Requests for comment/Oppression in zh wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.

RFC statement


In zh:wikipedia. We have opened a vote to requests for de-adminship of Mr shizhao. However, other administors closed the vote and announced it void. Their reason is "not enough communicate with the administor who is requested for de-adminiship. After the 5th action, Mr shizhao has made a statement for this matter, and has refused for any further communication due to personal reason(He claimed). We have to take 6th action. I think the 6th action is reasonable and unavoidable. However, another administors prevented it again. Here are two voting pages: fifth request for de-adminiship sixth request for de -adminiship, and regarding communication with the administor who is requested for de-adminiship. I am sorry all pages are in chinese. We are sufferring oppression by administors in zh:Wikipedia. Therefore, I have to find assistance in Meta Wiki. We have reasonable reason to de-adminship him. and the votes should not be closed and announced void. People can oppose to the de-adminiship action during the vote, but should not prevent the vote.
We argue whether the administor has power to close and announced void to this vote, according to his/her personal judgement
--Coekon 08:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resons for Request for De-adminship and responses by Shizhao

  1. Shizhao moved a page w:zh:Google Chrome to w:zh:Google Chrome 浏览器 on 9th March while the article was on full protection. The action caused some dispute regarding the naming of this article. He reverted it after a day or so. On 27 April he again edited the AdvancedSiteNotices template which caused some dispute in the Village Pump.
    • When the RFDA request was brought out, his response was that the protection was due to vandalism, he thought it has nothing to do with naming dispute. He recognised that his understanding about the policy might be wrong. Regarding the Site Notices template, he stated that the content he had removed was added without any discussion anyway.
  2. On 14th April he speedy deleted 6 articles, all BLP articles that are already on RFA discussion. In each case the article received 1~3 comments for deletion and none against. He later speedy deleted these articles while they are not tagged with {{delete}}. The policy stated that any page must be tagged before they can be speedy deleted.
    • His response was that he though it has been a tradition that a RFA discussion can be closed in advance, though not backed up by any policies or guidelines. He stated that the 6 articles he deleted was all simple introduction about the people. Some are hoax or blatant violation of BLP. He agreed that he will leave it alone and he will not delete such articles in advance in the future.
  3. It was a result of the RFD discussion to delete w:zh:Template:Medical (which says that the content on Wikipedia is not in any form medical advice) and other similar templates. He was accused of making a RFD decision in which he actively participated in.
    • This is not true since the templates were deleted by another sysop. He was just helping close the RFD discussion. However his action caused another problem.
      • I don't know what kind of problem Ben is referring to, but the consensus at that time favored the deletion so Shizhao activated his bot to remove the transclusion from over 1000 articles after the other sysop's deletion. Even though the pro-recall members questioned the deletion of the disclaimer template and eventually restored it, it really isn't Shizhao's fault that they didn't participate in the initial deletion discussion which ultimately justified the bot removal of the template from the articles. -- Sameboat (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. He used his w:zh:User:sz-iwbot which has a local bot flag to remove more than 1000 transclusions of the templates that have been deleted to avoid red links. He also operate another account, w:zh:User:talkindexbot, which is a bot for discussion indexing but never request for approval. It is argued that the bot policy (we use translated standard Bot policy ) stated all bots should be approved before operation, and that he used his bot to do additional tasks before presenting it on the relevant talk pages because it causes massive dispute.
    • His response was that he thought there is no need for w:zh:User:talkindexbot to acquire bot flag so he did not send it for approval, and it has never been the case where a bot need to make new requests when they wish to do additional tasks. As for the template, the use of bot itself was not controversial, because at that time the templates are deleted and it was to remove all the red links.
      • His usage of bot has been controversial as w:zh:User:Πrate argued with him in early 2010. It is due to different understanding of the policy. It never stated that new tasks need to be approved. The source of the dispute is very clear. However none bring forward and discussion regarding the bot policy in 2010 when this problem surfaced.
  5. In May, Shizhao blocked w:zh:User:Codename_Protector (already renamed to w:zh:User:Codename Amnesty) for a month, reason being 'disruptive, troll, disturbing the village pump and the operation of the community'. However it is argued that he blocked someone opposing him and he block one without warning. The block was lifted by another admin after Codename Protector appealed. But User:Wing later blocked him for a year, reason is 'attacking others and trolling.'. Shizhao also blocked User:At7002 for a month with the reason 'being disruptive'.--Bencmq 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • About user:At7002, during the checkuser progress of user:Luke7956 for severe abuse of sockpuppets, user:Ruslik0 voluntarily reported that At7002 is very likely one of those and I urged Shizhao to block At7002 indefinitely, which was executed by user:T.A Shirakawa. Procedurally the block is perfectly fine. Until other users proved that At7002 is not Luke7956's puppet via other means, Shizhao reduced the block to 1 month for insult to other editors on 1 controversial biographical article zh:朱學恒 discussion page and used it as his personal forum/blog to spread the negative info and his thoughts which is nearly unhelpful to improve the article due to original research and NPOV policies. While the pro-recall side opposes the block because both users were not fore-warned about the block, but the warning is in fact not obligatory as per local block policy. -- Sameboat (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for de-sysop page



