Requests for comment/De-adminship for Jusjih in certain projects

The following request for comments is closed. This is an unactionable RfC. Local desysop requests should be processed through local channels, not through a Meta-Wiki RfC. The descriptions of events here do not describe a level of emergency or systemic failure of local processes that would warrant global action.

This close should not be construed to discount the arguments made by those who have contributed to and supported this RfC. I will also note that there have been issues with civility in this RfC, and I would urge those who have left such empassioned replies to review Meta:Civility. Aspersions, insinuations of malintent, personal attacks, etc., are not acceptable on Meta-Wiki.

Happy editing! Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I find this statement by Jusjih: 'I disagree as you are not a steward or bureaucrat anywhere. I have even received even worse or irrelevant comments when I was a steward. When busy in real life, mind your own business more concerning.' While they haven't misused their tools, being a sysop is not just about the tools. "--SHB2000 07:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[1][reply]

I'm Zhxy_519, a sysop from zh.wikisource. Now being a victim of another sysop Jusjih's more and more disruptive and abusive actions. Based on previous rfcs, I seriously would like to use several hours to restart a rfc. The levels of poor-faith disruption from this single user ascends everything I have ever seen on Wiki projects entirely, so I am merely going to scratch the surface here. Make no mistake though; this disruption is blatant and severe.

The following users contributed to this report:

User:Wong128hk, sysop and victim in zh.wiktionary, former sysop in zh.wikiquote
User:Gzdavidwong, sysop and victim in zh.wikisource
User:Rschen7754, provided info at Requests for comment/No username when titling any RFC
User:Jasonzhuocn, sysop of zh.wikipedia, provided info

Content

Who is Jusjih

User:Jusjih, a cross projects admin in many Chinese projects and Meta-Wiki, has been found acting disruptive and abusive for years on many of those projects. Especially, they are pressing other sysops to obey them.

Jusjih owns adminship of, as here: commons, zh.wikipedia, en.wikipedia, zh.wikiquote, en.wikiquote, zh.wikisource, en.wikisource, meta, zh.wikibooks, en.wikibooks, zh.wiktionary, en.wiktionary, and wikisource.org. He was also a steward until 2015.

History

2007: zh.wikipedia

An early sign of their abusive play. Jusjih was criticized for a tiny edit, then they acted anxiously saying "if that was abusive, how can (I) became a sysop of 8 big wiki projects?" Which was criticized by many other editors including other sysops.

2015: zh.wiktionary

User:Wjcd, a former bureaucrat of zh.wiktionary, retired already in 2015, revealed a mail from Jusjih on their userpage, with threats forcing Wjcd to resign, otherwise to start a de-adminship of them, only caused by Jusjih doesn't want small wiki projects to have bureaucrats. And Jusjih used words like “I recruited you as a sysop”.

Eventually, Wjcd cannot withstand about it and he decided to resign and leave zh.wikt ever after. Jusjih didn't stop there. Jusjih proposed to delete Wcjd's userpage because he think that it is an "overly criticism to them". Wjcd does consider that it is a 恐嚇 (threatening) and is obnoxious. Finally, such comments were hidden up because of the mentioned AFD. Although Wjcd stated that it is an email, it is not. Please also see the log of deletion of Wjcd's userpage. Jusjih was there to hind these up. Awful. Far before Jusjih raised out the AFD, Jusjih has deleted the revisions containing the criticism to Jusjih. There is obviously a conflict of interest. It is a norm of the global community requiring sysop not using the admin tools with conflict of interest.

Things unsolved and recently Jusjih claimed that they sent an email to stewards to ask to delete Wjcd's userpage.

2016: meta

Jusjih opposes to have bureaucrats in small wikis and proposed Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis. When other users questioned Jusjih's proposal here, Jusjih played rude and arrogant. And in their own userpage, you can see Jusjih's arrogant statement.

2018: zh.wikiquote

" In this time of application, he used the term of "篡位" (usurp the throne) to reply my claims on considering filing a request for desysop. I do not even know what he is thinking about now...“ --J.Wong 09:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC), see here

Although Requests for comment/Abusive user on Chinese Wikiquote is started by Jusjih theirself, Jusjih was actually trying to revenge Wong128hk in their adminship votes.

