Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johnuniq

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Johnuniq

Final (192/26/5); Closed as successful by --

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

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

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: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

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: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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

A: It's true that my work has not required admin tools, although updating

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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: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?

talk) 05:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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.

• 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)[reply]

   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)[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:
    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.
    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.
    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]

    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. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:09, 24 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: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!
    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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
54. Had to check twice that he wasn't an admin yet. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
56. Support – I've had nothing but good interactions with this user. Graham87 10:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support - no concerns, net positive. GiantSnowman 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Sure. It's cliched, but I genuinely thought he was one already. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support per nominator. Seen 'em around. More than meets my standards.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
62. Support. Based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support, Excellent work all around. Kevinhanit (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support, does good work and is sensible and clueful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Don't see why not. Deb (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support per nominator – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cassianto^Talk 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support net positive to the project.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
    ]
72. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Have had good interactions, no concerns. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - about time (yes, I know, someone already said that). Totally unconvincing oppose votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Johnuniq is invariably thoughtful and helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
76. Overall, a net positive. Happy to support. El_C 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support, do not see any issues--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support Long-time dedicated and valued contributor - see no issues, thanks for standing. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
80. Support Working away since 1736. Good all-round solid candidate. scope_creep^Talk 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
81. Trusted and competent contributor. Best of luck. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
82. Certainly Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
86. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support   ~ 
    dgaf)  21:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
88. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support I've seen the candidate around, and trust them to not misuse the tools. Miniapolis 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Daß Wölf 22:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support —  Yes.  
    Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
93. Support A valuable combination of skills, proven experience, and the willingness to contribute. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
94. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support, unhesitatingly. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support Of course . Kpgjhpjm 01:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support – Experienced, and on the whole has good judgment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

98. Support, nableezy - 03:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
100. Support - net positive. -- Begoon 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. Took a good look here and liked what I saw. Haukur (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
103. Support Tolly4bolly 10:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support I don't see anything wrong with this user becoming admin.
     talk) (contributions) 11:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
105. Support -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support - clueful, competent and knowledgeable candidate, Net positive to the project, No red flags here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. likely to be net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Support. on balance, likely to be a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
111. Support: helpful, hard-working editor. All the best, regards. --Titodutta (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
113. Support - No concerns. Heavy deletes in AfD, but consensus agreed with many of those.  Spintendo  16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support No concerns; I trust them with the tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. Capable, trustworthy and willing (the Trifecta).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support - Pretty good candidate TurboSonic (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
118. Support Strong and positive contributions and a trusted member of the community. Grandpallama (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. About damn time. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support per Newyorkbrad . – Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
122. Support Good answers. I am inclined to entrust admin tools to them.
     ^📞 21:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]

     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)[reply]

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)[reply]
124. — Ched :  ?  — 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
126. Weak support. Very good experience just don’t agree with the attitude in some areas. Willbb234 (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
128. Support Meets my RFA criteria. Iffy★Chat -- 09:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
130. Support -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

     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)[reply]

133. Support (edit conflict) - Should've been promoted earlier. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
135. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 14:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
137. Support. I see no reason to think Johnuniq will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support: No objections. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
141. Support No problem with the nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
     ]
143. Support He's a good admin, and we need good admins. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. -
     ☼ 00:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
147. Support pre TonyBallioni --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
149. Support I'm convinced. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (聖やや) 11:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     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 (聖やや) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply
     ]
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)[reply]
155. Support – sensible editor, safe pair of hands, will be great admin DBaK (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
157. Support Vexations (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
159. Support per
     King 00:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
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)[reply]
161. Support I also thought he was already an admin! Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
163. Support Why not? Unpersuasive opposition. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support - good user, not a jerk. --MrClog (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
166. Support Trustworthy user who - with the tools - will provide much-needed benefit in several areas. Spencer^T•C 22:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
169. Support Worthy nomination. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
172. Support. Excellent candidate. -- œ^™ 05:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
177. Support No concerns. Excellent record. Should be a good one!
     talk) 18:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
178. Support as a good long-term contributor.
     Talk: Contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
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)[reply]
180. Support per strong endorsements from a few people I respect.
     [majestic titan] 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
181. Support Trusted user. FitIndia ^Talk 01:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support. Deserves the mop Rollidan (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
183. Good luck! Mona.N (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support - Nothing in the concerns raised below outweigh the positives for me. Good luck. Hug^syrup 08:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support per plenty of reasons given here. Competent, considerate, clueful, cooperative, caring candidate. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support - I believe he will use good judgment with the tools. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support Good answers above, no reason to think there would be problems down the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
191. Support after some consideration of this discussion, largely per
     Help resolve disputes! 21:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
     ]
192. Support - Well qualified, why not. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]