  • "Not enough communication" is not the only reason of closures of both requests, there's also "the reasons given are not reasonable". Shizhao's statement is also supported or at the very least, still being discussed. And I must say, Shizhao is always in charge of the most annoying tasks which often draw misunderstanding from newbies, it's not his fault. But once the voting process has started, it is very likely that many newbies who has dealt with Shizhao on operational affairs like NfD or worse, block, will vote on supporting the de-adminship out of rage. The vote is also unfair that one user is canvassing in his personal BLOG and tell his readers to quickly register new account and edit as much as possible to pass the voting threshold just for voting on de-adminship. Voting itself is of course against the Wikipedia is not a democracy policy, so admin has the right and obligation to approve the de-adminship vote with extra care to ensure it is not abused. -- Sameboat (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is nobody who can judge "the reasons given are not reasonable" in this case. I also think the communication was enough. Both pro and con still insist on their own point of view and no conclusion can be drawn. So it is proper to go to vote. --百楽兎 09:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment If Sameboat doubt somebody encourages people to support the de-adminiship action in his/her blog, do you have confident to ensure there is not anybody doing the same thing to oppose the action? It is definitely fair. For the argument whether reasons are reasonable to take de-adminiship action. I think if they are reasonable, most people will support, othervise they will not. You cannot make a personal judgement to claim reasons are unreasonable, and the vote must be stop. After the 5th action, Mr shizhao has made a statement for this matter, and has refused for any further communication for it. The 6th action should be taken ande should not be prevented.--Coekon 09:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly that shizhao HAD make respond for it.He left just for a wiki vocation.It seems that Coekon keep on its misunderstanding and his endness "vote" will.-Edouardlicn 10:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he had. However, his respond is just his defence, and the matter cannot be solved, and he refused make any further respond due to his personal reason (Just he claimed). Hence, 6th action should be taken--Coekon 10:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the voting process proceeds anyway, commenting during the vote is unfair because we got solid evidence (in fact the user admits it because he thinks canvassing isn't a zh.wp policy yet) that the pro-recall side does canvass their acquaintances (without frequent contribution to Wikipedia) to join the poll via unjust mean. If you see someone opposite does the same thing and have any proof he is any active WP user, please bring him out. In any case the recall poll is unjust from the very beginning. -- Sameboat (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Even those who make the first vote said that the the evidences had some problem.Anyone who take part in it should check those evidences.What is worse,Some people above had NO respone to those doubt AND make vote AGAIN & AGAIN. -Edouardlicn 10:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He has said, In the last sentence of his statement, he claimed that I afraid cannot make further respond. --Coekon 10:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has the contrary meaning that we can cease the poll because the discussion ends, if you think it has actually ended. -- Sameboat (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Question: Coekon, you wrote above: We have reasonable reason to de-adminship him. Which are these reasons? Please explain in detail, otherwise nobody except for the users from zhwiki can understand your point here. --თოგო (D) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment - Urging this de-adminship vote on Shizhao is analogous to urging a murder trial on those US SEALs (or perhaps also Predsident Obama) just because they shot an unarmed Osama bin Laden. Obviously the urge for de-adminship is unreasonable.
A similar voting in 2010 had been disturbed by a lot of "vote flash mobs" from Hong Kong, who were inactive accounts, attracted to the voting probably by extensive off-wiki canvassing and personal attacks against Shizhao. The final result showed that most opposers to Shizhao come from Hong Kong, while most voters from the mainland China and Taiwan still supported Shizhao. --Mewaqua 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the 2010 vote, about 90% of those voters who had made 10000 edits or more supported Shizhao. --Mewaqua 12:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • your example is not Appropriate. Osama bin Laden was killed when he was unarmed. but shizhao can defence himself and his fellow can vote and oppose the de-adminiship action. Unfortunately, his fellow just prevented the vote to defense Shizhao. --Coekon 12:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. I have translated the reasons:
  • deletedzh:虞金龙zh:潘信安 and zh:林高正 rapidly for the reason is "they are likely not a famous person" inWikipedia:Articles for deletion. However in Chinese Wikipedia, the rules give power to administors to rapid delete just when articles are tagged "rapid delete tempalte". In this case artcles were tagged "rapid delete tempalte" and were deleted without any discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The actions just based on adminstor's personal decision. These actions are not permitted in Chinese wikipedia. Articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion must be deleted after discussion.same things happened in zh:温奕颉zh:陈承昌zh:莫浩平.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
  • zh:User:Codename Amnesty was block by this administor for one month, because zh:User:Codename Amnesty posted a sentence (there is not any impolite word in this sentence. the meaning of this sentence is do you think you are the best in the wikipedia?) to against this administor in the forum. This adminstor used "Troll" as a reason. The raw page is here. The similar case happend in a poor user At7002--Coekon 12:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same account (Codename Protector) was also once blocked by User:Wing (Chair of the Board of Trustees) in June 2011 for trolling, would you also urging a de-adminship voting on User:Wing in zhwp? --Mewaqua 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the same account was block in different cases. For example, a person was fined twice for theft. however, he didnt do anything wrong. he just thefted 10 days later and was fined. do you think he was guilty in first time?--Coekon 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is irrelevant, they both applied the same reason of trolling, as Wing possesses greater privilege than Shizhao, you should challenge Wing first, not Shizhao. -- Sameboat (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, there's the thing. RfC is for outside input to help solving the dispute. Not another place for the same group of wikipedians to argue about the same issue over and over again. --Bencmq 13:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely right. I came to here to seek external assiatance to solve this matter.Now, local persons are arguing with me externally. It makes RFC non-sense.--Coekon 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about other issues, but for the block of w:zh:User:Codename_Protector, it's not because he's attacking shizhao. This user has had been disturbing normal disscussion of other users (at that time around 1/3 of the village pump were filled with his words). He kept posting "protests" against the block of zh:User:Luke7956 (a Taiwanese user who's been blocked permanently on zh-wiki because of abusing with sockpuppets, violating en:WP:3RR and terrible personal attacks on others users) on zh:VPM. In addition, he was even trying to disrupt CUs (see [1]), by calling zh:User:Luke7956 a "good-faith user". As what he did was obviously harmful trolling, I couldn't see why he shouldn't be blocked. Therefore it's clearly not an appropriate reason for supporting your "oppression theory". All in all, my advice to Mr. Coekon is that you should know more about what happened before you make any comments. --Jsjsjs1111 20:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all practicing English?