2020: zh.wikipedia

In revenge to Wjcd, Jusjih created a template called "fake-retirement" and used it on Wjcd's userpage. Citing Jimmy Wales’ words like [2], Jusjih called Wjcd libelling. This template is full of hard-understanding words and used only against Wjcd. Then Jusjih also copied it to zh.wikipedia fake-retirement, although recently deleted.

2021: zh.wikisource

See the page I created (Requests for comment/Jusjih's disruptive and abusive behaviours cross projects), Jusjih blamed me for wrong reason, and when User:Gzdavidwong coming to defend me and criticized them, Jusjih started de-adminship to both of us.

2021: meta

"Creating RfCs like this and continuing to seek administrative action against the person you are presently engaged in a dispute with, instead of handling the dispute through the relevant channels, does not reflect well on you as a Meta-Wiki administrator. Regards,"--Vermont 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[3][reply]

When I started the previous rfc on meta, Jusjih started another disruptive one: Requests for comment/No username when titling any RFC, which was vetoed soon and even meta users started to consider a de-adminship of them. I failed to finish the rfc on time, but Jusjih was reprimanded for their disruptive action taken on multi pages of meta.

2022: zh.wikisource

Ongoing. A new de-adminship rule passed 23rd Apr, based on Gzdavidwong's and my concession. Even during the discussion, Jusjih was still manipulating like lying and going back their words. However Jusjih planned a de-adminship against us, in only 24hrs. In order to do this, they is even lying to make Gzdavidwong looks like "persistently unfriendly", while Gzdavidwong did nothing in another 24hrs. Jusjih ignored the request of explaining this lie, and POINTed with a new de-adminship against 2 sysops at one time.

Characteristics

"Your commentary in this whole thread is problematic, and I think that you need to take some time to reflect. You even asked this person to be blocked. I mean, what is that? Be open to criticism and improvement, that it has escalated like it has should give you time to look inward, not lash outward. We can all improve the way that we wield the mop."--— billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)here[reply]

Jusjih revenge to all other sysops disobey or criticizing them. And they call all the criticisms against them as "not civil" like here, even other meta sysops and stewards telling them not to. And Jusjih keeps denying others' action rightful in the discussion, but most of times failed to give reasons, only using their power.

And even being criticized on meta and got other sysops' consensus, Jusjih plays arrogant, ignore them and change the rules only based on their own will, to prevent others to get chances to challenge them again. They also uses a lot of hard words in both discussion and drafting rules.

Also Jusjih threatens a lot. They used de-adminship to threaten all zh project victim sysops, and also threatened multiple times of reporting stewards, and now may really have done.

Jusjih's opposition for bureaucrats on small wikis, in fact help they to do things without being supervised and leave more obstacles for resolving sysop controversy on small wikis.

Why RfC?

Previous rfcs were asked to be solved in local communities. But impossible. Jusjih playing this on multiple small projects, and communities there are too small to tell the justice. Some users even other sysops hate to see "quarrelling" and refuse to join, or always tend to use votes more than reasonable discussions. Even they try, Jusjih will ignore that or even lying "They are for me".

Also recently some suspicious users are joining Jusjih to make the victims harder. Not only due to the whole zh community's unstable situation, there are also other suspicious users approaching Jusjih, like User:liuxingyu970226 in previous rfcs and User:Longway22 in zhws. Although it is still hard to consider them have formed an underground group, they do support Jusjih's actions to ascend the impetus of their side.

Ending and related links

Thank you for reading this if you have. This report represents only a small fraction of the abuse that has been documented on cross wiki projects over the years. If you would like to read more, please see the list below.

zh.wikiquote

RFA of Wong128hk

zh.wikisource

de-adminship of Gzdavidwong
de-adminship of Zhxy_519
Jusjih's lie “I warned you twice in 24hrs because you may be unfriendly to me"
Discussion of new de-admin rule, where Jusjih lied "I made this amend based on your opinion" and played capriciously.

zh.wiktionary

zh.wikipedia

Jusjih‘s Statement

I strongly disagree User:Wong128hk as a victim in zh.wiktionary as he harassed me on meta and many other Chinese wikis. See also why false vanishing is very bad.--Jusjih (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Steward requests/Permissions:

