time you want to apply. All the best, Gwernol23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the uplifting remarks. It's simply so hard to guage community consensus. Perhaps the community as a whole thinks that I was attempting to lawyer my way to adminship. Perhaps they think I'm more concerned about promoting Islam than creating an encyclopedia. Perhaps they think my every action is part of a plot to gain adminship. Ngb stated that 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. I thought I handled the situation as best I could, responding to comments in reasoned defense rather than attacking oppose voters. But perhaps the Wikipedia community agrees with Ngb. I simply don't know. From here, I don't know what I'll do. I'm sure I'll be back to my regular editing, but I'll most certainly take a break for a day to rebound from this and possibly be a bit less active for a couple more weeks so I can focus on ending this school year. I don't want this RfA to bring me down, but I'm afraid the community now has a less than desirable image of me. An image that will never be erased. And I don't say that because that image may dash my chances to become an admin in the future, but rather I say that because that image may dash my chances at being seen as a credible editor. It's simply unfortunate.
I've just read your thoughts above, and I hope you don't mind if I add a comment here to say "nonsense!". Don't let it affect your editing in the least. The truth speaks for itself. Tyrenius02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Please don't think either that 'the community has a less than desirable image' of you (123 support votes on an RfA suggests otherwise!) or that those of us who voted oppose would necessarily do so in the future because that image 'will never be erased'. I really hope that you carry on contributing to the encyclopaedia as a good and productive editor.
Personally I changed my opinion on this RfA from neutral primarily because I was dismayed and disturbed by your attempt to use process to engineer the outcome of a debate that looked as though it might not go your way, which for me was not the mature and responsible attitude expected of an admin. However, everyone makes mistakes, and if your editing over the coming months shows that I was wrong to draw that conclusion, I will happily support on a future RfA. I'm sure many of the oppose voters feel likewise. --Nick Boalch\talk08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This does not reflect on your value as an editor at all. Don't even think that way! Keep up your good work on Wikipedia and don't worry about this. Elizmr20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your withdrawal
It probably saved lots of time and avoided lots of silly arguing. You should be an admin. Best wishes, Kusma(討論)00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I was unhappy to see it fail, but I agree with Kusma that it probably saved a lot of time against some pretty pointless arguments, many lies and lots of vote advertising by some opposing editors. What was really troubling was how it failed for almost the same reasons as before. It might still have passed if you continued but don't worry about it. But the rfa was a very bad case of incivility but you showed in your responses that you would make a good admin. I just wish that you would change your userpage back like the part about Identity. It's your own page and it's very interesting. Some editors would have opposed even if you didn't have a userpage. --a.n.o.n.y.mt20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't anticipate making major changes to my user page at this point. In its current state, I honestly don't see any promotion of Islam; I hardly mention that I'm a Muslim. And so, in the upcoming weeks, I most likely won't make too many changes. Perhaps I'll rephrase some of the more contentious axioms. However, I feel there is an extent to which I am willing to do this as, like you said, some editors will continue to oppose no matter what I do to my userpage. And as I personally don't see what the big deal is (now that I removed the admittedly overly Islamocentric information) I see no reason to sacrifice a healthy level of individuality just to gain adminship months from now. Perhaps I'll change my mind in the future, but as of right now, I see current quibbles about the userpage unsubstantiated. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I doubt that I could have actually passed. The RfA was getting ugly and many people were beginning to vote oppose (or change their votes to oppose) as a result of the ugly appearance of the RfA and the comments raised by the most opinionated objectors. Promotion after such a terribly ugly RfA seems hard for me to believe. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey
I was surprised to learn about the way your RFA dropped off at the end. You were looking strong. Anyhow, just to tell you that you have my support should you re-apply in future. Cheers, NSLE(T+C) at 00:25 UTC (2006-05-25)
I was sorry to see you had withdrawn, but understand why you felt this was right. I hope you will be encouraged by the large number of people who supported you and try again in the future. It shouldn't be too difficult to take on board some of the objections. Tyrenius00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the "premature" mixup. I can obviously understand how you feel and why you pulled out, better than some others. The opposition was purely ridiculous. I don't know about your thinking on RfAs, etc, but I think its pure and best to work relentlessly on Wikipedia backlog and RC patrol, and help others - such people are often more valuable than those with some other tools who enjoy the rank and long wikibreaks. Rama's Arrow01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll join the chorus. I was really surprised at the outcome and wish you the best if you try again. -- DS1953talk02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I have decided to resign from wikipedia, but if you decided to become an admin, please contact me to give you a support vote. You do deserve it. If Timothy wanted to become and admin, also please let me know. I want to give him a big oppose vote just because "SOME" (not all) of his arguments were dishonest. Thanks --Aminz 02:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) I changed my mind, I will give Timothy a neutral vote.
