Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johnuniq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Johnuniq[edit]

Final (192/26/5); Closed as successful by -- Amanda (aka DQ) at 04:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Johnuniq (talk · contribs) – Johnuniq has been active on the project for almost 12 years now, first editing in December 2007, before becoming a regular name in January 2009. His focus on Wikipedia has largely been technical, but unlike many contributors who focus on the technical side of the project, he's also active in mainspace with a significant portion of his contributions being to mainspace.
John is the type of person that we need more of in the admin corps: he's been dedicated to the project for nearly a decade, is sensible, and is willing to help. He has the technical competence that we need more of as well as the understanding of our purpose that is key to adminship. His answers below show him to be a person who is sensible and who would be a net asset to the project. We need more admins who are willing to work in less glamourous areas and who have the heart of the project in mind. I think Johnuniq can be trusted with these tools, and I hope you will join me in supporting his RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination which I accept. I have never engaged in paid editing (and never will), and have not used any other account. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would look at some backlogs and determine where I could help. Starting somewhere like requests for page protection would be useful and safe. The vandalism noticeboard is generally well handled but I would also watch there. I have done a lot of work opposing WP:UNID (last seen in June 2018) and may be able to help with other LTAs. A long-term goal would be to help with SPI cases because socks can drive off good editors. I would act cautiously and get advice when needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best work has been creating and maintaining Lua modules including the mammoth Module:Convert used for {{convert}} here and at other projects. The modules I maintain are stable and now require little effort. I have also created a small number of articles (see my user page). In general, I support efforts that help the creation of encyclopedic content and oppose efforts that don't.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Conflicts are part of an open community. I deal with it by taking my time to reply and by focusing on content or, at noticeboards, by providing evidence on behavior.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional questions from John M Wolfson
4. How would you use your admin tools in a scenario you were unfamiliar with?
A: Do you mean that, for example, someone might ask me to act in an area of Wikipedia that I was not particularly familiar with? In that case, I would be reluctant to act without seeking advice or at least doing quite a bit of reading. Of course if WP:BLP or similar urgent issues were involved I would act on that.
5. What is your biggest regret from your time on Wikipedia, and how have you learned from it?
A: I regret that some of my user talk page interactions have been a bit mechanical. Sometimes I have left a message for a user after thinking their edits needed attention; on re-reading my comments at a later time I saw that I sounded unwelcoming. I'm trying to sound more relaxed. In big-picture terms, I regret having not created more content.
Additional questions from Lourdes
6. Thank you. I see a lot of significant work in the main space. When was the last time you added a reliable source to an article and what was the template that you used?
A: Building content is my weak point—the last time I added references was at Matthias Goethe which I created in May 2019 using {{cite web}} with {{sfnp}}. I fixed a reference two weeks ago in diff.
Additional question from Reyk
7. In your opinion, what is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?
A: Picking a winner from WP:5P is difficult but if pressed I would go for WP:NPOV as it is the basis for other policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP. That's because an article cannot be neutral if it contains original research or unsourced commentary as there is no way to objectively decide whether such material is reasonable (neutral). Also, a biography should avoid primary and self-published sources which can be cherry-picked, particularly for a living person, to slant an article in a particular direction away from objective neutrality as determined by secondary sources.
Additional question from Nosebagbear
8. Several opposes below have given a concern of playing favourites/supporting certain users incorrectly. Do you have anything specific you want to say to this as either (always) unfounded or no longer a concern?
A: A wise person might duck that but I think the situation is more nuanced than portrayed in the oppose section. Checking the diffs show I was not supporting MarkBernstein but was on what is now the majority side regarding gamergate. It is true that I supported Jytdog on several occasions because he did good work in opposing promotional and fringe editing, albeit with a very unfortunate style. Here are two diffs of me telling Jytdog to cool it: 1 + 2; it's a shame I didn't do more of that. The full ANI discussion shows my view about the iban agreed with the consensus. My mini-rant noted in oppose #1 followed an edit (repeated) which added gossip to a BLP with citation needed. The editor started in 2006 so WP:BITE does not apply.
Additional question from StudiesWorld
9. Do you believe that administrators should work to promote a healthy working environment? If so, how would you use the tools to combat harassment and bullying between editors?
A: Administrators, like everyone, should strive towards a healthy working environment. However, it might not always be possible to be nice to everyone and get a good outcome for the encyclopedia. Passing-by vandalism-only accounts and trolls should be swiftly blocked once they reveal their negative influence. Clear harassment should also result in a swift block, although it is important to check the background first to avoid the horror of mistakenly blocking a good editor based on a misreading. Regarding established editors, those who engender ill-feeling have a corrosive influence on the community, while those making misguided edits generate bad content and drive-off good editors who become frustrated when standard procedures are unable to correct the underlying problem. If a known-good editor ranted with a string of expletives, and if I thought my intervention would help, I would try to engage with them on their talk. I would not drop a warning template or add WP:CIVIL links in such a case—not unless I thought it was a lost cause and the editor was heading out the door. I would also attempt to separate the factions to let the heat of battle pass. None of that is easy and I'm unlikely to be more successful than others trying to achieve a good working environment.
Additional question from MrClog
10. Would you be willing to set up a personal recall procedure, and if so, how would it look?
A: I would like some time to think about that—I don't remember any recalls in recent years so have no thoughts at the moment. I see that the last admin who added their recall criteria here was in January 2017.
Additional question from Dolotta
11. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
A: That's a long list! I have noted above that content building is my weak point but there are many other corners where I have little to no experience. I would really struggle to take an article to WP:FA and have very little knowledge of WP:SPI, for example.
Additional question from GoldenRing
12. What would be your approach in dealing with editors who do good editing work but are abrasive or uncivil in their interactions with others? What about those that are civil and collaborative in their interactions with others but produce poor quality work?
A: This is the killer question for which no one has a good answer. I covered some of the first part in Q9 above and will add some points here. Good editors are almost always very mature adults who need to be approached in a reasonable manner if a reasonable response is wanted. That needs a sensible discussion without templates or condescension. If a block is necessary, it should not include a component for impertinence to authority—48 hours is plenty. The second part is clearer—unhelpful editors need to be stopped from creating problems. Achieving that in a pleasant manner may be hard as no one wants to be told they are not suitable for the job. I would try to get such a problem editor to respond to advice and to seek opinions at a noticeboard. That would go with a gentle but firm suggestion that if necessary a sanction might be required.
12a. Is there anything you wish you'd done differently in the AE diffs that Pudeo gave regarding MarkBernstein? GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
A: Pudeo's oppose says that I defended MarkBernstein, offering as evidence [1] + [2]. Those links show me not defending MB—plenty of the regulars were available to defend/attack him and my thoughts were not needed regarding that. What I did was an attempt to have the reporters reflect on their approaches. I agree that's possibly off-topic for WP:AE so perhaps I should not have said anything, but inspecting the reporter as well as the accused is tradition. During the gamergate era, noticeboards and talk pages were filled with undue reports—that was my main complaint. I gave these examples: NPOV archive + talk.
I think my first encounter with MarkBernstein was in May 2014 when MB did some terrific work getting a nasty anti-Semitic article deleted. I saw a battle about the article at ANI and MB notified me about the AfD at my talk. I certainly supported MB there and may have done so later but I haven't found anything after 15 minutes searching. I did find diff where I said "MarkBernstein is massively misinformed and obnoxious" in December 2015.
I welcome advice—what should I have done differently? I know, in retrospect, that MB should have been more firmly resisted and indeffed much earlier and I might have done more to bring that about.
I'll take this opportunity to point out that Pudeo's link regarding Jytdog points to an ANI report which was closed in accord with what I wrote. If nothing else, that contradicts Pudeo's claim that my track record at AE and ANI is poor.
Additional question from MelanieN
13. It isn’t clear to me why you are seeking admin tools. Your work up to now doesn't seem to suggest a need for them. Could you say something about that? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A: It's true that my work has not required admin tools, although updating Module:Convert is usually frustrating because it is often cascade-protected from usage on the main page. I sometimes see problems that currently aren't sufficiently severe to warrant WP:ANI or other noticeboard, yet which might benefit from being monitored by an admin to see if protection or other intervention were required. I usually feel that when seeing WP:BLP problems. Also, I can learn the routine and occassionally help at places like WP:RFPP and WP:AIV.
Additional question from Barkeep49
14. In both your discussion of conflict causing stress and in some of the opposes the common theme seems to be a bit of an "us vs them" attitude in editor behavior disputes. Do you have an example that shows you taking a different tact in that area? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A: Two weeks ago I irritated an IP who complained on my talk. That was happily resolved as can be seen here (it was the IP who refactored the heading). I'll try to find a more substantive example later. Regarding the reported disputes, bear in mind that there is some background in each case.
Additional question from SashiRolls
15. You've had a lot of questions already, so I'll just ask you why you think nobody has responded on the WP:HERE talk-page to a proposed tightening of the prose you said you agreed with. My own theory is that the bad-handy reversion of our de facto collaborative edit was partly responsible. In this vein: 1) Do you think the WMF should be asked to provide authorship info on PAG pages and their explanatory supplements (in wikipedia namespace) as they do for article namespace pages? (I imagine template histories are more transparent so I don't suppose as much energy would need to be burned to study degrees of collaboration...) 2) Do you still think that the linked curiosity garden above needs some weeding? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A: Re 1, no, I don't think the WMF should contribute towards WP:PAG pages or their explanatory supplements. They have no better understanding of what would help than contributors here; indeed, their disconnect suggests they have a low understanding of what would help the encyclopedia. Re 2, the proposed changes to WP:Here to build an encyclopedia are unfortunately complex and editors would need to invest serious time working out exactly what was involved. I think that is the major reason that nothing has happened, although I suppose those watching the page are fairly satisfied with its current state and do not see a need for it to change significantly. Re what my current thoughts are, I would need to invest serious time to remind myself what it's all about so I'm afraid that will have to wait.