I agree Midleading on April 28 that Zhxy 519 is threatening the free speech of the community with an abusive RfC. In addition to Midleading seeking suspension of Zhxy 519's adminship on Chinese Wikisource, I would like to also ask Zhxy 519 to stop senseless cross-wiki revenge by staying out of other wikis.--Jusjih (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to quote from m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3.1_–_Harassment: "Hounding: following a person across the project(s) and repeatedly critiquing their work mainly with the intent to upset or discourage them. If problems are continuing after efforts to communicate and educate, communities may need to address them through established community processes." This RfC looks like an harassing hounding for Zhxy 519 to retaliate from Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access filed by someone else after Zhxy 519 has sabotaged de-sysoping process on Chinese Wikisource thrice with the extreme conflict of interest [4] [5] [6] and Gzdavidwong would like to retaliate here [7] [8] also with serious conflict of interest. See also a declaration at my userpage. Thanks so much to those who bravely oppose this RfC. Those supporting this RfC are opening a very dangerous precedent to threaten the free speech of the community, so please think carefully.--Jusjih (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusjih: So this is all about them, and not you? Regardless of other people's actions - what about your own conduct mentioned above? Do you stand by it? --Rs chen 7754 03:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You see their latest response, as you said, "all about them". And I say they is playing nasty, only against us and never dare to refute meta sysops or stewards. Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds that I never intended to violate others badly. Everything is unintentional misunderstanding. See below on how Zhxy 519 behaved on Chinese Wikisource and retaliated Steward requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access by hounding around several wikis to make this Rfc with extreme conflict of interest. Thus the "evidence" by hounding around should not be admissible, or the freedom of Wikimedia will be badly threatened with a dangerous precedence. Rschen7754 being a former steward should know that procedural justice means that improperly obtained "evidence" is to be inadmissible. See also below that "Everything here seems to be either too old to action, to not involve the usage of admin tools, or both. * Pppery * it has begun 03:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)" To de-sysop on Chinese Wikipedia requires any relevant incident within the past year that has not been used as the evidence in any earlier process to de-sysop. This is the "statute of limitation". Stewards and administrators on English Wikisource require annual reconfirmation to continue the privileges, so any bad things better be mentioned within a year. Thus I hereby refute Zhxy 519 and Rschen7754 who have yet to better understand procedural justice without excessively reminding others of past misdeeds, which means that this Rfc is too unjust to continue any further.--Jusjih (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment or opinion on the other topics or arguments in this section, but the description of English Wikisource's annual confirmation for advanced permissions holders is not accurate: admins and `crats are listed for confirmation annually and are automatically confirmed unless three established users oppose, in which latter case the confirmation is considered contested and a vote of confidence is triggered. The outcome of this vote determines whether the user retains or loses the relevant permissions. There is no statute of limitations in this system, neither express nor implied. The only such limit is the usual de facto one that stems from each individual participant's threshold for what they consider "ancient history". We have, relatively recently, had this kind of discussion where behaviour and actions 5–10 years ago was considered relevant. Xover (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: Yes. Annually confirming administrators on English Wikisource does not mean the "statute of limitation". Yet violating w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds as a non-binding essay might indirectly violate other policies and guidelines like w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks, harassment policies, and w:Wikipedia:Assume good faith that may somehow apply somewhere. I did not start Steward requests/Permissions#Zhxy 519@zhwikisource that I am unsure how many days stewards have to decide. Yet Zhxy 519 dared to start this Rfc with extreme conflict of interests, so please do not believe his hounding to remind past misdeeds to retaliate by excessive harassment.