Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johnny Au

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

Johnny Au

Final (1/9/0); Scheduled to end 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC). Withdrawn by nominee [1]. --barneca (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Au (talk · contribs) - I specialize in articles relating to Toronto, Ontario, Canada, since it is where I was born and currently live. I have been a Wikipedia contributer since last year. I also use Twinkle to revert vandalism and report them. I had reported to WP:AIV over 80 times. I have made over 2000 edits. I am also a regular contributer to Veropedia, in which I parse high-quality Wikipedia articles into its database. Before I parse, I removed vandalism and popular cultural references from certain articles. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I shall nominate myself. Johnny Au (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I am not nominating myself for adminship. Johnny Au (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I want to block users who disrupt Wikipedia considerably, as well as blocking those with inappropriate usernames. I do search for vandals outside of Toronto-related articles. I also want to protect certain pages, such as Toronto Maple Leafs and some of those not related to Toronto, from vandalism, since I reported to WP:RPP over 75 times. I am not becoming an administrator for personal gain. I am doing this to benefit everyone.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions so far are Oakwood-Vaughan, Toronto, Humewood-Cedarvale, List of roads in Toronto, various Toronto-related templates, and Toronto subway and RT. The first two were originally stubs until I added more information about them, though much of the articles are unsourced. The Toronto subway article I have edited significantly that I had parsed it into Veropedia. I have also edited articles that are not related to Toronto, such that they can meet or exceed Veropedia standards.

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: I have rarely been into conflicts in the past and none led me into situations as shown in WP:3RR. However, much of my stress comes from fixing silly vandalism, such as the addition of nonsensical Internet slang into articles, as well as my userpage.

Additional Questions from Nat

4. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?

A: Banning is used on certain topics, but indefinite blocking is for all topics. Banning alone does not prevent editing on prohibited subjects, therefore blocking is used.

The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.

Users may be banned as a result of the dispute resolution process.

While bans often apply to the entire project, partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter. For example, a user may be banned from a single article or an entire subject area. Users who violate partial bans are blocked temporarily to enforce the ban. Where appropriate, partial bans may extend to include talk pages.

Banning should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most often used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule. Blocks are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans. A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, disable a user's ability to edit any page.

• A user who is indefinitely blocked can be unblocked and can start contributing back to the community, so it is not always permanent.
• A banned user, who has usually done something more serious than an indefinitely blocked user, has usually used up all their chances and will very rarely be readmitted back to the wiki.
• Blocks are not always indefinite, some only last a few hours, or even just a few days, depending on the severity of the edits they have been making, etc.

5. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?

A: I would just use his/her user talk page to discuss the validity of the POV. I would tell him/her that he/she needs evidence to back up his/her point.

6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?

A: I would allow the use of fair-use images only as a last resort, since I recommend finding free images first if they are available.

7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A: I will have to be recalled if necessary. This is because many editors reject my adminship, mainly for being too Toronto-centric and for using another editor's signature for mine.

8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?

A: My interpretation is that if one does not follow the rules, then one may simply ignore them. The circumstances are that it must be only used as a last resort if and only if particular rules cannot be followed, such as fair-use images. In other words, use common sense if possible.

General comments

• See Johnny Au's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Johnny Au: Johnny Au (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Johnny Au before commenting.

Discussion

• Your constant editing of your previous answers is making me want to give a stronger oppose. Instead of adding onto the previous answers, just post a comment under the reasoning you disagree with and give some answers or examples of what you would do or what you know now. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• If this reaches 10 opposes with no additional supports, it should be closed per WP:SNOW and the candidate should observe this as an opportunity to receive constructive criticism. My advice would be to acquire greater familiarity with policy, and participate in other RfAs to see what is typically expected of admin candidates these days. Avruchtalk 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support - I feel that you have your head in the right place and are mature enough to be an administrator. Although there are concerns brought up below that would put many people off. Perhaps diversify your actions as a contributor and gain more experience in areas other than vandal fighting. Reading WP:ADMIN might be a good start to see what admins do. Maybe request a review of your current work or even apply for an admin coach? Perhaps a few more months work in different areas away from Canada related topics might give you more experience :-) Good luck! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I'm sorry Johnny, but to me personally, it appears that you are doing this for your own personal gain. I couldn't think of how else to word that, but it is not to be interperted as power hungry. I just view it as using admin tools on articles you want. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I have some concerns about this incident (in which he changed a vandalism warning template left by another editor rather than adding his own) and this one (in which he inserted a vandalism warning template with somebody else's signature. Together, they seem to indicate that he's still feeling his way around vandal fighting (or was as of two months ago). I'd rather see a couple more months of error-free vandal fighting before giving him new tools, but I'd likely support at that time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
   • I am sorry for my deceptive actions. I will never do it again. I have stopped doing this since I received that a few months ago. Johnny Au (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Per above. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I don't know about this. You have posted very short answers to the questions, and the answers are a little concerning. You say (on question 1) that you are not doing this for personal gain, but it sure sounds like it, when you say you will protect Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto. It seems that you will only pay attention to Toronto related articles, which is not what being an administrator is about. Soxred93 has a boring sig 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Sarcasticidealist, and answers to questions; they don't convey a comprehensive understanding of policy, something every would-be-admin should have. Rt. 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per all the points above. Jauerback (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per answer to questions 4, 7 and 8 at least. Q4 in particular - the candidate provided the wrong definition of banning. Avruchtalk 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Q4 answer has been fixed. Johnny Au (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   It is still incorrect. Rt. 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   Fixed now. Johnny Au (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think the point is to demonstrate that you can paste the text in from the policy page - the point of the question is to demonstrate whether you already understand the differences between them, and how they should be applied - since if you pass your RfA (which looks unlikely right at the moment) you will be able to issue one and be involved in the other. Avruchtalk 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   In the interests of this discussion, I've gave him/her a few pointers on their talk page. Rt. 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate that you are trying to correct your answers, but first you pasted in the policy - and then Rudget pointed out to you that this was inappropriate, and gave you pointers as to what the correct answer might be - so you then pasted that into your answer as your own? This, unfortunately, reinforces my oppose quite soundly. Avruchtalk 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Reluctant Oppose - Sorry, I feel that I cannot support at this time. Follow the advice Rudget has given you and I'm sure you'll become a good admin in future. But I am pleased by the prima facie evidence of being bold by self-nominating. Good luck and keep editing. EJF (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.