Clarification: I'm afraid you didn't answer question #15(a). Perhaps it was unclear? Here it is restated with an example:
Should the WMF make authorship info available in Wikipedia Namespace as they do in Article Namespace. (via wikiwho, example) As is well known, the current algorithm available in Wikipedia namespace does not take account of who has written the text currently on the page, but indiscriminantly adds reverted page blankings to individual edit totals...
Sorry, I totally misunderstood Q15 part 1. Now that you remind me, I have seen the authorship attribution tool after noticing it in the Signpost and VPT. However, I only tried it very briefly and do not know how useful it is. Information is always good so it seems desirable that attribution for particular text was available in the Wikipedia namespace, however I don't have anything more than a hunch that it might be useful. I have experienced some of the frustrations from using WP:WikiBlame where it would point to an edit that added content of interest, yet inspection showed it was only someone reverting an edit, often vandalism.─────────────────────────

Thank you for your reply. Wikiwho is not the same tool as Wikiblame (and Wikiblame does do what you ask it to... sometimes you need to dig a bit deeper than you first thought to find who deserves credit (i.e. blame), but you *can* find out if you know how to use the tool.) Wikiwho tends to give added authorship weight to those who work on references. This is not an issue on policy and guideline pages. Wikiwho being activated in namespace #4 would improve our knowledge of who has written our policy pages. I also provided the DIFF above to the bad-handy reversion to see what your thoughts were on commenting on contributors rather than content.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from MJL
16. I don't mean this as a gotcha question, but something you said nearly 2 years ago is concerning to me. Do you (still?) keep a private list of individual users you believe should not be here? I'm lookin for clarification on: [3]. –MJLTalk 02:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
A: No, I've never had a list. I can't work out exactly what I was getting at in that comment. Clearly I thought the editor in question had publicly identified at least one person they thought should not be at Wikipedia ("it is nice that you are so transparent") so it appears I was saying that there should be no public identification of those that someone might consider undesirable. My "We each have a private list of people" was a light hearted acknowledgment of the fact that many editors associate some user names with problems—for example, it looks like I am associated with trouble by several in the oppose section below. Some names provoke a warm glow when I see them, while others leave me less warm—that's as far as my mental list goes.
Additional question from Icewhiz
17. Would you consider an editor referring to other editors as "militant feminists" that should be "dealt with" as an example of shouting, swearing, insulting, or belittling other editors?
A: Of course it depends on context. I assume the quoted text was used somewhere at Wikipedia and it looks bad. However, it's not shouting or swearing. If it was directed at a particular editor it would be belittling. If the target publicly identified as a "militant feminist" a case could be made that the remark is not an insult. For example, someone might say "spammers should be dealt with" as a plea for action without any insult since "spammers" would be just a way of identifying the behavior. The "dealt with" is a problem but I don't think it's an example of the listed items. One editor saying another should be dealt with could be a poorly expressed suggestion that the target should be sanctioned—such suggestions are standard at noticeboards like WP:ANI. I would say the quoted text, depending on context, indicates a battleground approach but is not an example of one of the listed items. If asked what I would do about such a comment, I would answer as for Q12. That is, I would approach the perpetrator in a reasonable manner (without templates or condescension) and attempt a sensible discussion. If that went nowhere and the background meant a sanction should apply, I would recommend a 48-hour block.
In light of the response above, please explain your comment in this AE case where in response to this diff ("Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?") by an editor subject to these sanctions (" restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.") you stated that "The comment has no shouting, swearing, insulting, or belittling. Harej is reading far too much into the Arbcom remedy". Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yikes, that's from February 2015. All I can recall is that there was a lot of hostility between two groups of editors which led to that comment and the ensuing WP:AE request in your link. At WP:AE, things are fairly formal—the question to be resolved there is whether a particular Arbitration Committee sanction was violated. AE does not consider whether a particular comment is good or bad, merely whether it violated a particular sanction. Of course, any admin might notice a bad comment raised at AE, and the admin might issue their own sanction. My comment was addressed to the formalities and was not an opinion on the advisability of the quoted text. I haven't currently studied the full background but in the context of the linked ANI section, I would say the text was not shouting or swearing. One could argue about whether it was an insult—my experience of the author suggests that the text was what they considered a description of behavior and was not intended as an insult. If they wanted to insult someone, there would be no doubt. The text could be seen as belittling, contradicting my February 2015 comment, but again I don't think the author would leave any doubt if they wanted to belittle a particular person. The AE request was closed with a sanction so my view was out of line. My opinion about the quoted comment is that it shows battleground behavior and should be sanctioned accordingly in the way I described.
Additional question from Masumrezarock100
18. What is your view of WP:IAR? or more specifically What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?
A: IAR is important because it is the intent of policies that should be followed rather than the words used to document them—policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive. The aim is to develop the encyclopedia according to the fundamental principles listed at WP:5P, not to develop a bureaucracy. Therefore IAR is available for situations not immediately covered by policies and guidelines. However, anyone invoking IAR has to be able to demonstrate that their action really helps the encyclopedia, and is in accord with the fundamental principles. Performing an administrative action based on IAR is much more problematic because such an action can impact other editors in a way that may be hard for them to reverse. IAR is more for content issues, such as whether a certain article should have a disclaimer, and a new admin should not think of relying on IAR for administrative actions.
19. You said that you wanted to help with administrative backlogs. We have plenty of admins to help out in those areas. As far as I know you never helped out in areas with huge backlogs such as ACC, NPP, and AFC. Do you intend to help out in these non-admin areas?
A: :Contributing in those areas would be very helpful. Here are two comments showing that at least I am aware of the NPP problem: 2018 + 2016. Each of us has to do what they can and whereas I would like to help I am unable to make a commitment mainly because it's not my skill set. Re the fact that admin backlogs are usually handled well, I have been contributing for over ten years and am likely to continue for another decade or so. It would be better for me to start with relatively straightforward jobs now which would at least help for the occasions when backlogs occur.
2nd additional question from Nosebagbear
20. What current policy/guideline do you most disagree with (and why)?
A: Sorry, I've just (again) looked through the lists of policies and guidelines and there's nothing I disagree with. The reason I got hooked on Wikipedia was the dawning realization that some very smart people have written some very useful rules for the project. I was puzzled for a short time when first seeing WP:IAR, but its point was clear very soon after. I appear to have given the impression that my support for WP:CIVIL is weak but that is not correct—I very strongly believe interactions must be collaborative and civil. The problem is that bad words from good editors are often the result of severely misguided contributions from others—blocking the person who lost their cool might not give the best result for the encyclopedia. I would happily block for incivility after a reasonable discussion provided any underlying problem was also dealt with. It's that last point (dealing with misguided contributions in a reasonable time) that is a greater challenge.
Additional question from Tickle me
21. At Wikipedia Review, The Devil's Advocate mentioned that the "race and intelligence" topic area is an area of dispute where you've participated in the past. He also quoted a comment from you about a biography article in that topic area, in which you expressed relief that the article subject had recently died, because now his biography would no longer be protected under BLP policy. As an administrator, would you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED with respect to that topic area?
A:
Additional question from User:Shrike
22. Are you going to participate in WP:AE?If yes in what areas you consider yourself involved?
A: I haven't thought about that. I certainly would not be at WP:AE any time soon but may participate later. Regarding WP:INVOLVED, that would need careful consideration. If I had been involved in current or past conflicts with an editor, I would be INVOLVED with regard to that editor. If I had participated in disputes on a topic, I would be INVOLVED with regard to that topic. I don't think there is much need for concern because admins and others experienced in WP:AE matters would quickly suggest I back out if there appeared to be an INVOLVED issue. I would not argue about that, although if I didn't think a significant number of experienced editors had participated in a "you are involved" discussion, I might ask for advice at WP:AN.
Additional question from Kingofaces43
23. Sanctions against poor behavior/good content editors are a thorny subject, but this focuses more on what happens before that decision. Take a situation where long-term interaction issues between two editors are being discussed. Setting aside clear-cut WP:INVOLVED cases, how would you combat the attitude that, due to their content accomplishments, one of those editors shouldn't have substantiated behavior issues discussed at noticeboards? That can apply to how you would make sure you aren't doing that as an admin (i.e., checking for personal biases) as well as dealing with others that hold such views.
A: I'm not sure that "shouldn't have substantiated behavior issues discussed at noticeboards" is a significant attitude—at any rate, it is not my attitude. The Yakult case discussed below (Yakult ANI + Yakult AfD) involved two editors who had been battling for an extended period. That is one kind of problem, namely that two editors are sucked into a war of attrition with numerous TLDR noticeboard timesinks and bickering over many pages. Regardless of the underlying problem, the bickering has to stop. A second kind of problem is that one editor does great content work but explodes when articles they follow are (in their opinion) disruptively edited. No one knows a good way of handling either of these problems. My thoughts on the second problem are at Q9 and Q12 above.
