Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johnuniq

Johnuniq

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/2/0); Scheduled to end 02:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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.

• I was involved in battles relating to the Shakespeare authorship question and was named as an involved party in the arbitration case. I have been at other cases, for example Tree shaping, but without much involvement.
• I had a bitter exchange with a good editor in November 2016 and March 2017 and December 2017 and a little more. I did that in an attempt to take the heat off another good editor who builds content.

---

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

Discussion

• Links for Johnuniq: Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Johnuniq can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 23 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. Support — Rhododendrites ^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)

Oppose

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: [1]. 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)
2. 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)