--Aminz03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason for you to be deciding what you'll be voting now. You never know what could happen, both positively and negatively, between now and then, if Timothy were to go up for adminship. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You'll have my support as well, should you choose to reapply. By the way, did you receive my email from last week? I hope to see you around! Best regards, jaco♫plane03:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm another one shaking my head, puzzled at the way your RFA suddenly turned. Chin up though, you're a very valuable editor, that's what's important, and there's always tomorrow for another run. Btw, I really don't get what the big deal is about your user page...I like it. No one could ever point out any problem edits that I could see. --MPerel ( talk | contrib)06:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm also a little taken aback by the outcome of this, but I agree it's a classy move. The detractors who said you are simply power hungry have to eat their words. Assuming you don't go crazy in the meantime :), I will happily support you in nom #3 should it come. I'm sorry about how it ended, but congratulations on being brave and principled. --kingboyk11:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Next time, let's get you nominated by one or two users in good standing. I don't think the self-nom did you any harm but being nominated might just be a slight help, who knows. Chin up. --kingboyk20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I too am sorry to see it fail, especially when I thought the 'community' started making sense. With my own RfA just now failing, I can understand the frustration and despondency one feels trying to correct people's mistaken assumptions about a person, as well as the stress and unnecesary negativity that goes with the whole process. I feel deep down that the whole RfA process is very broken, but its all we have for now. As you said yourself, just keep on doing what you do well — as an editor, your edits speaks volumes about your integrity and value to this project. Best wishes, dewet|✉20:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Condolences
JT, despite the fact that I opposed you, please accept my condolences on the regretful fact that your RfA descended into mudflinging from civilized debate. That really sucked. But that's what happens when a lot of bright, opinionated people get together in a community sometimes. Best of luck editing - maybe you didn't really need those tools anyway - blocking and closing AfD's are not exactly the most productive tasks on this encyclopedia..... (Just wait until my RfA!! They'll pillory my ass, more likely than not!) Cheers! - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey
Hey Joturner, We've never communicated, but looking at your edits, I think you are definitely a fair editor. I just wanted to tell you that passing the RFA or not should not be a big deal. I've always felt that the process is overly political, and that more than anything it causes dissension. So just keep up the good work. -- Jeff300003:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tariqabjotu/Archive Nine — Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Tone23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
Censored RfA comments
Hi Joturner,
Anonymous editor has removed a number of comments regarding your RfA from his user talk page, and materially altered his own comments post-facto, with false date signatures, as is his way. However, they are available on my talk page.
As I was one of the "most opinionated" editors you mentioned in your post to AE, you might be interested to see what I had to say, along with the discussion on Aminz' talk page.
I've been reviewing and commenting on the Admin accountability page as well.
Actually, I'm not interested in seeing what you have to say; you've said enough already.