Regarding the Yakult case, the extended discussion at ANI linked to earlier concluded that one editor was unnecessarily monitoring another and that a one-way interaction ban would reduce problems. The feeling seemed to be that a large number of editors already checked what Jytdog did, and one of them could seek sanctions if undue foul language was a problem—that was the consensus. I would like people to approach issues such as Yakult more reasonably. For example, a report something like this: What can be done about Jytdog who does good work but who sometimes gets frustrated and uses foul language? For example, see [link to Yakult AfD]. In the Yakult case, Jytdog disruptively took the article to AfD because he correctly thought it was promotionalism and I assume he was having a bad day and was frustrated from the never-ending pile of undue matter in other articles that he had been cleaning up. A sensible discussion could result from a report framed in this manner. The problem with the report was that it focused entirely on bad words as if there was no background story. We should work to reduce foul rants but that can only happen with reasonable discussion in the manner described in Q9 and Q12.
If two editors are in a years-long battle with numerous TLDR reports it is impossible that a reasonable discussion can follow from any report that one of them brings about the other. Sure, Jytdog could have been blocked for his rant (which he struck) but that doesn't address the problem of two editors being engaged in a years-long battle.
23a. That didn't quite address the scenario that unfortunately pops up too often at places like ANI. To make it clearer, it's asking how should a request be approached when people jump to conclusions at admin boards because they know one party is a good editor elsewhere, which results in multiple people not just dismissing legitimate behavior problems, but going after the reporting party in an inappropriate boomerang attempt. As part of that, you might see comments like: look at their achievements, they shouldn't be bothered, or there must have already been a concluded noticeboard discussion on their behavior before bringing it up here. Basically, not solutions, but what's your thought process as you sort out that "in-group" defending and disruption it causes while making sure you (as we all should be checking too) aren't inadvertently starting down that path? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
A: I don't monitor every ANI discussion but I see quite a lot and don't recall cases of that nature. Of course every possible way to be misguided has been found at Wikipedia so there are sure to be some comments matching your description. However, I hold to my earlier reply that it is not a significant attitude. Many discussions involve complex issues and people often comment without examining the background basing their post on a hunch—they might say "per X" or similar to justify their view. Perhaps I haven't noticed the problem because it would never occur to me that the accused's behavior should not be examined. In the Yaccult case, I first looked to see what Jytdog had done this time. Before commenting at ANI I had seen that his rant was at an AfD and that his bad words were directed at the state of the article. Also, his opinion that the original article was undue promotionalism was correct, although taking the article to AfD was pointy.
My thoughts on what might be done if I saw an ANI discussion where people were jumping to an inappropriate conclusion are that a strong reply should be made setting out the key facts. If that didn't get a helpful response, I might post a new section at WP:AN requesting review of my proposal to close the ANI discussion as no action taken since the discussion had diverted away from consideration of the evidence. I don't recall seeing a case where that occurred, or should have occurred. I know that replying and closing should not occur—perhaps I'd ask someone else to close per my recommendation.
Posting links to examples can be a bit tricky because we don't want to rake over old coals, but if you could give a couple of examples I would be in a better position to offer an answer.

Discussion[edit]


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
  1. As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I’ll add to my nomination that I don’t find the opposes at all convincing: admins are not expected to be opinionless drones who act like robots following policy. They are allowed to have views in disputes, and in fact, unless they violate WP:INVOLVED, in virtually all areas they are expected to form a judgement. None of the opposes at all convince me that Johnuniq would violate the principles of our project, and I’m honestly shocked to see such opposition based on having an opinion on controversial matters from years ago. Like RexxS, I think this is a good example of how difficult it is to be a long-term contributor without making enemies. I’ve reviewed the opposes and the answers to the questions, and I stand behind my nomination even more strongly: Jobnuniq is the type of admin we need, and I see no evidence that he wouldn’t be one of our best ones if he gets the bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oh great. Now everyone is going to go for the obviously smarter and even-keeled option instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Seems like they'd do well with more buttons. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Yes, please. ♠PMC(talk) 03:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Excellent candidate, happy to support. – bradv🍁 03:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. Very trustworthy and helpful. Strong support. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  7. Rschen7754 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom ,Long term user has been here since 2007 and editing regularly since 2009.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  9. SupportRhododendrites talk \\ 03:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  10. Thought they were already an admin. Levivich 03:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  11. Actually, I did as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  12. Support. Excellent work with templates and modules. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  13. Support Glennfcowan (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)|-
  14. Support. This editor seems to be a reasonable candidate for the mop. bd2412 T 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  15. Support. Longtime defender of the wiki. The technical contributions are a bonus. Dr. K. 03:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  16. Support - great long-term contributor, clearly has en-WP's interests at heart, can be trusted with janitorial tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  17. Support -- Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  18. As for Oppose #1, the candidate is to be commended for upholding BLP protections and keeping “hidden sex tape” rubbish out of a biography of an active political figure. His views were upheld at an RFC: Talk:Anwar_Ibrahim/Archive 1#RfC. —Mkativerata (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  19. Support Solid record with no red or yellow flags. Obvious clue and a desire to improve the project. The two oppose comments are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  20. Support - Zero blocks despite the numerous edits, already has advanced user rights such as template editor, has the technical ability to deal with any presented tools, knowledge of account security, a good history of civil and constructive debate participation, including in some difficult areas, cares about protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism and promotion. I think the administrator tools will help to achieve even more and to assist other editors when administrator intervention is necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  21. Support - actually thought this might be another resysop RFA. Thank you for your contributions thus far and your willingness to continue doing so. CThomas3 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  22. Support of course Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 04:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  23. Support - a long time asset to the 'pedia, The mop and pail will be in good hands. MarnetteD|Talk 04:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  24. Support I would prefer to see more content creation, but the nominee plans to be cautious, appears to have a serious clue at AfD and I'm willing to take Tony's word for the rest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  25. Support A stellar record of service. Crossroads1 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  26. Support Thoughtful, intelligent, and experienced. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  27. Support: Should have been an admin a long time ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  28. Support. Per nom. No flags as far as I can see. –MJLTalk 05:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'd like to reiterate my support for the candidate. Johnuniq clearly isn't perfect. Yikes is about right of a response imo. Without a doubt, I'd like to see more of a hardline stance on promoting WP:Civility, but that's just my own personal preference. As long as John doesn't seem like they'll actively hurt things in this regard, then I don't see a reason for me to object to their RFA at this time. The oppose !voters seem rather sincere about their concerns, but it wasn't enough for me to switch my initial position. –MJLTalk 22:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  29. Support. Per nom. No concerns with user contributions or experience. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  30. Obvious support Johnuniq has been around a long time, knows his way around all different aspects of Wikipedia, and has been enormously helpful to a lot of people. Being an administrator can only help his outstanding work here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  31. Support I don't remember interacting with them much, but the evidence here, especially Tony's endorsement, makes this a much easier call. SportingFlyer T·C 05:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  32. Strong support. I haven't previously encountered this editor, possibly because I'm not at all involved in technical areas, but in the past year or so I did see and admire three of his articles, and what I see here encourages me to think he will be an asset to the admin corps. – Athaenara 05:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  33. Definately. (And a case of 'I thought you already were'). Balanced, calm, helpful and knowledgeable - you'll be a great asset to the admin corp. - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  34. Support per Tony. Lourdes 06:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  35. Support Has satisfactorily answered my questions, seems at least adequate, NOBIGDEAL, etc. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  36. Excellent candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  37. Thought he was long ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  38. Support - *Nicki Minaj voice* We need admins like him.—NØ 06:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  39. Support Sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  40. Support – And it's about time, too. ;) Would have gladly supported five years ago, so of course I'll support today. Kurtis (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  41. Support. Have seen him around, I guess mostly at WP:ANI and WP:AE, and usually found him a person of sound judgment. Fut.Perf. 07:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  42. Yep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  43. Support- long history of good work around the encyclopedia, and I'm moderately satisfied with the answer to my question. Reyk YO! 07:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  44. Support precious autonomy / mastery / purpose --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  45. Support. In the areas where we both work, see only good thoughts and actions from this candidate! Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  46. Support Damn, someone else beat me to saying "It's about time"! Never mind, I'll reword it - I've been hoping that this editor would run for Admin for some time, and I'm extremely pleased to see that he finally has. I'm confident he'll do a good job. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  47. Support - We met on a few occasions, iirc in discussions regarding reliability of sources. Solid understanding of policies and guidelines. Tactful and relevant comments. By the way, I always thought that Johnuniq was an administrator already, so this nomination made me raise an eyebrow of surprise Face-smile.svg. - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  48. Support, yay, one of the most thoughtful and helpful people here. As suggested in the second !vote above, now I won't bother to support that other curmudgeon currently running. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC).