--Jusjih (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the other issues here. I merely wanted to clarify the confirmation process for advanced permissions holders on English Wikisource. Xover (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Global de-adminship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose I believe that the admin rights shouldn't be removed from the 2 users. Jusjih is an a very trusted user and former steward. Such disagreements are common, but I think you both need to calm down. AlPaD (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my first comment: Oppose. I know Jusjih from the multisource (where I am sysop & bureaucrat since about 2006 or so) as a trusted User. -jkb- 08:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am here solely because this matter was posted on the enWS Administrators Noticeboard. There has been no behaviour similar to that described above on enWS and therefore global de-adminship would not be appropriate. I am not prepared to comment on the merits or otherwise of the happenings on the various zh sisters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jusjih is what I would describe as a low-volume editor and administrator on en-Wikipedia. I see nothing controversial about their work there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am from Commons. There is no problems with him/her in Commons. We can very well decide ourselves, who is worthy being admin and who is not. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on above comments, it would seem that the better method is only discussing desysop for specific wikis instead of global desysop. No comments on Jusjih behaviour. Just my two cents. Thank you. --SCP-2000 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though not quite as active as in the past, in most sites where Jusjih hold advance permission, he seems to do nothing especially wrong. Base on this, I agree with what SCP-2000 said. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 15:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SCP-2000 @Ericliu1912 Allow me to contact some other victims for our decisions, thank you. Zhxy 519 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhxy 519: might be you could read what AlPaD wrote yesterday: have a look where in the Chinese projects Jusjih did some mistakes (if any) and apply his desysop there. As fas as I see there are no reasons for a global desysop. And cooling down would be a good advice a well. Cheers, -jkb- 17:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have read my request, I'm not the only victim and I would call it an explosion for our accumulated anger. It is not even the first time, but for years, and Jusjih never apologized. I'm still waiting for other victims' opinion and may change global to certain ones. Zhxy 519 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Commons user here. I strongly oppose any decision taken here on Meta for Commons. No more discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. English Wikisource user here. Jusjih is a well-known and trusted administrator, and there have been no problems with any of his actions, that I am aware of. In addition, it seems that this proposal has already been made and closed (Requests for comment/Jusjih's disruptive and abusive behaviours cross projects), but under a different name. The user who made this proposal and the other proposal should be reprimanded: it is clear that there is no problem with the user with which he has an issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose, I don't think this is the place to do this, though I might support a desysop regarding his Meta adminship for many of the cited reasons. --Rs chen 7754 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose English Wikisource admin here. We have had no issues at en.WS that would warrant loss of adminship, and his contributions there as an admin have been valuable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per 4nn1l2 and Taivo above, Jusjih is mostly trusted in many wikis, especially on Commons and English-speaking projects, Chinese-specific mistakes should be discussed on Chinese projects locally. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I understand your opinions for no problematic actions found on wikis like most of EN wiki projects. I retract my proposal for global de-adminship, and re-propose for specific projects Jusjih's abuses observed below. However, I would like to show this again to "small" wikis related, and hope you will be alerted in future. --Zhxy 519 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment/Removal of bureaucrats in small wikis