Until you learn what it means to assume good faith, I don't see what could possibly be accomplished from responding to even more of your statements made in bad-faith. I answered one of your questions on my request for adminship and you essentially called me a complete liar because it didn't comply with your pre-conceived answer. On Anonymous Editor's talk page, you held me accountable for not responding to a statement I was never made aware of in the first place. You have made pointed, unwarranted allegations (sound familiar?) against AE stating that "once handed the mop (he wielded) it as a sectarian sword". You have jumped to the conclusion that the section on The Muslim Guild for members to voluntarily (or as you cynically state, by confession) indicate whether they are Muslim was designed to further separate Muslims from everybody else. Perhaps, the voluntary designation was designed to instead help members who wanted to contact a Muslim for an Islamic perspective. But of course, that thought never crossed your mind as that would be an uncharacteristic assumption of good faith. You presumed that Muslims from The Muslim Guild voted for me in my RfA because they wanted me to push some arbitrary Muslim point-of-view, when in fact it could have been possible that they simply saw me as a worthy contributor. Once again, this would go against what seems to be your inability to assume good faith. On Aminz's talk page, when two editors asked you to quit making personal attacks, you claimed that they were stalking you. And also note the accusations of sockpuppetry.
And so now you want me to comment on yet another incident? Audacity, Timothy. Simply audacity. By email? With confidentiality? The only person who should be concerned about how detrimental a response would appear is you. Others may have been convinced by your arguments (as well as a few others that, in my opinion, failed to assume good faith) during my request for adminship, but if you continue in the direction you're heading, your credibility as an editor who can correctly, or at least positively, assess a situation will approach zero very quickly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the meaning of "confession." Confession is a synonym for religious belief[1]. It is not as a "confession" to a crime.
I am surprised by the vitriol of your response - my immediate reaction is that you've confirmed that my decision - a judgement I was forced to make in shorter order than I would have liked - was the right one.
You've commented here on several matters you plainly know nothing of, which is scary behavior for an admin candidate who, if confirmed, would have been empowered to act on behalf of one or another party. It is good when an editor has the wisdom to review a matter in question before coming to a decision, particularly when it involves judgement of another editor's motivations and character. How much more so for one who openly strives to obtain the tools by which one might act upon those judgements to the detriment of the wrongly judged.
Your behavior here is markedly worse than the palpably controlled demeanor during your RfA. Other editors picked up on your anger towards critics; I didn't see it, but it's clear enough here.
I was thinking of archiving my talk page soon (since I always do it sometime after reaching fifty posts) when I noticed a comment I made about a month ago. It had been sitting at the top of my page for a few weeks but I completely forgot about it. Although it has been a month to the day since the comment, I don't want it to end the wrong way when it gets filed in my archives. I intended to make a request - albeit a rather direct request - to assume good faith. When I wrote that comment, I thought I had conveyed the intended message of you have a history of assuming bad faith and so I'm not going to address this assumption of bad faith. But now after giving it a second look, and giving your response a second look, I'm afraid you may have perceived it as a biting indictment of your opinions and a slap in the face along the lines of because of your comments on my RfA, I never want to talk to you again. I understand that you may even consider my intended message a bit harsh, but I felt it needed to be said for the advancement of positive, cooperative relations within the Wikipedia community (not to sound grandiose). I hope you have at least to some degree taken my advice and taken extra care to assume good faith. If I misled you to my intentions the first time I posted the comment or if, even now after this explanation, this comment still comes off a bit harsh, I extend my sincerest apologies. I look forward to seeing great and calculated contributions from you in the future. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I did take your comments as you'd feared, and do still think them rather harsh. But, that was awhile ago, and though I may be a little wary, I harbor no ill-will. Your dove with the olive branch cannot but be recognized, appreciated and returned.Timothy Usher06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jo,
I am very sorry to see the state of your Rfa. It is obivious that it was mudslinging and a classic case of editors failing to assume good faith.. I agree with your comments above 100%. This is not the first time that these editors have failed to assume good faith. Sadly this has become the biggest issue in wikipedia. Please dont be discouraged by these "mind vandals" comments. I also would advice you to stick to your values and what you really believe in.. You dont have to change your user page every now and then just because someone doesn't agree with it. Because there will be always someone who will still disagree.. I like to quote.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