  49. Support Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  50. Support per Bishonen. Thought Johnuniq was an admin already! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  51. Support. Steady demeanour and valuable long-time contributor that can certainly be trusted with the tools. Loopy30 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  52. Support per Tony. Record also seems fine. Concerns raised by oppose votes don't seem very relevant to me when considering his overall edit history. wikitigresito (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  53. Strong support – Besides performing outstanding work on complex templates euch as {{Convert}} and {{Time interval}}, Johnuniq is also an excellent and timely communicator. Per the nominating statement, he does hold the core of our Wikipedian endeavour close to his heart. — JFG talk 10:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  54. Had to check twice that he wasn't an admin yet. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  55. Support, been around more than long enough to have proved himself ready for the extra responsibilities that being an admin entails. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  56. Support – I've had nothing but good interactions with this user. Graham87 10:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  57. Support - no concerns, net positive. GiantSnowman 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  58. Support. Sure. It's cliched, but I genuinely thought he was one already. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  59. Support per nominator. Seen 'em around. More than meets my standards.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  60. Support - great content work, has a clue about sourcing and BLP requirements, sensitive to the community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  61. Support. I have participated in discussions alongside Johnuniq in a number of maintenance noticeboards and generally find him a sensible contributor. I am happy to support his bid to join the admin corps. Deryck C. 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  62. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  63. Support, Excellent work all around. Kevinhanit (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  64. Strong support, does good work and is sensible and clueful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  65. Support. Don't see why not. Deb (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  66. Support per nominator – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  67. Support. Sorry I was asleep at the wheel and now I'm not even in the top-50. Even-keeled editor, good sense of policy, knows the place. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  68. Support -- This nominee is a perfect candidate for administrator and they have my unequivocal support. Fair minded in disputes, able to call out problematic behaviour with a smile, goes out of the way to assist other users (my IT issues last year) and not afraid to tell friends when they're wrong, which he's done to me on occasion. I like that. CassiantoTalk 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  69. Support net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  70. Support Obviously plenty of experience. I looked at 6 mos. of edit summaries: informative/helpful/not snarky. Looked at 18 mos. of user talk: lots of welcomes, civil/helpful, doesn't just rely on templates. Looked at 3 yrs. of Wiki talk: reasonable thoughtful contributions, not hostile or bullying or combative, positions seem to be good balance of letter vs spirit. I found a few comments that gave me pause, but only in a very subjective sense and rather meaningless compared to the thousands of edits that didn't. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  71. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. I've been familiar with Johnuniq's work on the project for about a decade, and I see no evidence that they would misuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  72. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  73. Support Have had good interactions, no concerns. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  74. Support - about time (yes, I know, someone already said that). Totally unconvincing oppose votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  75. Support. Johnuniq is invariably thoughtful and helpful. SarahSV (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  76. Overall, a net positive. Happy to support. El_C 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  77. Support, do not see any issues--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  78. Support Long-time dedicated and valued contributor - see no issues, thanks for standing. GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  79. Support, have seen much good work. Seems level-headed, but not flat-headed. Looking forward to any response re recall crieria. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  80. Support Working away since 1736. Good all-round solid candidate. scope_creepTalk 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  81. Trusted and competent contributor. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  82. Certainly Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  83. Support. You do good technical work, and your content work is enough for me. I am normally hesitant to support when the candidate shows little evidence of familiarity with important admin areas like AIV, RFP, SPI, and particularly article deletion. However, your answer to my question #13 reassures me. You did not list article deletion as an area you plan to work in, and you show commendable willingness to familiarize yourself, take advice, and follow a learning curve in the other areas. I have no reason to suspect you will abuse the tools, and I look forward to seeing you around in your lousy new T-shirt. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  84. Support I'm satisfied with their answers to the given questions as well as the various other editors vouching for them here. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  85. Support Consistently good work and level attitude, and I'm not going to go picking around for rare pellets of contention in their long and productive history. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  86. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  87. Support   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  88. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  89. Support I've seen the candidate around, and trust them to not misuse the tools. Miniapolis 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  90. Support Not sure I've ever interacted with Johnuniq, but I have seen them around and never in a negative way; I'm sure they'll be fine with the tools. Number 57 22:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  91. Support - Same reasoning as Number 57, I'll just add that this is one of those people who I've thought were already admins. DaßWölf 22:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  92. Support —  Yes.  Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  93. Support A valuable combination of skills, proven experience, and the willingness to contribute. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  94. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  95. Support, unhesitatingly. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  96. Support Of course . Kpgjhpjm 01:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  97. Support – Experienced, and on the whole has good judgment. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Support I think you will be a good one. You have put in your time on the project as well. Lightburst (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  98. Support, nableezy - 03:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  99. Support - I know this is a painfully overdone cliche, but I was genuinely surprised to see this RfA, because I literally have always thought John was an admin. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  100. Support - net positive. -- Begoon 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  101. Support. Took a good look here and liked what I saw. Haukur (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  102. Support. Has the technical skills and temperament; also has the ability to behave like a seasoned admin, and is well able to get into the heart of difficult situations and make reasoned and direct/no-nonsense assessments of the situation. Would be a material net positive. Britishfinance (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  103. Support Tolly4bolly 10:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  104. Support I don't see anything wrong with this user becoming admin. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  105. Support -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  106. Support - clueful, competent and knowledgeable candidate, Net positive to the project, No red flags here. –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  107. Support. likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Support. on balance, likely to be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  108. Support. Has been a pleasure to work with on Module:IP and others. Johnuniq is one of our best technical editors, and could definitely do with the mop to help with template and module maintenance. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  109. Support, little direct experience of the user, fwiw, but they have always struck me as sane. Thanks for putting your hand up, and to nom, for offering to make what I am interested in doing possible. cygnis insignis 14:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  110. Support After looking through the diffs provided by those opposing (especially Pudeo), most of them seem to be criticizing Johnuniq for making short, fairly mild statements on controversial decisions. I don't think it makes sense to criticize someone for being one of the dozen supporters of an IBAN that ended being enacted or for editors requesting no action on an AE case. None of those behaviors indicate that this is someone who lacks the temperament to be an admin. On the contrary, they seem very qualified to use the tools to improve the encyclopedia. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  111. Support: helpful, hard-working editor. All the best, regards. --Titodutta (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  112. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The issues raised by the opposers do not persuade me to join them, but I hope the candidate will give them some thought as he begins his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  113. Support - No concerns. Heavy deletes in AfD, but consensus agreed with many of those.  Spintendo  16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  114. Support No concerns; I trust them with the tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  115. Support. Capable, trustworthy and willing (the Trifecta).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  116. Support - Pretty good candidate TurboSonic (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  117. Support - Loads of experience and overall good interactions with others. I'm sure he'll use the tools responsibly. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  118. Support Strong and positive contributions and a trusted member of the community. Grandpallama (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  119. Support. About damn time. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  120. Support per Newyorkbrad . – Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  121. Support All of my interactions with Johnuniq have been in technical space, where he is the principal maintainer of Template:Convert and its Lua module. I suspect he'll end up using the tools more on fully-protected or cascade-protected templates than anywhere else, but if he can also help reduce backlogs, that would be a bonus (rather than a requirement) as far as I'm concerned. I've not seen anything other than a calm, thoughtful attitude displayed in all my interactions with him, and I have no reservations about supporting him. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  122. Support Good answers. I am inclined to entrust admin tools to them. Masum Reza📞 21:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Support. Helpful and willing to work within the rules even when in disagreement. Qwirkle (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC) I had been unaware of his interplay with the Jytdog-Dingley Wars. While my own personal experience has been quite positive, this is not something I can overlook. AD, despite his occasional crustiness, is a strong net positive to Wikipedia. The other fellow and his enablers, not so much so. Qwirkle (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  123. Support. The relative lack of activity in admin areas is mildly concerning, and I'm not entirely happy with some of the linked comments in project-space. Even so Johnuniq comfortably meets my basic criteria; they have the ability to make productive use of the admin tools in one or more areas, the experience to know what they don't know, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  124. Ched :  ?  — 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  125. Support – Great candidate, excellent conduct, and experienced enough in the many facets that is Wikipedia for me to trust this person to use the admin tools responsibly. The candidate has used their plethora of tools responsibly for years already, and they're already experienced in many technical parts of the encyclopedia that need admin attention. I'm impressed by their work so far; heck, I'm a bit surprised that they aren't an admin yet. I have found no serious conduct issues recently, and nothing in the Oppose section thus far has really concerned me. Concerning the few behavioral bits cited in the "Oppose" section below, there's always room for improvement. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  126. Weak support. Very good experience just don’t agree with the attitude in some areas. Willbb234 (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  127. Support. Honestly thought he already WAS an admin, so no time like the present to correct that. Also, the half the opposes below are nonsensical, so that seals the deal. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  128. Support Meets my RFA criteria. IffyChat -- 09:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  129. Support While I probably would end up in the opposite trench on some issues, they seem to have a stolid, calm demeanor. Rockphed (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  130. Support -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  131. Support If this was a just a technical editor it would have been easy support. The interest in the behavior side gave me pause. I still have some concerns there but enough examples of patience with new/IP editors gives me enough confidence to support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  132. Support - rational answers to the questions and seems to be aware of his weak points. As a point of interest, and as a response to Pudeo's oppose, I was the admin that reviewed the Andy Dingley-Jytdog sanctions discussion (archived here) and closed it as a one-way iban for Andy. While I agree that Andy is generally a well-respected and well-behaved editor, we all get a little, let's say, passionate about things from time to time, and it was clear from that discussion and the main discussion directly above that Andy's hounding of Jytdog had gone too far over a long period of time, notwithstanding Jytdog's own behaviour which we didn't know the full scope of until some time after that discussion. I find it pretty unfair for Pudeo to have cherrypicked one comment from the candidate in that discussion (in which the candidate suggested the apparent harasser be sanctioned) as evidence of the candidate being a cheerleader for harassment. It was the opposite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    No. It seemed to be the opposite. To you. At the time. In fact, it was unreflective support of a serial problem child against a good participant; the fact that Wiki-as-a-whole only noticed it when Lauper’s Law came into play says a good deal about W-A-a-W. Qwirkle (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  133. Support (edit conflict) - Should've been promoted earlier. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  134. Support - easily passes by standards - 60,000 live edits over about 12 years, this is s safe bet. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. This user is over 90 % "correct" at AfD. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  135. Support Jianhui67 TC 14:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  136. Support. And this is obvious yet in this project insightful as well as pertinent in many situations."The problem is that bad words from good editors are often the result of severely misguided contributions from others—blocking the person who lost their cool might not give the best result for the encyclopedia." Littleolive oil (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  137. Support. I see no reason to think Johnuniq will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  138. Support: No objections. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  139. Support: I am not yet convinced by the opposers, which seem to be mostly based in personal conflicts that I don't believe reflect poorly on the candidate, and events from several years ago. Interestingly, the user's content contributions that they list seem to have been made recently in preparation for an RfA, but that doesn't concern me—their module and template work is exceptionally helpful and they demonstrate sufficient need for the tools. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  140. Support Can be very, uh, decisive from personal experience, but I've never doubted he was in the right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  141. Support No problem with the nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  142. Support – After a search for the editor's name on various admin archives, I can't find any reason to oppose. Appears to be a normal common-sense editor. I even looked at the WP:ARBSAQ case (from 2011) where he was a named party, but his participation there was perfectly correct. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  143. Support He's a good admin, and we need good admins. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  144. Support per answers to questions and what those of you who've interacted with him more have had to say. Wikipedia has grown and sprawled to the extent that Admin work now requires a bit of specialization - as a volunteer position, almost none of us can be an expert in all the required fields. I appreciate his candid tone, his admission of limitations, his responses as to how he'd handle areas where he lacks experience, as well as his reflections on past mistakes. - CorbieV 00:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  145. Support; answers to the questions suggest someone who can be trusted with the admin toolset. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  146. Support We need more admins, and I don't believe Johnuniq would abuse the mop. Oppose votes are not convincing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  147. Support pre TonyBallioni --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  148. Support This is a very capable editor with long experience who understands procedures and is able to express themselves diplomatically. We are very lucky to have editors of this caliber become administrators. TFD (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  149. Support I'm convinced. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  150. Support per WP:NOBRAINER (why is this a redlink?!?). And most (not all) of the opposes below tend to reinforce that position. --Xover (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  151. Support per this. Johnuniq is one of very few non-Japan-focused editors who commented on the CurtisNaito debacle who doesn't himself have blood on his hands. Wikipedia needs more admins who are willing to click on diffs rather than autoblocking the first one to get trolled into losing their cool. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Also per Pudeo's oppose (which I see as highly tendentious, basically for the same reason as IvanVector) and the fact that of the 20 unstricken oppose !votes thusfar that aren't Pudeo's, nine explicitly and unironically cited Pudeo's !vote, rationale, or question, which means that about half of the people who are opposing this are doing so for apparently tendentious reasons, or severely misunderstand policy. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  152. Support. For some reason I've always thought he was an admin. He's a good person. Victoria (tk) 15:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  153. Support. If I've had technical problems, he's always shown a readiness to go to great lengths to explain them to me (that is no mean accomplishment), or find solutions. He played a key role in helping the Shakespeare Authorship Question long vexed by poor editing, to achieve FA status. He has regularly notified me that my behavior has been inappropriate. I've always found him a thoroughly dedicated wikipedian, technically canny, generous with his time, and attentive to what is being written by any side to a dispute.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  154. Support. Willingness to work in tough and contentious areas is a big plus, and inevitably, when one works in those areas, someone is going to be unhappy about it. I'm especially impressed with the clear answers to the difficult questions asked here, rather than dodging around them. Especially Q16—we all have names we see pop up, sigh, and say "Oh, you again". That's not an "enemies list", it's human nature. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  155. Support – sensible editor, safe pair of hands, will be great admin DBaK (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  156. Support. I waited, watching the oppose !votes. The feminist quote wasn't a shining moment but I don't see a pattern. Easily meets my minimum criteria and the strength of the nomination makes this easier. Ifnord (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  157. Support Vexations (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  158. Support. In my opinion I only have seen positive edits from this candidate. Looking at the questions section and the oppose !votes, I'm not sold on a high XFD "delete" ratio being a dealbreaker. On the other hand, he has an actual need for the tools. epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  159. Support per Pharaoh of the Wizards (No, I did not steal my name from him) WizardKing 00:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  160. Support. A thoughtful, neutral, and analytical commentator, very wiki-knowledgeable. I asked him to run for RfA three years ago. Is able to cut through endless noticeboard conflict to research and find the truth. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  161. Support I also thought he was already an admin! Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  162. Support This user's responses and my check of some of their edits and contributions meets my expectations. I checked over the oppose votes - I see that this user has had some conflicts. I expect that any wiki admin would get into some legitimate conflicts and make errors. I do recommend that if this user advances, they reach out to the people who did oppose votes and try apologies, compromise, and reconciliation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  163. Support Why not? Unpersuasive opposition. ~ Winged BladesGodric 15:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  164. Support - good user, not a jerk. --MrClog (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  165. Support John has the experience and skillset to contribute as an admin. And, given that they are standing for their first RFA after 12 years on the project, I don't believe that the application is motivated by, or likely to lead to, 'protect friends, retaliate against enemies' admin-ing. That said, I'd urge Johnuniq to be aware of this potential criticism and be extra-cautious when involving themself as an admin in matters where their neutrality may be questioned. Make us supporters look good and all the best! Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  166. Support Trustworthy user who - with the tools - will provide much-needed benefit in several areas. SpencerT•C 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  167. Support candidate is not perfect, but appears to have insight into those imperfections & a willingness to modify their comments. Find bruce (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  168. Support I thought that John already was an admin! The answers to the questions are sensible, and I'm confident that he'll use the tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  169. Support Worthy nomination. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  170. Support. Late to the party, as always, but I would be in remiss if I didn't voice my unreserved support for Johnuniq's request for adminship. I've read through all of the oppose comments, and while I respect the concerns voiced there, I don't share them. Whenever I've seen John, he's been clear, to the point, and clueful. The "Jytdog-enabler" stuff is just silly. Jytdog did a lot of good work here, and I see John supporting that good work. (Jytdog also had a lot of problems here, and I don't see John making any excuses for him in that regard). Really, I see John as a sensible and well-qualified candidate, and to the people who see fit to oppose his adminship, well, please don't come back and complain about the lack of admins down the line. MastCell Talk 02:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  171. Support I've only seen this guy's work in passing, but from what I've observed as well as from his cogent and articulate replies here on this AFD page it is clear that he would be a strong asset to the admin community as well as to the project as a whole. I'm actually a little surprised that he isn't already an admin, but in any case I'm eager to see how he will contribute even more with these new tools. Michepman (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  172. Support. Excellent candidate. -- œ 05:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  173. Support I'm familiar with Johnuniq and have no concerns that are sufficient for me to oppose this candidacy. I'm aware of the concerns raised by Pudeo and see them as insignificant. I'm largely of the same opinion as MastCell. Jytdog, whatever way you look at things, did some excellent work and that was supported and encouraged by John, Jytdog was a fucking nightmare too, but I don't see John excusing that, rather I interpret the majority of John's interactions with Jytdog as trying to encourage him to continue the good stuff and stop the bad stuff. I do hope other editors who try and encourage those editors who can be productive and disruptive in equal measure aren't dissuaded from trying to help, fearful that such involvement may come back to haunt them should they be brave/foolhardy enough to run for RfA. Nick (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  174. Support I looked at the opposes but I don’t see enough there for me to withhold my support. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  175. Support Solid contributions and good justification for needing the admin powers. No red flags in answers or opposes. HaEr48 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  176. Per Abecedare, basically - seems like a reasonable editor so far and I don't agree with the concerns raised about the AFD record, but I'd suggest caution in user sanction discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  177. Support No concerns. Excellent record. Should be a good one! Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  178. Support as a good long-term contributor. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  179. Enthusiastic support I haven't voted in ten years. Or is it more? If I have come out to vote, all it means is: "What are you waiting for? Give him the mop already." One of the best, most even-handed, most knowledgeable, Wikipedians I have had the privilege of encountering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  180. Support per strong endorsements from a few people I respect. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  181. Support Trusted user. FitIndia Talk 01:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  182. Support. Deserves the mop Rollidan (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  183. Good luck! Mona.N (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  184. Support - Nothing in the concerns raised below outweigh the positives for me. Good luck. Hugsyrup 08:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  185. Support per plenty of reasons given here. Competent, considerate, clueful, cooperative, caring candidate. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  186. Support - I believe he will use good judgment with the tools. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  187. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  188. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  189. Support Good answers above, no reason to think there would be problems down the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  190. Support Not a jerk, has a clue, and despite their admission that they could do more on the content front, creations such as Matthias Goethe show that they know what the deal is. Welcome to the corps!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  191. Support after some consideration of this discussion, largely per User:Blue Rasberry. I echo the sentiment they gave about reaching out to those in opposition. Having experience here handling disputes on Wikipedia, it’s something I’d encourage the candidate to dip their toe into - DRN is a good place to start. It takes finesse sometimes to know the best approach to resolve a dispute among editors, the banhammer isn’t always required. Not necessarily am I suggesting that this is the approach the candidate would take, only acknowledging the opposition below is something I’ve taken on board here in my RFA comment. Good luck. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 21:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  192. Support - Well qualified, why not. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose, per this. I remember the discussion because it was the first time I really got involved in a WP:DR request. The archive of the DR/N thread is here: [4]. The specifics of the dispute aren't important; what did matter (and what I certainly took notice of then) was that Johnuniq (and Mkativerata) was clearly not out to discuss things. He simply assumed things to be self-evident. At one point he even said "Blue links and bluster often work with newbies but won't be effective here" in a one-line response to what was an honest attempt to sort the dispute out, ignoring the arguments raised and questioning the other editor's motivations. That's clearly not following WP:BITE and is something I find very hard to compromise on for an administrator.
