Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jusjih

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

[edit] Jusjih

Final (73/2/1) Ended Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:44 UTC

Jusjih (talk · contribs) – I started editing English Wikipedia on 8 September 2003 after finding it. For more than three years, I have made more than 5000 edits with more than 3000 edits to articles. I have also paid special attention to anonymous edits where vandalism is more likely and the gallery of new files for any images and media for deletion and possibly unfree images, and I have fought many anonymous vandals and tagged many problem images with involved users notified. I have also commented at WP:AfD after searching articles in question with Google to determine their notability while someone or something non-notable should not be made an article.

In addition to using English Wikipedia, I have also registered accounts at many other Wiki sites in not only English (my second language with advanced skill) but also Chinese (my native language) and French (my third language but not yet fluent). Over years, I have been a admin at seven sites:

1. Chinese Wikipedia since 23 September 2004.
2. Multilingual Wikisource since 29 July 2005 (that site no longer English articles).
3. Chinese Wiktionary since 3 August 2005.
4. English Wikisource since 18 September 2005.
5. Chinese Wikisource since 20 September 2005 as a bureaucrat.
6. Wikimedia Commons since 18 April 2006 as an admin and since 24 September 2006 as a bureaucrat.
7. English Wiktionary since 3 May 2006.

With my experience not only here but also at Wiki sites where I am an admin, I would like to nominate myself for adminship to further help with tasks like copyright enforcement while there are too many administrative backlogs.--Jusjih 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nom. I accept.--Jusjih 19:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: In addition to fighting and warning vandals, patrolling the gallery of new files, and commenting at WP:AfD, as I have mentioned in my statement above, I would like to delete copyvios and close WP:AfD as I do at other Wiki sites that I administer, especially Wikimedia Commons. In case of serious vandalism to any specific page, I would like to wisely take admin actions, such as protecting a page or blocking a problem user according to the established policies.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I consider UN General Assembly Resolution 505 my best newly created article. Though not as famous as UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 that changed the Chinese representative in the United Nations, I have found Resolution 505 from a textbook. Interested in it, I have gathered all relevant historical information as to what happened before and after its adoption and created the article in not only English but also in Chinese. As Wikipedia should not contain copies of primary sources, I also use Wikisource to host the text of the resolution. (Wikisource originally included virtually all language at one multilingual site until language subdomains were created.) I am particularly pleased with it as Resolution 505 and Resolution 2758 have opposite points of view as to which Chinese representative should be considered legitimate in the United Nations.

For edits to existing articles, I hereby name a few particularly pleased ones. As I am interested in calendars, I have added many details about the differences of the Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and the Old Style and New Style dates. As I am interested in the United Nations, I have filled in many blanks to List of UN Security Council Resolutions 1 to 100, List of UN Security Council Resolutions 101 to 200, List of UN Security Council Resolutions 201 to 300, and so on. I have also added much Taiwanese information to relevant articles such as Highway System in Taiwan, Level crossing, and Restrictions on motorcycle use on freeways.

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: Occasionally yes, but the situations have generally become normal. For example, as I patrol the gallery of new files, tag images that may have problems, and notify the uploaders, certain uploaders may disagree what I do even if obviously they are wrong. Overall, I am rarely in conflicts over editing at all Wiki sites where I have accounts (all have my username as "Jusjih"), especially the sites where I am an admin and thus more likely to be in conflicts.

Should a conflict occur, I would normally try to talk with the other party first. Should that fail, I would seek a wider discussion with someone else, but once again, the situations have generally become normal eventually. To assume good faith and be bold but not reckless are what I have always believed.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A: I agree WP:IAR and WP:SNOW only when they will make Wikipedia better. There must be some rules or disorders will occur.

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A: Based on my experience at other Wiki sites as an admin, I have thought of only one case where a punitive block should be applied. That is when a username is extremely offensive. While administering Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wiktionary, I have seen series of usernames insulting other users and Zhou Ji, education minister of the People's Republic of China. Based on what I know, Zhou Ji has been involved in some controversies, but creating usernames to willfully insult others in Mainland China could constitute a criminal offence pursuant to Article 246 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (s:zh:中华人民共和国刑法) with imprisonment of up to three years, prosecutable only when the victims or their relatives request prosecution unless the offence severely impacts the social order or national interests.