OK. I'm fed up with it. All the above, there's ONLY 2 users, as far as I know, is not active in zhwiki. Moreover, one of them is "I like Hong Kong", who seems to be a Chinese user. In this case, there's no need to discuss and ask for comments in meta. All the users should go back to discuss in zhwiki. --DS-fax 15:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

散了散了,各回各家,各找各妈。--PhiLiP 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond my comprehension why this annoying farce was posted on meta. Actually, it is perplexing enough on Chinese Wikipedia. On these behaviors, they has been same with a troll. --Ciel AzuréTalk 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems only participants from zh.wikipedia deliver their voices and opinions: just a change of podium from zh.wikipedia to here. -- Ktsquare 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suggest to close this RfC on meta and go back to zh.wp for discussion.--Ted Chien 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be explicit of which part of my words that you agree with: 1) participants from zh.wikipedia or 2) change of podium from zh.wikipedia to here. Is the whole scenario more of a joke if all participants "just go back" abruptly ? -- Ktsquare 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks it will be the best international joke. Let us go back zh.wp.--Ch.Andrew 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this terrible farce could express one thing appositely: The conducts of these users in Chinese Wikipedia are generally immature . What they fervent to do is making things very famous on resembling monkeys' business! As a word derived from 《戰國策·齊策一》: "People must have self-sense". What they have done is exactly self-nonsense, and creating ridiculous figures of themselves. After all, let the play end up. --Ciel AzuréTalk 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am unsure of quoting a line from zhanguoce is an accurate reflection of the issue on hand, would it make sense to translate the opinions from other side of the "oppression" and let the reader decide ? -- Ktsquare 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are have privileges more than others users ,so they have to accept the public inspect they have right. A lot of reviews are to prevent abuse of a monitoring mechanism for the administrator. Administrator if they want to have their power, they would be running administrator, and now even the discussion of proposed actions of administrators are siege, the future probably will no anybody dare to propose removal of the administrator of the user.

The comments about administrators be removal by members of the evil party of Wiki who appear on Chinese Wiki, but has been disrupted in the name of a certain administrator to forcibly remove, if the above statement is not true, why so scared?, Probably for fear of being asked about their view of the abuses by the public it!, really trying to hide something.

So I support Coekon.

follow up


I and 百楽兎 had been Blocked from zh-wp indefinitely without any zh-policy support this kind block, 百楽兎 have more than 30000 times edits and I have more than 10000 times edits 31 DYKs and I don't have any block history before, no any waring before the blocks. Wing says he block us for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. All such blocks happened before the de-sysop vote of shizhao, and all of us support to de-sysop. Since now it's 23 Support Supports to de-sysop vs 12 Oppose Opposes, althought 百楽兎 can not vote for the block.Sysywjel 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one block you is user:Wing, not Shizhao. Unless you can prove that Wing conspires with Shizhao, I don't see it has anything to do with your block. -- Sameboat (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close this discussion


So far, for 2 weeks we see almost zero input from wikimedians outside the zhwiki community. I do not think this RfC is going to take us to anywhere. Let the local community resolve this issue, or reopen discussion if there is some new development in the situation. --Bencmq 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]