    That said I'm only weakly opposing because the incident was four years ago. I am parking myself here, but don't mind changing my mind if there's evidence that Johnuniq has changed his approach since. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    This would be a point of concern if it were part of a pattern of behavior and were more recent. However four years, in all but very rare cases, is outside my statute of limitations. And in the absence of evidence that this sort of thing has been a recurring issue, I'm inclined to look at it as evidence that the candidate is human. We all want candidates who are top tier, but the truth is admins are human and once in a while may have a bad day and or get snippy with someone. If an incident dating back four years is the worst that is dug up on them, I will be both surprised and somewhat embarrassed. My track record is not that good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm uncomfortable dismissing this incident as a "bad day", because the two objectionable diffs were written two days apart. Banedon (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Switching to Full Oppose per Pudeo. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Briefly addressing the comment that I "started in 2006" so WP:BITE does not apply, as given by the answer to question 8. I indeed registered in 2006, but I made exactly two edits that year. At the time of the dispute I had somewhat less than 1k edits. I am unimpressed by this argument and remain opposed. Banedon (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    And yet it turns out that the RfC you called on the question ended with consensus in favour of Johnuniq's position. You were wrong and he was right on this issue. Are those really good grounds for opposition? --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't consider being right an excuse for being uncivil. Banedon (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    So you're opposing on the grounds of a four-year old instance of what you consider incivility. You could have said that in the first place. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    "That's clearly not following WP:BITE and is something I find very hard to compromise on for an administrator." <-- this doesn't make it clear? Banedon (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose As per my watchlist notice; never encountered this person.-Sachinthonakkara (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sure the bureaucrats will treat this oppose with the appropriate weight. ♠PMC(talk) 03:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    The votes are as per the aura generated during wikipedia edits, so this editor should be in light weight category.-Sachinthonakkara (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Also required reading: WP:CIR. ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Sachinthonakkara, more required and absolutely essential reading for you: WP:RFAV, and please don't even think of participating in an RfA again until you have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Anyone who read to the bottom of this discussion may be interested to know that I have blocked Sachinthonakkara indefinitely for disruptive editing. Their comments at this RFA, and their subsequent responses on their talk page, were the straw that broke the camel's back as far as I was concerned. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Struck vote per indef block. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose One of the enablers of Jytdog's behavior before he was blocked. Johnuniq supported a one-way interaction ban for Andy Dingley for calling out Jytdog's excesses. Generally, his track record at AE and ANI is poor. He proposes draconian sanctions for editors whose POV he disagrees with or who happen to cross his favourite editors (like suggesting an indef block for Godsy in here). He also will defend these favourite editors at all costs, like MarkBernstein (who ended up with a massive block log) at every step at AE[5][6] and trying to turn the attention to the people who filed the reports. Johnuniq has 1,401 edits at ANI. If he continues this factionalist track record but with admin tools, then I'll feel sorry for the users who will be subject to biased admining. --Pudeo (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I think you need to look at this event in context. Jytdog chose poor language in complaining about the article about Yakult, a product with questionable health properties. Andy Dingley called him "the biggest bully and fraud of the lot." Johnuniq then supported a one-way ban for Andy Dingley. I don't want to criticize Jytdog because he is permanently blocked and I agree with that. But I disagree with the language Andy Dingley used. And I don't think that supporting sanctions meant supporting Jytdog's behavior. As far as I remember, Johnuniq was not involved in any of the alternative medicine or other articles where Jytdog attracted controversy. He was just saying that's not how editors to talk to each other. There was a consenus to impose a one-way interaction ban against Andy Dingley because, "There is clear consensus here that Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s behaviour toward Jytdog (talk · contribs) is toxic, and requires a preventive sanction."[7] Maybe the ban was wrong, but it was what editors decided to do based on the evidence before them. You cannot criticize Johnuniq for reading the same evidence and coming to the same conclusion as other editors. TFD (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    My complaint of Johnuniq there is not that he called for an IBAN of me, but that he was so ready to excuse the "dogshit" comments (which I still see as inexcusable) as ' occasionally over-enthusiastic '. I don't care if you think I should be IBANed or that I shouldn't be an admin (those are an irrelevance here), but that Johnuniq shouldn't be an admin, if he's happy to excuse such egregious behaviour from some editors, as an inverse ad hominem. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Pudeo: Do you have evidence of Johnuniq supporting the behaviour that specifically led to Jytdog's block? My recollection of the whole affair is that Jytdog was banned for a single incident involving contacting another editor's workplace (with apparently good-faith motives, but still an unacceptable action). As someone who was actually a victim to such an incident (when it was unambiguous harassment) I find the equation of this, that and the other (most of which, such as the Yakult affair, was either positive or at worst not Jytdog's fault) with ... that ... to be somewhat offensive, so any clarification that that was not what you meant would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    This is Johnuniq's statement to the Jytdog ArbCom request. Johnuniq did say the off-wiki phone call was wrong, but argued that the ArbCom should not accept the case, and that WP:OWH would not justify an Arbcom sanction. I think this constitutes as "I got your back". Regarding the MarkBernstein thing, Gamaliel voluntarily ArbCom-restricted himself from enforcing AE sanctions because of his controversy with allegedly favouring MarkBernstein. When Gamaliel himself was party to the April fools Signpost ArbCom case, Johnuniq was defending Gamaliel with his evidence focused on discrediting Dennis Brown's evidence against Gamaliel. I think this is picking sides and evidence of the factionalism. I'm not saying it's uncommon or that I never do that, but that's not what good admins do. --Pudeo (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose The epitome of what's wrong with adminship, and much of WP. Decent judgement on objective topics, but plays favourites far too much as individuals. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Any chance you could back up your personal attack with some diffs? - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    No, because (as another example, Bernstein is already mentioned) Johnuniq 's response to "This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in." was to describe it as no more than ' occasionally over-enthusiastic ' and to call for an IBAN of me for complaining of it. So, no, I'm not even allowed to discuss him any further. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    OK, then I'm sure the 'crats will give your !vote all the weight it deserves. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Andy Dingley your concerns did give me pause but more elaboration is needed if I am going to oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    @SchroCat and Ret.Prof: I believe this is what Andy is talking about. The "pile of dogshit" comment can be seen at the top of that discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. I will take some time to reflect. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks from me too. It’s more teacup than storm, and I’m not minded to change my !vote, but thanks for providing some clarity. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Andy, your comments always make me pause too, should I be reluctant to throw a support toward this user? cygnis insignis 14:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC) And sorry, I don't read emails about onwiki stuff, but I appreciate the time and that posting might create drama. cygnis insignis 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    I have struck my comment and vote, as I've just been threatened with an indef ban for it by one of the support voters. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, so ... (1) The actual comment I made was here. I don't know why Andy didn't link directly to it, but I can only assume he intended to smear some editor on the opposing "side" of this debate and figured the best way to do so was to say they had done something and do so in a way that would inhibit further investigation. (2) Nothing in there was meant as a "threat". (3) Andy already is subject to an "indef ban"; what I was saying was that he could still be blocked for violating that ban, even if the other editor whom that ban was meant to protect is no longer actively editing. (It's my understand that, technically, said editor is subject to an ArbCom block that was put in place to enforce his self-imposed retirement due to circumstances over which ArbCom had agreed to accept a case about his behaviour, and so could return at any time if he decides he is willing to face ArbCom.) (4) Andy did indeed violate his ban further up this discussion. (5) The admin who closed the ban discussion said he has no intention of enforcing it over this incident, probably as a result of the above striking. I agree that there should be no block as a result of this incident, but it should serve as a warning against further violations. (6) That does not justify the above misleading remark about me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I really don't want to be here, but I've felt for a long time that this is someone whom I would oppose if there ever were an RfA. It's more of a feeling, repeatedly over time, than anything else, and I disagree with the opposes that are above mine. (I suppose some people would allege that I was a Jytdog enabler, too.) The candidate tends to take rigid and abrasive positions in disputes, instead of showing a real understanding of human behavior. I think he would be fine at carrying out the more routine admin tasks, but I just don't trust him when it comes to blocking users or dealing with complicated disputes (and this is obviously not simply a case of too soon). I need RfA candidates to satisfy me that they recognize their own limitations and will not overreach, and I just don't have that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I likely would have stated more about Johnuniq with my "support" vote if it hadn't been so late here where I am and I hadn't been ready to get off Wikipedia. But because of your "tends to take rigid and abrasive positions in disputes, instead of showing a real understanding of human behavior" and "just don't trust him when it comes to blocking users or dealing with complicated disputes" commentary, I will state that Johnuniq has consistently shown an understanding of how to deal with problematic editors and what hard-working editors go through in dealing with problematic editors. He's done this across a number of difficult areas on Wikipedia. When he is critical, it is always or usually in a calm manner. Really, I've never seen him lose his temper. So "always" is more accurate than "usually" from my perspective. And cool-headedness is one of the things that we (most of of us) look for in admins. Johnuniq's criticism may at times be on the stern side, but we often need stern criticism. Sometimes it's better to be blunt. And there is so much WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior that goes on at this site that being stern or blunt is better than handling the editor with kid gloves. From what I've seen, and I've interacted with or been around Johnuniq plenty, Johnuniq takes the time to assess a matter and if, for example, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior is involved, he will state so. Straight to the point. No pussy-footing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for sharing your perspective about what I wrote. I really do feel the way that I said, and we'll find out whether or not anyone else sees it that way too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I feel like I should provide some specifics, rather than just describing it in generalities. This will take a bit of reading for anyone who is interested, but from April of this year, one can start at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 37#Other comments directed at me. I had been arguing against a threat made by an admin to indef an experienced editor (the block was, in fact, never carried out, and I think that admin and I are on very good terms), and you can decide for yourself what you think about what the candidate said to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    "...and I think that admin and I are on very good terms..." WTF are you talking about?! 