Even though Zhou Ji will probably not bother suing the offenders, these permanently blocked bad usernames still show up at the beginning in the user lists at Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wiktionary. Ther are eyesores. As admins can permanently block bad usernames like life imprisonment without parole but not delete them like death penalty, I would like to enable a function to allow admins to conceal permanently blocked bad usernames from the public view while deleted articles and images are still visible to admins but not the public, if I were able to do so. Why show permanently blocked bad usernames to the public? They can give Wiki sites bad images, can't they?

6. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?

A: People with different cultural backgrounds interpretate the sense of humor in different ways. Conservative people may have little or no tolerance of humor. To assume good faith and be bold but not reckless are what I can say because something harmless in a country might be very harmful somewhere else. This is especially important as users here are from so many different places.

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

7. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?

A: No. I do not think that my mainspace editing will be reduced. Even after I have become admin at 7 Wiki sites, I have still edited mainspace articles frequently, especially at Wiktionary and Wikisource in English and Chinese. Even though English Wikipedia is an extremely large site, there are still many articles that have yet to be improved. For example, even though I have filled in many blanks to List of UN Security Council Resolutions 1 to 100, List of UN Security Council Resolutions 101 to 200, List of UN Security Council Resolutions 201 to 300, and so on as described in the answer to Question 2 above, most subsequent lists of UN Security Council Resolutions are not yet complete. When I have time I still plan to fill in the blanks. That will still make a lot of mainspace editing.

Question from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)

8. Do you believe that being an admin in so many wikis will affect your time here? If not, how will it enhance the experience of being a sysop on the English Wikipedia?

A: No. Since English Wikipedia is an extremely large and active site, it will require much more attention. Once elected an admin here, I plan to allot more time administering this site. Enhancing the experience of being a sysop here will be based on my experience administering seven Wiki sites. For image and text copyright enforcement, I project that my experience administering Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource will enhance my experience here.

Commons:Deletion guidelines#Speedy deletion says: "When speedy-deleting files, it is suggested but not required to run CheckUsage in order to fix uses on Wikimedia projects. However due to the nature of speedy delete you can skip that but please be aware that the probability that this file will be reuploaded again by someone is higher if doing so and be also aware that this will cause bad "image holes" in articles that might can cause not so nice rants from surprised people that were not aware of the blatant problem with that file." Based on this, I project that I will frequently administer both English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons at the same time (logged in) for quick coordination.

General comments

• See Jusjih's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Jusjih's edit count using Interiot's Tool2 --Alex (Talk) 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

• I'd say that this user is ready for some extra tabs, and it would be a benifit to the project. No trust or self-control/reason issues here, and the user maintains enough activity.Voice-of-All 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• This is probably foolish of me, but - are you from mainland China, or from Taiwan, or...? I'm concerned about what might happen to a mainlander who became an admin. DS 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  Please do not feel foolish of you. Answering your question at my talk page, I am from Taiwan and now in the USA, thus speaking zh-TW (Mandarin) natively with en-US-3. I also understand considerable zh-CN and en-GB. I also use fr-FR-1 (not fluent yet). I am unsure if there is any Mainland Chinese being an admin here, but I know several Mainland Chinese being admins at other Wiki sites where I am an admin, like Chinese Wikipedia, Chinese Wiktionary, Chinese Wikisource, Multilingual Wikisource, and Wikimedia Commons. At English Wiktionary and English Wikisource, I am the only admin speaking Chinese natively as I can tell.