De-adminship on specific projects

Based on myself and other victims' will, I still ask your comments for actions being taken on below projects:

Meta
zh.wikipedia
zh.wikisource
zh.wiktionary
zh.wikiquote

My personal suggestion is that you can pick one or some of the projects to make your comment. However that's just a suggestion and you are totally free for your format. Thank you.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave your comments below

I request the closing of this RfC. If the RfC "Requests for comment/Jusjih's disruptive and abusive behaviors cross projects" is a copy, one would have to think about the consequences. But here is EOD. -jkb- 19:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of what? That was an unaccomplished work and more contents added this time. Zhxy 519 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think quick closure would be beneficial at this time. New imformation has been added since the last RfC. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support On zhwiktionary, because he's very hard. Oppose on another wikis. AlPaD (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds: you requested a global removal of administrative rights at the beginning of this action, and you cannot now ask for something different without sending a message to the relevant projects. Thus, this new proposal should be separate from the old proposal. Separately, your new request is not properly placed on Meta, and is a matter for handling by the individual projects. Your statement at the beginning of this new request is indicative of the primary problem: you are merely selecting grievances from various individual projects, and brining a poorly unified complaint to Meta. In addition, while it is not always improper to create a new proposal based on an earlier, failed proposal, that is generally after some new allegations are brought forth, or more time has passed. In this case, the substance of your complaint against Jusjih was dismissed in the earlier action, and that action was concluded only a few months ago, so neither case applies. Any comment expressing support for this proposal in part should be dismissed, as such a partial proposal is improperly heard on Meta. For these reasons, this request for comment should be closed early. Reading over the comments from other users concerning your recent actions on Meta, and what little new evidence you bring to this proposal, I agree with Jusjih, and believe you should be blocked for disruptive procedural abuse and/or editing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but also Oppose closure of this RFC so that the behavior can be fully documented. Each of the projects that you mention have desysop procedures. Use them. --Rs chen 7754 00:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, at least on Chinese Wikisource, the situation probably does not allow a normal local solution. (cf. Steward requests/Permissions#Zhxy 519@zhwikisource) —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 00:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (Personally, I would said that the most concerning ones are the Chinese Wikisource and Wiktionary.) —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting to note that the top of the page has a quote that says "being a sysop is not just about the tools" when things like en:WP:Requests for adminship/Lustiger seth, en:WP:NOBIGDEAL, and the currently developing en:WP:Requests for adminship/Tamzin seem to show that at least in an enwiki context, being a sysop is indeed "just" about the tools, at the very least historically. Casualdejekyll (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I Support for all. But maybe meta can be strong enough for local resolution, and zh.wikipedia in the future. --Gzdavidwong (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gzdavidwong for supporting removal of Meta adminship, you have to also support modifying our Meta policy to provide such the process, this is being discussed at this Meta RFC, or otherwise your support won't be valid due to lack of process. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn't the good place to discuss major problems on some certain language-speaking projects, as for Meta-Wiki, Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship is enough, as of now we only allow desysops in cases of inactivity. (PS: If your idea is also willing to propose modifying Meta policy on desysop, I certainly welcome). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose per User:Rschen7754. I will add that I am an admin on several projects where Jusjih is active, and have seen nothing from that editor that would merit de-adminship. I expect that they will get the message that they may need to exercise a lighter touch here and there. BD2412 T 06:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose early closure as I think this need to be addressed, and the conduct of all in the project (zhws) needs to be addressed. No comments on that for now. But clearly out of process for zhwp, that just file a discussion on VPO, and get the 7 persons to agree to the petition, then let's start a RFDA (whether to use secure poll and how the new process will be that's another question). No comments on wq/wt. For meta, I will like to see actual edvidence of tools misuse before commenting. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite obvious that the situation cannot simply handled by the local community, even though having the procedure of RFDA especially for zh.wikt, zh.ws and zh.wq. Hence, Oppose any early closure. Because of what he had done on zh.wiktionary-- misuse of admin tool, I will always support the de-sysop for Jusjih on zh.wikt. No comments for meta and zh.wiki.--J.Wong 16:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also take a look to the history of Userpage of Wjcd on zh.wikt. You may find how Jusjih wanna hide this up and What other users think about this which Jusjih called "over-criticism", "fake vanishing". It's been seven years long. Should there is a solution for this? --J.Wong 17:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why support false vanishing that looks like violating Universal_Code_of_Conduct#3.1_–_Harassment and wmf:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain Activities. Some people have unilaterally removed controversial materials from "their" biographies of living people due to perceived libels as "self-defense". Libel is harmful, so disputing someone's "self-defense" requires careful consideration as whether any reversion will truly improve public interest. Wikimedia is hosted in the USA, not Hong Kong. Our common problem is Zhxy 519 threatening the free speech of the community by sabotaging de-sysoping process on Chinese Wikisource thrice with the extreme conflict of interest per my statement above.--Jusjih (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see there are libel as well as harassment. By the way, thank you for your new concept of "false vanishing" but I don't see there is anyone supporting your new concept and showing interest in joining the discussion. Are you sure it is relevant to this discussion?

I would also like to know how can a page of comment created seven years ago become hounding.--J.Wong 18:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say hounding to mean what Zhxy 519 has done:

Zhxy 519 renamed Requests for comment/Recent problem in zh.wikisource to be abusive to retaliate almost being de-sysop-ed on Chinese Wikisource.
Zhxy 519 posting irrelevant criticism to disrupt a local voting on Chinese Wikisource to retaliate by hounding about other wikis, after having sabotaged the voting thrice before. [9] [10] [11]
Zhxy 519 reverted thrice [12] [13] [14] to avoid being de-sysop-ed on Chinese Wikisource by unilaterally removing documented hounding around wikis, which causes him to be considered to be de-sysop-ed in an emergency that someone else filed.
This request is also hounding by Zhxy 519 to retaliate being considered to be de-sysop-ed in an emergency. This reckless request must be stopped to avoid threatening the free speech of the community.--Jusjih (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the zh wikis, but I’m not seeing any evidence here of misuse of administrator's privileges to warrant a desysop on Meta. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an administrator is more than using the tools. --Rs chen 7754 03:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything here seems to be either too old to action, to not involve the usage of admin tools, or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through his edits on zh.wikipedia and didn't see any apparent abuse of sysop rights in 12 months. So I Oppose the desysop on zh.wikipedia. --魔琴 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With the most recent abuse of admin tools, it becomes quite possible that he cannot find a third user to believe his execuses to desysop Jusjih on zhwikisource. Browse the archive on zhwikisource to find out what User:Zhxy 519 has done there. I'll also review in brief why User:Zhxy 519 has become unwelcomed on zhwikisource. In 2019 and 2020 he blocks Fire-and-Ice and Longway22 for creating pages with documents from CPC. At that time there is no concensus on whether documents from CPC are in public domain, but there is credible evidence that a discussion is needed to reflect the latest case law. The discussion lasts for many years, finally a consensus is reached that documents from CPC are in the public domain. Separate to this discussion, in 2021 User:Zhxy 519 blocks User:Longway22 again in a controversy, leading to the second desysop request. This time 11 users supported and 5 users opposed, but User:Zhxy 519 insisted on that a view that 25 support votes is required. Now, the unrealistic requirement of 25 support votes has been abolished, but User:Zhxy 519 invented a new execuse to prevent himself from being desysoped, that involved administrator can speedy close the RFDA process while uninvolved administrators have to wait for 7 days and observe 5 more oppose votes than support votes as required by the policy. The policy never mentioned involved administrator may close the request at all. And is zhwikisource too small to decide on this? Look at zhwikiquote, User:Jusjih has never been able to stop User:Wong128hk from being elected as administrator despite his oppose, and zhwikisource is more active than zhwikiquote, probably just less active than Wikipedia. Last time stewards asked that administrators on zhwikisource reach a consensus. It has been a mistake that they grabs to explicitly ask me to support their opinion on 25 support votes being required, defining behaviours of Jusjih as abusive, and meanwhile speedy terminated a proposal to reform the RFDA process by User:Jusjih citing the discussion requested by steward is "ongoing". What else can User:Zhxy 519 can do on zhwikisource to prevent from being desysoped? In contrast there is no reported cases of administrator tools misuse by User:Jusjih 2019-2022.Midleading (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really like lying and real personal attack, don’t you know? You cannot use “controversial” but not wrong things to let people go, unless you come out to prove that. That’s what Jusjih did, and now you again. You provided some evidences, but did you say the right thing? Why was Fire-and-Ice and Longway22 blocked, tell people the truth. If you are going to say they are innocent, give the right proof. And how does 25 votes become 25 supports from your side? And you have already announced on zh.wikisource that you “just couldn’t cover (Jusjih) openly” even Jusjih is lying. There was the 5th Sysop Hat600 supported the consensus, who are you calling “they”? Come on, be open to debate, and stop “deny then ignore”. —Zhxy 519 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I forgot the old policy requires 25 votes, not 25 support votes. Regardless, that has been an old policy that no longer applies. I also wanted to correct User:Jusjih that User:Zhxy 519 didn't start this RfC to retaliate from Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access, User:Zhxy 519 started this RfC before I created that SRP request. The matter about why Fire-and-Ice and Longway22 were blocked was too old and already discussed as a part of older desysop discussions. I strongly encourage people to read the archive and not base your idea on selective evidence presented here. I'm not going to discuss it here as this is a request to desysop User:Jusjih on Chinese wikis and Meta. Of course you might not expect this short answer, but there is a question why no other administrators on zhwikisource are involved in so many controversial blocks. User:Jusjih is not involved in other controversy except this one, has not abused administrator tools. And if what you want is to prevent User:Jusjih from submitting a RFDA request, probably you need to request that User:Jusjih be blocked, since an ordinary user can request RFDA as well. You blocked User:Jusjih without starting such request either on Meta or on zhwikisource thinking it is the only right choice, resulting in another controversy. Midleading (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are driving “controversies” away but never dare to debate? Give proofs that controversy are really wrong. Actually you are proving, because the people once blocked are still active, and other sysops like you are trying to avoid troubles rather than doing the right thing, zh.wikisource is too small to tell the justice—-“controversial” is enough for people to go as you are insisting! Zhxy 519 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I would like to apply for deleting of the personal attacks by the user Zhxy 519 (see the previous edit 04:57, 14 May 2022 UTC: "You really like lying..."). -jkb- 07:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided and could provide more evidence for their lie, like the reason of blockage for the other users. If you check that permission removal page, you can see I pointed more about their lie. Zhxy 519 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midleading,

