Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jonathunder

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

Jonathunder[edit]

Final (56/0/0) ending 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonathunder (talk · contribs) – Oh my freakin' God, Jonathunder is not an admin? Madness!!! Madness!!! Here's a guy with over 7,700 edits, who has been working here since October of 2004, has made amazing contributions to all things Minnesota while staying active in various project and *fD pages. Promote this man before my head explodes!!! BD2412 T 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly accept, and am prepared to answer questions. Jonathunder 22:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong nominator support. BD2412 T 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, great user! —Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support. I was giving serious thought to nominating him after mine concluded. I've seen him around, and he's done a lot of great work here. --Idont Havaname 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. He voted against me. I'm voting for him. I win. - Haukur 23:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was a bit too flippant. I just mean to say that regardless of any disagreements we've had in the past I don't think he's likely to abuse the admin toolbox so there's no reason to keep it from him. He'll make good use of it. - Haukur 01:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yes good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Could have sworn he was already an admin... – ugen64 23:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. King of All the Franks 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Good lord. With a nomination like that, who can help but support??!  :-D Tomertalk 09:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- A pleasure to work with, level-headed, calm, reasoned, and thoughtful. -- Samuel Wantman 09:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Thunder support - Enjoy! Szvest 09:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  13. Support--MONGO 10:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, I always assumed he was an admin. The facts that he is a great contributor and will make a level-headed and trustworthy admin go without saying. Rje 14:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: --Bhadani 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, affirmative action for Minnesotans (and because he's money) Babajobu 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I like parks, even the state parks. :) - Darwinek 15:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Great editor, good at working with people, and seems everyone already thought he was an admin already. :) -- Jbamb 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, he will be a great admin. --Terence Ong Talk 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Never been one to say no to anything from Minnesota (aside from Mondale :-). --Alabamaboy 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. - Phaedriel 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, I doubt he would abuse admin tools. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Excellent contributor. Sango123 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, seems to be a fine editor with some good reasons to use admin tools. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I recall Jonathunder as being a great editor from when I first joined Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Very good, experienced and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support. Very civil and a lot of experiance in the Wikipedia namespace. Glad to support a great editor. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Clear support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support trust BDA's judgment and don't want to see his head explode :-) --TimPope 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support {{rfa cliche1}}  ALKIVAR™ 11:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Cool. JuntungWu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support With pleasure! Rx StrangeLove 17:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. No reason to think he will abuse admin tools. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong nominator support support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. KHM03 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Bandwagon :) Radiant_>|< 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, as per nom and all the above comments. JeremyA 23:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Easygoing manner and willingness to take on maintenance tasks are two things, but another is that I don't want BDA's head to explode. --Deathphoenix 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Guettarda 06:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support for great wikijustice. FCYTravis 08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Seems to be a good editor. --Kefalonia 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support; excellent candidate. Antandrus (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good record, He is ready to use new tools.--Dakota ~ ε 04:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Michael Snow 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I feel admin tools will assist jonathunder in improving en.wikipedia. Kingturtle 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support DaGizza Chat 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Snakes 06:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. THAWO. the wub "?!" 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. A good contributor with great tools makes the efficient Wikipedian. --Jay (Reply) 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. --Kbdank71 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support sounds good to me :-) Gryffindor 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. -- DS1953 talk 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
  1. I guess this poll is meaning to end January 7, and not December 7. Fixed that.SoothingR 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops - that's my mistake! Sorry. BD2412 T 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I have read the pages listed in the question, and I am willing to help with the various backlogs needing admin attention as well as sysop chores people ask me for help with, either on my talk or on IRC. The main thing that motivates me to accept nomination now is a new special page: unwatched pages. It's available only to admins. I have a big watchlist, not just of articles I have edited but of ones that looked interesting when I came across them. I am willing to add my fair share of unwatched pages to it, especially for pages I have some knowledge of.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Someone looking at my contributions will quickly see I edit over a wide range of articles. It is because I have broad interests and when I see something that needs a bit of cleanup I jump in and do it. My current big project I am most pleased with is the List of Minnesota state parks. I wrote the introductory material and am working on starting articles for each of the 71 parks. It's a big project, so every time I see a new editor contribute to it I thank them. Like most of what I do, it's collaborative.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes, as I think everyone who has been around long enough and edited enough will. I have been involved in policy pages, controversial page moves, and have tried to calm contentious content disputes, and certainly conflict arises from those things. I am proud to say I have never (certainly never intentionally) made a personal attack on Wikipedia, even in situations that were stressful. I think keeping that discipline has helped and will help deal with those situations. I accept that people can disagree with me, even strongly, from the best of motives. And since we cannot really know and certainly can't control a person's motives, we must keep the focus on the issue.
I do tech support for a living, which is at least as much about customer service as it is about anything, and every day I have to find ways to reduce stress and ameliorate feelings so that I can work together with someone to solve technical problems.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jonathunder&oldid=1085557785"