  As you are concerned about what might happen to a mainlander who became an admin, I can tell you that since the Chinese Communist Government has found Wiki sites so easy to start talk pages, it considers them detrimental to its politically "stability" and therefore tries to block them. This requires any users including admins from Mainland China to try indirect ways to get in, which could be risky should they be caught doing something considered bad by the Communist Government. Since I am in the USA, I can ignore the Chinese censorship.--Jusjih 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  English Wiktionary has recently elected a new admin with zh-4.--Jusjih 13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see no cons. You have efficiently contributed to the English Wikipedia in a vast array of areas. Your roles in sister projects indicate that you are a dedicated, experienced and trustworthy user.--Húsönd 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support been here long enough, and has proven to be an excellent user. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Of course Mike | Talk 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support as you clearly have a stong understanding of the policies. Impressive history and contribution to other wikiprojects. Also, your answers to the questions were just what I would like to see from a future admin. AuburnPilot^Talk 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like good admin material - lots of XfD contributions and vandalwarnings in the history. (aeropagitica) 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Very Strong Support awesome contributions. Rama's arrow 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. Very good user across all Wiki projects! Nishkid64 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - looks good to me --T-rex 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Yup. Deizio talk 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Very Strong Support. Although I kind of wonders how effective you will be while monitoring both English and Chinese Wikipedia at the same time. But anyway, strong support! AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Admin in 7 wiki sites shows quite a lot of experience. Could use it over here as well. Excellent answer to question 2. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support No concerns here TigerShark 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
14. He isn't one yet?! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Per Kimchi.sg/Awyong. You're kidding, right? – Chacor 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Terrific user. Hello32020 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Do we really have to waste time on an RFA - someone just speedy close this as an obvious promote Support -- Tawker 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Great contribution history, especially your participation in copyvio issues, which aren't much fun to deal with. Neil916 (Talk) 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I trust this user with the admin tools. SOADLuver 05:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
21. Holy cow Uh, yeah, I'm on the bandwagon! -- Kicking222 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, definitely. You weren't an admin all this while?? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
23. The editor has shown good knowledge of policies; and with the experience behind him, I am sure he will be an asset to the project with the mop and bucket. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
24. SUPERDUPERSTRONG support Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 11:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
25. Support in the sense of all seven of its letters. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 12:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. This is about as close as it gets to a case where we don't need to wait for a full RfA. I particularly note his bcrat nom on Commons in support of his eminent trustworthiness. But I suppose it wouldn't hurt to wait 7 days either, the place is holding up alright. - Taxman ^Talk 12:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
27. 當然支持。 - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. A clean sweep! TruthCrusader 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. If there was a Speedy Admin, I'd vote for that. NauticaShades 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per nom. Michael 15:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
31. SupportA very responsible and helpful admin at en.WS. I have full confidence in him.Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent candidate, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Support great editor with a history of fairness. KazakhPol 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Has been here for quite some time. A good editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Support 支持. -- ran (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
36. Support meets my criterion: You must have no more than 5,000 mainspace edits. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. A solid contribution history and a level-headed and cooperative attitude make for a fine admin. — mark ✎ 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
38. Deserved Support. Welcome to our admin family. - Darwinek 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. G.He 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
40. Major Support You really deserve it ~IAMTHEEGGMAN^{Δdark side} 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support Plenty of edits and experience. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per nom, good answers to questions, comments above. No issues with this user and the sole oppose comment to date is frivolous. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
43. Wholehearted support. Meets my sole criterion: whether I trust the person to exercise good judgment. This is exactly the kind of candidate I had in mind when I said recently that I usually only participate in RfA when either I know the candidate, or where I am so impressed by the candidate that I feel justified in making a judgment despite not knowing them. I very much look forward to working with you, Jusjih! --bainer (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Clear history of good judgment and conscientious contributions. Wryspy 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong Support. Very nice resume. Experience in other wikis is a plus. zephyr2k 02:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - no reason not to. —Khoikhoi 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Support Deserves the mop. KrakatoaKatie 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - Duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, gosh! Sorry about that - I guess I had the same RfA open in two browser tabs. I'm terribly embarrassed, but it explains that deja vu feeling I had. KrakatoaKatie 11:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

47. Support More than meets my editcountitis requirements, unless someone can unearth real evidence of inadequate understanding or incivility. Transwiki experience and copyright involvement are real plusses for me. 5,000 edits in the maisnspace? Really!Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I am especially familiar with transwiki at Wiktionary and Wikisource in English and Chinese. Other Wiki sites that I administer may not have transwiki enabled yet.--Jusjih 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I mean to say experience on more than one wiki counts with me.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

48. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
49. Support, except for the disturbing lack of Portal talk edits. ;) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I will try to talk there, but only with something useful. Elsewhere where I administer, I have even seen vandalism at talk pages, i.e. totally useless things that qualify for speedy deletion.--Jusjih 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Don't worry about it, I was just poking fun at ridiculous adminship standards. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

50. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-21 19:05Z
51. Thank you for addressing my concerns. Since they are not relevant to your case, I hereby state that I support your becoming an administrator. DS 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
52. Merovingian ※ Talk 21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
53. Support The user has an exceptional experience of being an admin, thus being an admin on English Wikipedia will give benefit to us all. Good luck! Imoeng 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Zaxem 05:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
55. An asset to 7 8 wikis.  Jorcoga  06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Bureaucrat on Commons and I've had good interactions with them there. [ælfəks] 09:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
57. Support--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
58. Support--SUIT⁴² 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
59. Strong Support looks like a phenomenal contributor to a variety of WMF projects and I've no reservations whatsoever about Jusjih using the extra buttons. Good luck! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
60. Strong Support --A. B. 00:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
61. Strong Support. Already has a solid foundation for being an admin in other sites, should join the largest Wiki of them all. bibliomaniac15 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
63. Strong Support. Obvious candidate for the mop. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
65. Strong Support. --Pan Gerwazy 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Worthy enough. I feel Adminship will only enhance nominee's efforts in English Wikipedia. My only concern is if this person will be able to manage adminship chores from all wikisites at the same time. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, I see nothing wrong here does not seem like someone you have to wory about with the extra buttons ;) However I am a little heisitant due to a little weakness in the questions but overall this seems fine--†ĥε þяíћɔЄ öf ɒĥɑямä^{Talk to Me} 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
68. Support I see no reason not to support this editor. Dionyseus 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Great resumé. -- Renesis (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Numerous administrator accounts on various Wikipedias, as well as bureaucrat status in two Wikipedias shows experience; in addition the answers to questions are of high standard (especially question 2). Anthonycfc (talk • email) 18:54 25.Oct.2006
71. support: Evidently a good contributor and responsible candidate. Ombudsman 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
72. Support will obviously make good use of the mop, Tewfik^Talk 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, well-qualified candidate. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Oppose

1. Oppose Does not have enough mainspace edits per my criteria, which is on my user page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   5. You must have at least 5,000 mainspace edits. - to save people from an extra click.--Andeh 18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   5,000 mainspace edits? You're telling me that having 4,500 article edits (or, in Jusjih's case, 3,300) is not enough experience? Seriously? And how does someone who only started contributing to Wikipedia less than one month ago and has under 100 total edits ([1]) even find WP:RfA, much less come up with a criterion that are probably only met by 10-15% of our current administrators? -- Kicking222 20:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   You made your "criteria" 6 minutes before you opposed this RfA. I don't think you put enough thought or effort into your RfA criteria. 5,000 mainspace is an unreasonable amount, since almost all others require around 1,000-2,000+ for adminship. Be reasonable, Hawk. Nishkid64 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   I'd just like to point out that I have been an admin for three months, with a spotless record - even a barnstar for my admin actions - and I've written over 50 articles, and I don't think I even have 3,500 mainspace edits. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

   Your criteria are totally unreasonable, they indicate that you might not be aware of what's expected in an administrator. I suggest that you profoundly reconsider them, otherwise many users might feel tempted to actually adopt your criterium number 1.--Húsönd 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

   Kicking222, Nishkid54 and Husond; all of you need to remember that each Wikipedian has a right to voice his/her opinion during an RfA without fear of reproach. Regardless of whether or not you agree with a user's RfA standards, you should all respect that different people have different standards. Jumping on this opposer especially when the RfA is very likely to succeed anyways is rather tactless. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   Mr. Jusjih is going to pass, regardless of my vote, so I'll let my vote stand. The intent behind my criteria is simple ... I'll respect a person that has written entire articles much more so than somebody who edits only in some Wikipedia space. Anybody can do countervandalism, even somebody as blunt as me. However, which administrator is going to be able to mediate a heated conflict that is going in a chemistry article? Being an administrator is much more than just preventing vandalism. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

   Candidates become administrators based on the activities that they intend to commit to. It's very unreasonable to demand that candidates be able to do something that they will never be required to, which they have no intention of doing, and according to an arbitrary benchmark that holds scarcely any relationship with reality. Again, I'd urge you to reconsider this. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

   By the way, are you aware that between the ~3200 mainspace edits Jusjih has on the English Wikipedia and the ten thousand edits on the Chinese Wikipedia, they have almost three times your minimum requirement? Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