"Look at zhwikiquote, User:Jusjih has never been able to stop User:Wong128hk from being elected as administrator despite his oppose"

I'm wondering do you really clear about the situation before making such a statement.--J.Wong 05:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being opposed from adminship is so routine. Anyone reacting to a single opposition too harshly does not deserve using Wikimedia sites hostd in the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I admit I don't edit Chinese Wikimedia projects other than zhwikisource, and my comments may only apply to zhwikisource. I glanced administrator elections and noticed User:Wong128hk never failed in any elections. There is a term reduction proposed by User:Jusjih and supported by 1 another user in 2016, but that is not an administrator election anyway. Also notice that administrator elections are participated mainly by existing and former administrators, newbies that aren't editing pages on zhwikiquote, and vandals that are globally locked later, the situation may be more difficult than zhwikisource. On Meta I agree with Liuxinyu970226 that only desysop in case of inactivity is allowed for now. --Midleading (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Wikiquote once lacked the time limit for sysop election, so one election might last for months. Considering w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds, let us mind more about Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access that SCP-2000 asked about any progress. See also paid editing for better transparency.--Jusjih (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is that "paid editing" statement about though? All of the people envolved in this RfC seem to have nothing to do with paid editing. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 19:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a reminder that many people are unaware of. In case of serious conflict of interest like this, who knows if anyone has undisclosed paid edits? Paying someone to dispurt Wikis would be very bad bribery.--Jusjih (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gzdavidwong, Wong128hk, SHB2000, Rschen7754, Vermont, and Billinghurst: Sorry I am pinging you but please take a look at Jusjih's "reminder". You have all criticized Jusjih before, so please make sure you are not paid by anybody before criticizing Jusjih, lol. --Zhxy 519 (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for various reasons. For one thing, I'm uncomfortable with an RfC being used to usurp local processes. If it's systemic undisclosed paid editing, my understanding is that's against the Terms of Use, and Wikimedia has a staff/Trust and Safety team for that. Even if we considered this process was procedurally legitimate, I'm unsatisfied with the evidence presented. Dmehus (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced their behaviour has changed, but I'm really opinionless now and I prefer not to comment any further. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly it really becomes a malicious cabaret. Zhxy 519 is pretty much the only one making baseless accusations against Jusjih here. Now there are personal attacks like "make sure you are not paid by anybody". At this stage, it should be finished quickly. This is slowly becoming unbearable. -jkb- 17:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most people may don't like using RFC way, but you said baseless, why? And are you thinking Zhxy is personal attacking us? I'm another victim and of course no. That funny paid thing is thrown by Jusjih, you should ask Jusjih why giving that funny point. Gzdavidwong (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must say seriously, the state of administration of the Chinese Wikisource is very confusing. I retracted my comment a while before because a user who was banned by the English-speaking community for threatening others even tried to grab admin rights here, and such elections can't even be vetoed by current admins. So please be careful when posting any votes and comments to Wikisource's administrators. Some inappropriate measures are very likely to make the environment of this project even worse. PAVLOV 01:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see why people keep importing conflicts from other Wikimedia projects into Chinese Wikisource, like the one mentioned in this RfC and the one mentioned by PAVLOV. Wikisource is a unique project that is not bound to Wikipedia policy, is least likely to turn into a battlefield due to its goal of collecting historical documents. Of course administrators need to take actions to enforce project policy. But users also has the right to be treated with respect. And I don't edit other Chinese Wikimedia projects. I treat other users solely based on their behavior on Chinese Wikisource. The user PAVLOV mentioned, although sometimes violates project policy, has made more than 2000 edits on Chinese Wikisource since he joined. --Midleading (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have full knowledge of who is right and who is wrong with the administrators, but I also have no intention of introducing the contradictions of other Wikimedia projects into the Wikisource. The current dispute over the Wikisource seems to be a fact, I just hope that this RFC should be carried out with great care. PAVLOV 17:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]