🥰 Come on Tryp, John's okay... Give him some slack. You probably shouldn't judge him on one encounter. We both didn't judge each other on one, did we... Well... DID WE!? <3 Lourdes 03:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Um, the admin to whom I was referring is Lourdes, in case that isn't clear to anyone. No, I don't judge people on one isolated and atypical encounter. I try never to do that. But isn't that an interesting thing to bring up here? I was discussing with you some lengthy history in order to evaluate whether or not someone should be indeffed, and one of many things that I pointed out to you was in a link I posted (the details of which are entirely off-topic here). The candidate then acted as if that one link was the entirety of my arguments, and stated that it was "absurd" for me to have done so, and doubled down when I politely asked him about it. And that is just one part of what I see as problems in the incident I linked to. And look what happened now: you just implied that I based my entire opinion in the RfA on one encounter, even though I had said that it was one recent and representative example of what I have seen "repeatedly over time". It's important how admins, and RfA candidates, think about indeffing experienced and productive editors, and at a time when en-wiki and WMF are confronting serious issues about a civil editing environment, I'd rather not have admins telling me that my good-faith defense of another editor was "absurd". --Tryptofish (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Did you even listen to the song? Lourdes 03:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Before this discussion closes, I just want to say that, while I realize that I did not persuade many other editors (which is fine with me – it's the way discussions work), I do hope that Johnuniq will give some thought to my concerns as he takes on the new responsibilities. After all, first, do no harm. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per answers to questions. TheEditster (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose , I've had a few interactions and I don't feel comfortable with him as an admin. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose candidate due to an answer given above: Checking the diffs show I was not supporting MarkBernstein but was on what is now the majority side regarding gamergate. No, being on the majority side doesn’t excuse concerning behaviour that was raised by Pudeo. starship.paint (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Pudeo and the answers given above. Sorry, but I'm not comfortable with the heavy-handed conduct that Pudeo mentioned, nor would I feel comfortable with them getting the bit. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. 91.4% Delete at AfD[8] gives me pause in regards to WP:ATD and AfD closure. Pudeo's comments gave me further cause for alarm. Doing my own digging led to Q17 above, and I am wholly unsatisfied with the answer. Johnuniq defended at AE a stmt by a fellow editor: "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?" as not belittling and insulting, when it clearly is. (While Johnuniq did state their "view was out of line" of the AE close - they stand pat at not belittling and insulting) - this response is actually more alarming than the original (long ago) diff. Other digging led me to diff on a user's talk page in which Johnuniq shows up a day after a week-long ANI was closed (in which they participated) in order to order to make a (correct, but already made) point on pronouns and more importantly displaying bad faith while doing so. The inconsistency in position between "militant feminists" and the post-ANI rehashing of the pronoun issue gives me pause. On top of these reservations, there is no compelling case made for use of the tools - Johnuniq vaguely refers to AIV (stating it is well handled) and RfPP (which generally doesn't have much of a backlog). They state a long term interest in SPI (but haven't worked SPI so far AFAICT). In Q13 they vaguely mention BLP. In short from Q1 & Q13 I get the feeling they are treating adminship as a learning experience, but it is unclear what exactly they would do. To sum up - no need on the one hand, Pudeo's comments, and not seeing "militant feminists" (clearly directed at specific editors) as insulting/belittling has me at an oppose. Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Refactored to make clear which editor said what.Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Some unsettling facts have been raised. They seem valid. I would like to hear more from the candidate before I decide. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    I have come across Johnuniq many times, and in most ways he is a good editor, but far too often he has shown a readiness to support editors who are disruptive and unconstructive if they happen to be ones he likes, and, as mentioned above, he frequently takes an "us vs them" attitude and at times an arrogance when dealing with those who disagree with him. This is actually something I very rarely do, namely an oppose where it is almost certain that the RfA will succeed, but I hope that Johnuniq will consider it seriously. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I am withdrawing my opposition. I have decided that when i posted it i had not done enough checing of history to justify coming to a conclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Showing bias to editors he likes is not acceptable behaviour. Admins must be impartial. Can you give me examples this behaviour?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The track record at ANI and the questions raised by Pudeo have caused me concern. Administrators are not all equal, and I have experienced adminstrators who evenly apply the policies and others who call for draconian punishments and death penalties. Discipline on the project should not be punitive. From the record of this editor I am uncomfortable supporting advancement to administrator. I have looked at several situations where this editor has supported editors who are extremely abusive on the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Additionally, a 91.4% Delete at AfD is also a reason to be concerned about this RFA. Thank you Icewhiz. Maybe the candidate can speak to this record. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Puedo. We have too many factionalist admins already. Would have supported otherwise.--v/r - TP 14:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose on the basis of the question and follow-up from @Icewhiz:Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Hmmm. That AE comment isn't great, but doesn't otherwise jibe with my impression of Johnuniq. I don't intend to be moved from supporting without more similar evidence, but I'd feel a lot better if he took another stab at Icewhiz's point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Defending the "radical feminists have to go" comment is a deal breaker for me; but if he could demonstrate better that he has learned from that experience and wouldn't make such mistakes in the future I might be persuaded to change my !vote here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  11. Oppose echoing Tryptofish's comments. I've only had one direct interaction with the candidate that I can really recall, but that sure stuck out even considering I'm a strong supporter of WP:BELLYBUTTON. That's compared to before when I had seen their name around in passing and didn't really notice anything one way or the other about them (which would be fine starting point for considering the mop in my book if it had stayed that way). For better or worse, the focal point of my personal concern is based more in an email conversation with the candidate based on issues with another editor, so I can't offer anything concrete to examine directly here. This isn't the venue for rehashing all of the related on-wiki stuff that led to their email either as it would quickly get off topic trying to sort through it relative to the RfA itself, so that's not happening either. I wanted to make that clear first before getting into the meat below. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    So to get to the main point that matters for this RfA, the sentiments others bring up about factionalism are also my concern. In order for me to support this candidate or even just change this to neutral, I would need to see it clearly demonstrated that when seeing problems or potential problems between two editors, they don't take a standpoint that one of the editors shouldn't have to even put up with their behavior being criticized or examined when there's been a history of interaction issues between the two editors. As much as I hate proving a negative questions, that antithesis of an admin's responsibilities does need to be adequately addressed to before this candidate should get the mop. Ability to reliably handle behavior issues is what seems to be lacking in this nom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per JamesBWatson. Examples are already noted further up. Buffs (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Pudeo makes a good argument. Dream Focus 22:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I haven't had a personal encounter with the candidate but his history and his behavior in the past are a big reason for concern for me. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  15. Oppose largely per Pudeo and JamesBWatson. I've never personally had interactions with Johnuniq but have been a long time observer of ANI and AN. I have also had similar observations of Johnuniq's sanctions proposals as a number of the other opposers. Blackmane (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I hope this isn’t becoming a theme (that is me opposing an RfA, as this is now my 2nd oppose ever and both in the same week). Anyhow, my reasoning is per the discussion above and some of the samples given and overly the collective reasoning of Pudeo along with that of JamesB. I share their concerns. Personally I believe that right now the project needs people who are very level headed, patient and individualistic and offer a new perspective to consensus and decision making. Unfortunately I do no believe that this candidate having admin tools adds anything to progressing these ideals. N.J.A. | talk 01:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Puedo's argument. Supports are not convincing in the face of this. Intothatdarkness 02:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Pudeo. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Little BLP expertise AFAICT, and a rather substantial percentage of AfD "delete" stances - well over 90% even for clearcut Keep results. I am not an "inclusionist" but 91%+ "delete votes" is too high. Collect (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Moved from neutral. What has swayed me is not some old dispute but the alarmingly high rate of delete !votes at AfD pointed out by Icewhiz - significantly higher than the subsequent outcome. In my view, mop keepers should rather err on the Keep/Redirect/Userfy side (per WP:PRESERVE). I will gladly reconsider in 6 months time if stats improve. — kashmīrī TALK 21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Mainly because I see a lack of need for admin tools and behavior incidents discussed above. I have thought about this for past 5 days and I have finally made up my mind since I would not be comfortable with him monitoring ANI and taking actions on editors. After further probing by MelanieN, the candidate shows preference for AIV and RFPP. I find that he has only made 5 edits so far to AIV which is surprising considering his experience. The overwhelming AfD 'Delete' votes are a concern but I dont consider it serious enough to merit an oppose to RfA. The overall AfD record is good. Looking at the support numbers it is highly likely that this RfA may succeed. I would suggest the candidate to avoid taking admin actions on ANI. --DBigXray 06:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  22. Oppose I feel he's leaving too much out about why he needs more power after twelve years of doing fine without it. That's not to suggest I think he'd make a good or bad admin. Just unsure enough to vote on the side of caution. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, July 27, 2019 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I see a lack of need for admin tools. The Banner talk 19:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    Comment. That subjective criterion, made earlier by others, is odd. Look at the statistics of active vs. inactive admins. It would appear many duly elected do not avail themselves of the tools they fought to obtain, whereas now that someone with a solid record of editing various areas of the project expresses a desire to have, and use them, his request is thumbed down on the grounds he does not seem to need them. By that token, half of the administrative body should be desysopped.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Entirely per Pudeo. petrarchan47คุ 22:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  25. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW; I would like you to demonstrate the non-technical skills to being an admin for a little while longer. CLCStudent (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  26. Weak oppose I'm completely uninterested in whether the candidate has some sort of well-defined need for the tools, but the high deletionist rate at AfD gives me pause. Lepricavark (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Neutral[edit]