   Mediating conflicts is also a rather unfortunate example of what admins have to be able to do, as it has nothing to do with adminship and doesn't in any way require the buttons. Incidentally, I can't agree with Hoopydink about "tactlessness". If somebody opposes based on adminship criteria that s/he created 6 minutes earlier, I think that's an interesting fact that deserves pointiing out (I for one wouldn't have noticed it otherwise). There has to be a limit to tact. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

2. Oppose I am deeply disturbed that Jusjih considers Chinese law in his consideration of what is appropriate on Wikipedia. Tnfiddler 03:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   User's 13th edit. 9 of which were in RfAs.--Konst.able^Talk 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   "Jusjih considers Chinese law in his consideration of what is appropriate on Wikipedia." This is totally wrong. I was answering DS's concern about what might happen to a mainlander who became an admin. I have never considered Chinese law of what is appropriate on Wikipedia. If I were thinking in this way why would I use Wiki sites or even bother becoming an admin at seven sites?--Jusjih 13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

   I believe Tnfiddler was referring to your answer to question five, not DS's discussion point. Regardless, it's kind of a silly reason to oppose, since admins should be aware of Chinese law when making decisions on the Chinese Wikipedia as per your example, just as I'd expect editors of the English-language Wikipedia to have at least a basic awareness of what is appropriate under US/EU/AUS law. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

   First, I hope I'm not blowing my RfA/Other ratio, as it seems there's a constable nearby waving his nightstick at a new contributor. How about a substantive comment rather than a subtle user attack? Second, I was referring to question five. It's not just a matter of knowledge of the local law. There appears to be either an excessive concern on censoring and cleaning out all traces of criticism permanently, as the answer goes beyond the stated question of a punitive block. I am concerned about giving the power to delete to someone who wants to not only delete but purge information. I've seen enough government and self-censorship in the USA in recent years. Tnfiddler 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose Changed my vote based on Jusjih's response below. I'm leaving the original text in place "for the record".

   Jusjih has a lot of good points going for him and it appears that this RFA will pass anyway regardless of my vote but I have to say that I had the same reaction (deeply disturbed) as User:Tnfiddler while I was reading the Q&A and before I had even read Tnfiddler's oppose reason. --Richard 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   I would feel a lot more comfortable if User:Jusjih had said "I would block if someone's username violated Wikipedia policy" instead of going into a long discussion about applying Chinese law which I would hope he would not apply to the English Wikipedia. It's not even clear to me that Chinese law should be applied to the Chinese Wikipedia let alone to the English Wikipedia.

   I really urge supporters to re-read and re-evaluate Jusjih's answer to question #5. It strikes me as a "Chinese (PRC) mindset" that smacks of censorship. As an American-born Chinese (yeah, OK, Taiwanese), this sort of mentality deeply troubles me. It probably won't really affect Jusjih's performance as an admin but we shouldn't let it slide without comment and we shouldn't slough off Tnfiddler's comments just because he is a new user. Check out my contribs. I'm not as experienced as some of you but I'm not exactly a new user either. --Richard 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   I just read the Discussion section where Jusjih says "Since I am in the U.S., I can ignore the censorship". This is reassuring. I would change my vote if Jusjih provides further assurances along the lines of "I will not seek to apply Chinese law to the English Wikipedia, especially those that seek to impose censorship on articles or usernames." --Richard 07:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   Of course I will not seek to apply Chinese law to the English Wikipedia while I am in the USA so I can ignore the censorship of Communist China, unlike users especially admins from Communist China. I was to mention too many problem usernames. I hope that you understood my point of view now.--Jusjih 14:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I am changing my vote as I stated. I just want you to understand that quoting WP:BLP is more appropriate than quoting Chinese law. As I stated, Chinese law should not even apply to the Chinese Wikipedia since I believe the servers for the Chinese Wikipedia are in Florida not in China. Just because the PRC has the largest number of Chinese speakers doesn't mean that it has any rights over the Chinese Wikipedia. It does have the right to block websites such as the English and Chinese Wikipedia but that should not drive admins of either the English or the Chinese Wikipedia to execute actions which are driven by Chinese law rather than Wikipedia policies. --Richard 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Jusjih looks to be well qualified having become an admin. I have some residual doubts about the Chinese law issue but since Jusjih has indicated that he will ignore Chinese law, I will take him on his word. --Richard 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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.