Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johnuniq: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 115: Line 115:
# '''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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:53, 23 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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
#:Any chance you could back up your personal attack with some diffs? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
#:Any chance you could back up your personal attack with some diffs? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk: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 '' 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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 09:29, 23 July 2019

Johnuniq

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (50/4/1); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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:

Discussion

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Seems like they'd do well with more buttons. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, please. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Excellent candidate, happy to support. – bradv🍁 03:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very trustworthy and helpful. Strong support. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rschen7754 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Thought they were already an admin. – Levivich 03:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Actually, I did as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Excellent work with templates and modules. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Glennfcowan (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. This editor seems to be a reasonable candidate for the mop. bd2412 T 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Longtime defender of the wiki. The technical contributions are a bonus. Dr. K. 03:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  17. Support -- Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  22. Support of course Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 04:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  25. Support A stellar record of service. Crossroads1 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Thoughtful, intelligent, and experienced. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: Should have been an admin a long time ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Per nom. No flags as far as I can see. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Per nom. No concerns with user contributions or experience. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  34. Support per Tony. Lourdes 06:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Has satisfactorily answered my questions, seems at least adequate, NOBIGDEAL, etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Excellent candidate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Thought he was long ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - *Nicki Minaj voice* We need admins like him.—NØ 06:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  42. Yep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  44. Support precious autonomy / mastery / purpose --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. In the areas where we both work, see only good thoughts and actions from this candidate! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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 . - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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).[reply]
  49. Support Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per Bishonen. Thought Johnuniq was an admin already! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. Oppose As per my watchlist notice; never encountered this person.-Sachinthonakkara (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure the bureaucrats will treat this oppose with the appropriate weight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  3. 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[2][3] 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
    Any chance you could back up your personal attack with some diffs? - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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 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)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Waiting for the candidate to answer some of the questions. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


General comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Johnuniq&oldid=907496604"