remember everyone in planet earth is bound by this declaration.. No other law can supercede this.. So people can hold any opinion they want as long as they dont interfere with others.. Happy editing.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)08:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my recently successful nomination. I appreciate the comments that you made. If you ever require them, I offer you my assistance (and that of the shiny new buttons), I'm only a talk page message away! Jude (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Your RfA
Hi Joturner,
I would like say that I am sorry about your RfA, and, if you decide to go for another one, I will support you again. --Heptortalk13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jordan, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chancetoseemeinaction. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I am sorry to see that your RfA came out the way it did. I think if you choose to stand again after some additional seasoning, that you would have my support. ++Lar: t/c03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Joturner, Not sure why you have merged the Indian currents events with the Pakistan even after the consensus did not indicate an unanimous vote of support. Please explain on my talk page. - Ganeshk(talk)03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there was no unanimous support, but that unanimous support is not needed to achieve consensus. However, it appeared as though there was a general okay to merge several of the regional current events articles on the merge's discussion page (which, by the way, has been up for a few weeks now). Considering that the page for current events in Pakistan hasn't been updated since March, it only made sense to merge the two related articles into one section. The inclusiveness of all South Asian nations into one article will also allow for events from Bangladesh and Nepal, for example, to be included on one of the regional events pages. Could you please explain the problem you have with the merge? Of course, the Current events in South Asia page needs to cleaned up to reflect the change, so overlook that for now. As the page will still contain past current events for India, is it really a significant problem for Portal:India and Portal:Pakistan. I don't think it's a big deal, but perhaps you disagree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the merge. As long as the Indian current events page is active, there is no reason to merge. Pakistan related events may have not been updated since March, so it would better to mark it as inactive as is done to inactive wikiprojects. Merging is not the solution and there was no consensus or even proper support to merge the news pages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current events=Nichalp«Talk»=10:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The merger has resulted in a lot of confusion. For example, the first news of the section now says "Prime minister urges medicos to end strike. Medical students along with students from other institutes are observing strike against the proposed hike in reservation for OBCs in higher educational institutes." Definitely, the news now clearly doesn't mention its scope very well. While if it were on Portal:India's archive of News, the context is clearly present. The Portal:India is very active and per Nichalp there is no need to merge the archives of it to that of South Asia. Even if there might be a need to merge events of South Asia, the archives of News from Portal:India MUST be maintained separately. Just as you wouldn't suggest merging another of South Asian countries portal with Portal:India if they are not "up to the mark", the current event section also should be kept separate. Portal:India is a Featured Portal and for a good reason there are archives of the news. Any kind of changes to the archive will hurt the quality of the portal. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That is sad considering I pride myself on my grammar, actually I know that I am terrible speller (I think I spelt that wrong). :P Yanksox01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hello Jo. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need help with admin powers, feel free to ask me. Of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, and a successful RfA too...Blnguyen | Have your say!!!03:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad
I could use some help on the Muhammad page. The usual -- Muhammad was a pedophile, Islam spreads by violent conquest, etc. I'm always trying to keep the article neutral and now it's being pushed towards an anti-Islamic stance. Zora21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
If it were the former, I would have voted Oppose or at the very least just a regular Support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Islam-related page
Not sure what to do with this, but I thought you'd be able to figure out the appropriate linking and formatting a lot faster than I can, or at least refer it to the appropraite project. Thanks. Cheers and happy editing! --Kchase02 (T) 09:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me(t/c)15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Hello, Tariqabjotu/Archive Nine, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again for your early and very positive support! Kukini05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally am not fond of the long revert as it erased months of work on the article, some of which was positive. That seemed to me like a desparate attempt to maintain the article's featured status. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I hope it was just an attempt to restore a better article, even though not good enough for featured status. Well, if it's current state (dead external links, biased sources, missing internal links, unreferenced, massively long, and POV) is enough to keep its featured status, that's not a good sign for Wiki. Thanks for responding, cheers, Sandy01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