  1. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Would you care to enlighten us as to why you're sitting on the fence? CassiantoTalk 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    I really don't think Neutral votes need an explanation. CptViraj doesn't support the candidate, but he doesn't oppose them either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 04:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Then what's the point of coming here at all then? A neutral vote is the same as not voting at all. It's just an excuse for someone to be passive aggressive, should they choose to be. CassiantoTalk 07:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. Admin tools are one of the most sensitive tools in Wikipedia. He should provide a reason for being neutral. Masum Reza📞 07:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Waiting for the candidate to answer some of the questions. --DBigXray 06:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC) moved to oppose after deliberation.--DBigXray 06:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    Honestly thought Johnuniq was already an admin. But Pudeo's oppose gives me pause. I'm thinking about it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC) I'm convinced. GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. I will remain neutral, while giving Johnuniq the chance to understand the question #15a (perhaps I was not clear enough).  Done... per humility. SashiRolls t · c 12:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Neutral for now, waiting for more clarification re. complaints on Johnuniq's behaviour towards other editors. Moved to oppose — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Do I belive they will act in bad faith and destory the encyclopedia?No, no more than an any ordinary editor will. Do I belive they have the skills and ability to serve well with the mop? yes. Though mnay editors I respect have given their support, and I don't hold it against them, I cannot get over some of the issues raised by the opposes at the time being. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. I'm only !voting here because I asked a question. I feel the requestor answered my question well and I value the opinions of many on the support side, but I have concerns about some of the behaviors raised in questions and opposes, so I find myself here on the fence. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Ok, I got some information about the context of that statement - and it's more complicated than I initially assumed. I am uncertain what to think. Will sit here for now. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
General comments[edit]
  • I haven't had a meaningful encounter with the candidate before. So, I'll just wait and watch for a while before making a decision. The user seems to have neglected on their edit summary usage in 2015. Very concerning! Usedtobecool ✉️  05:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not. It was supposed to be funny when you find out the candidate doesn't have a perfect record because of that one edit there. I don't know, I'd always believed edit summary usage was something editors warmed up to in time; then we have TWO concurrent RFAs with perfect summary usage (short one edit each). Usedtobecool ✉️  12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Irony, it seems, conveys itself quite badly when in written format. CassiantoTalk 12:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was clearly funny, but I too used to be cool. Or at least like to still remember myself that way. I should run "ironically" and brag about the time I stuck a large "gerbil" so deep into Richard Gere, everyone was blissfully ignorant and readily tolerant of it for four glorious years. The fearmongers felt nothing, nor his fans. It was beautiful. Make Wikipedia Acrostic Again, Haters And Hopers Alike! Seriously though, promise yourself you'll never let a retired hep cat like me go mad with power. You too, cool dude, spread the word. No on Hulk 2020! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, July 27, 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree - 'he hasn't appeared on my watchlist so I'll oppose' is a bizarre one, and the less said about the outright personal attack the better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • IMHO that particular commenter should be banned from RfA for at least a year. Check their contribution to RfA. — kashmīrī TALK 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    After only 247 edits I don't hold it against them, that oppose is made in clear ignorance, and will mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. striking in lieu of V93's actions as pointless discussion Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • {{convert|{{u|Johnuniq}}|user|admin|abbr=on}}NaN >MinorProphet (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Attribution: Twitter (CC-BY-4.0)MJLTalk 04:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    @MinorProphet: 👏👏👏
    JFG talk 23:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I honestly feel kind of bad opposing, but I've faced enough instances of being personally attacked based on information on my openly expressed political positions that seeing him defend "these radical feminists have to go" as "not being intended as an insult" is unfortunately a pretty serious black spot. Which, again, is frustrating because John might otherwise make a good admin. It's just, we need admins that are willing to recognize those sort of antics for the problem that they are. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If I may push back a bit on that: John's made it clear that he doesn't intend to immediately participate in AE, and as I mentioned in my oppose, admins are allowed to have opinions so long as they follow policy. Policy additionally doesn't require admins to ever take any action, and there are plenty of admins who would see the comment you're referencing and just not comment at all. The question is if Johnuniq would wage an agenda against editors he disagrees with, which no one has presented any evidence for.
      The only thing that has been presented is that he held views about editors who were contentious. Even on the Jytdog point, while I do support that block and feel it was appropriate given the circumstances, supporting Jytdog is hardly a rare position even now. I'm biased, as I'm the nom, but a lot of the opposes honestly read to me as Johnuniq had an opinion in a community discussion, which I don't think would impact his being an admin since there's nothing to suggest he would violate INVOLVED. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Honestly I don't give fiddle that John supported Jytdog. I have no horse in that particular race. Rather, having been on the receiving end of, "you hold a scary non-mainstream political view and therefore are literally a detriment to neutrality with your presence," I would hope admins would recognize that as a personal attack, even if in retrospect. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I still have some concerns, but I have received some additional context I didn't previously have. I will strike through my oppose and move to neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, the opposes aren't that the candidate simply had an opinion in the community and shouldn't be characterized that way. The concern being echoed is what happens in the process of forming that opinion and potential for undue weighting. On the Jytdog stuff though, I agree the enabler comments were out of line similar to what Tryptofish said (ironically I wouldn't bet against some potentially mistakenly calling me that moniker too). Others may be echoing the sentiment in cases I haven't read through as much, but that particular case isn't a justification for an oppose.
Pudeo's later comment the attention to the people who filed the reports speaks to concerns of misapplication of WP:BOOMERANG though. Both/all parties should be scrutinized at a filing. It's one thing when one party is the main problem and minor issues from the other due to that are given a pass, but unduly focusing on one party while dismissing the problems of the other party is not an uncommon problem at admin boards. That latter portion is the more accurate summary of what it seems others are concerned about in their interactions, so hopefully that at least summarizes what the actual concerns are. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be saying the same thing, and I don't think those are good reasons to oppose. I'm also not entirely sure how one can "unduly" focus on the poor behaviour of one party: it's all a point of relative perception. If someone legitimately thinks in good faith that one party is the problem, they should argue that. It's how consensus works, and it would work less well otherwise. What you're describing is someone having a different opinion than other community members, and people being mad that he expressed that opinion.
There has not been one iota of evidence produced that John would violate policy. We have traditionally held that people are entitled to their opinions so long as they abide by community consensus. While there are many opposers I respect, I do not see the concerns as negatives but rather as positives, as we need admins who are willing to express their thoughts and not go along with groupthink. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Far from the same thing, which is why I commented. If someone focuses on the behavior of one party while dismissing actual problematic behavior of another, that is undue. We do need to be mindful of "just an opinion" arguments you went through. Yes, anyone can extol the virtues of expressing an opinion and avoiding groupthink, but that doesn't really matter here as having an opinion doesn't qualify you for the mop. What matters is that the opinions of an admin are grounded in reality and are accurate. Take that graphic and treat it as assessing behavior disputes. If someone gives false positives or false negatives too often beyond some accepted nebulous error rate, their opinion in those matters isn't very reliable. That's the functional concern people have here with regards to assessing behavior based on their interactions with the candidate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tony, I trust that you and I respect one another. And I think the whole "Jytdog enabler" thing is without merit: Both Kingofaces43 and I could be caricatured as such enablers, and yet we are both opposing. But Tony, it's missing something important to say simply that admins should be free to have strong opinions. They also have to judge situations correctly. (And please note that I am quite able to disagree with you, without saying that your position is "absurd".) What I'm seeing is technical expertise combined with a long history of judging situations wrong and then being abrasive about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • RfA is not a good format for digging into the archives (our search function is horrible even with the &sort=last_edit_desc parameter) or arguing about someone's behavior ArbCom evidence-phase style. The only issue I take with TonyBallioni's nomination is that he says Johnuniq has mostly been into technical stuff, when he has 1,400 edits at AN/I. I just added some more evidence of what I consider "picking sides" under my vote. But 190 users have already voted, it's not the time to go investigating those 1,400 ANI contributions. Either you have to vote based on your previous interactions, see what someone you trust vote or trust your intuition. --Pudeo (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.