Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jiang

Jiang
Withdrawn with (9/11/1) ending 06:13 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jiang is fair, orderly, and often present on Wikipedia. Kingturtle 06:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you and I accept. However, as this nomination is already getting contentious and it appears consensus will not be reached, I ask that this not be extended past the deadline.--Jiang 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing this nomination since it is obvious, without even simple majority in my favor, that this will not pass. I thank all those who supported me and will take complaints about my behavior into consideration. --Jiang 06:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Although I don't see eye-to-eye on him on certain issues, I think he's been a very level-headed contributor, willing to explain his reasoning at all times, even on issues that have met resistance.  I think that is an important trait to have in a bureaucrat and I would trust him in this role.  --Umofomia 06:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Fair and orderly. Kingturtle 07:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Seems to be fair.--Jondel 08:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Great editor, makes few mistakes, responds promptly to inqueries and requests on his talk page. He's capable and deserving of this responsibility. -JCarriker 08:49, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Jiang rocks. Ruty 13:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Has been fair and helpful. Instantnood 19:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) It seems to me that he knows what he's doing and cares about the site. He's many quite a few contributions, too. Steveo2
 * 8) Support I agree with Curps neutral position. However, I've been involved with very polarized disputes with Jiang and always found that discussion would bring us to agreement. I can't, in good faith, oppose this. SchmuckyTheCat 00:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) This is bureaucratship we're voting on. Jiang will only be able to promote successful adminships and nothing else.  -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 03:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Jiang can't make consensus to move articles, and also sometimes complacence. Sometimes I wonder how this person can be one of administrators.Commonsenses 07:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This person appears to be rather partial and abusive in his use of moderating power on articles related to certain kinds of political issues. Hermeneus 07:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Sure thing. He abused his adminship on the 'Move and redirect war' between Liancourt Rocks and Dokdo w/o any consensus. Ypacaraí 07:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I've checked the conflict related to Liancourt Rocks and Dokdo. I think his doing is sometimes out of NPOV, when it is about china or japan, political/historical pages. Poo-T 11:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Netoholic @ 15:14, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * please provide reasons. Kingturtle 16:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) PedanticallySpeaking 18:38, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Jiang and I have had runins before, but I was not going to vote on this, but the Liancourt Rocks business shows me that he doesn't have the makeup necessary for such a position. RickK 21:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose He doesn't deal with a sensitive issue carefully.--Snow steed 02:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Can't expect him to be a caraful sysop. Okc 20:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. A bureaucrat should have basically unanimous trust and support from the community, at an even much higher level than for that of administrator, and the level of community resistance here is already too high.  -- M P er el ( talk 01:47, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose as I've seen how he dealt with sensitive issue in Liancourt Rocks revert war, although I am pro to his view in this case. --Puzzlet Chung 03:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Jiang is sometimes in the thick of various debates on Chinese-related pages.  I've found him rather stubborn at times. -- Curps 06:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think I owe everyone an explanation regarding the Liancourt Rocks dispute. Looking at Talk:Liancourt Rocks, I was urged and persudaded by Xiaopo that moving the page would be a good idea, and proceeded to do so. Reviewing the page again, I realize that consensus was not fully reached and I should not have moved the page. I apologize for this error. However, in the days that ensued, a number of users decided not to engage in any discussion, but to move the page at will. Since they could not override the redirect at the original page location, they tried all kinds of permuations, including [Liancourt rocks], [Liancourt rock], [Liancourt Rock], and [Liancourt Islands]. There were also several attempts to move the article through copy and pasting. I asked Commonsenses, the main perpetrator, to stop doing this. I could have done a better job communicating here, but having a bunch of users moving the page to random places did not encourage me otherwise. Why didn't they just post on the talk page, asking that it be moved back, like what Feigenbaum has done? It looks like the consensus now is for moving it back and I will respect the consensus position. --Jiang 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite true. While I remarked to Jiang that the page ought to be moved (which I strongly felt and still feel), I wasn't suggesting that he move it himself -- I had in mind starting a Request to Move, actually. I can appreciate how Jiang might not have caught my full meaning, so I apologize for the ambiguity. As far as he misunderstood me, I'm probably at fault. --Xiaopo &#8465; 03:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Xiaopo, could you tell me when and where did you remarked it to Jiang? I could not find it from your histry of contribution.  I just want to know what happend actually.  It is useful for all of us to know why Jiang misunderstood the situation because we can avoid the same mistake.  --Corruptresearcher 11:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we couldn't move back the article to proper location, because you added cheap trick to the redirect page. You could, because you  dared to abuse your adminship. --Ypacaraí 05:16, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * adding the "cheap trick" was no abuse of adminship. I admit it was quite "cheap" and I did it so people who objected would complain instead of engage in a move war with me. Unforuntately, this didn't happen. But how could Commonsenses doing to same thing if this were an abuse of adminship?--Jiang 08:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Abuse of adminship I memtioned isn't that trick. Is your deletions of redirect page Dokdo that had edition history.  Without privilege of admin you couldn't delete or move 'Liancourt Rocks' over Dokdo without consensus.  So I think you aren't worthy of such privileges.  You aren't worthy of neither bureaucratship nor adminship. --Ypacaraí 09:26, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * You're asking me? I just did exactly what you done. You are so far from NPOV. How many times did you delete "Dokdo" to move "Liancourt Rock" without making any consensus? I confirm that three times for 10days, at least. And you DID NOT move discussion of "Liancourt Rock". And you also DID NOT move discussion everytime you moved "Liancourt Rock". You just ignore all discussion. And you edited to redirect page to prevent move it back. Stop your poor excuse. That's nonsense. Commonsenses 07:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles are NPOV. Users cannot be NPOV. Your response about the inability to move the article back was to create a new obscure name for the page? That was a violation of consensus. I don't think anyone agrees what the article should be at [Liancourt Islands]. Why didn't you just protest on the talk page asking the article to be moved back? What I did wasn't right, but your actions were no less tolerable. I did move the discussion but I archived it. Did you have trouble following the link to the archive? --Jiang 08:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * NO, that's not true, Jiang. You DID NOT move nor archived discussion. Beacause I made the archive page there is no way to show it. You ignored dissussion page everytimes you delete and move page. I(or someone, but not you) have to make or link to archive of discussion. Oops, I almost forget about this. I did not create [Liancourt Islands]. Why don't you see the history of that article? Why you tell things not truth? Commonsenses 09:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Here I linked to the archived discussion: . The history is destroyed by the move. I have 18:02, 24 Apr 2005 Jiang (Liancourt Islands moved to Dokdo). I had to move it back to Dokdo because you moved it to Liancourt Islands to avoid the page history at Liancourt Rocks. --Jiang 06:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, Firstable you admitted that you DID NOT MAKE any archives. It's the result. And you linked. Yes, that is the only one case you linked. Rare exception. You deleted and moved three times, and linked once. OK. It's the result, too. And you still accuse me with a false accusation(sigh). OK, nobody can't see a history of [Liancourt Islands] now. Because of someone's thoughtless delete and move. This is the reason why you are not person deserve to be an bureaucrat or administrator. Everything you blame are things you cause. Commonsenses 07:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion page was moved each time the article was moved. I really don't understand what you mean. The repeated use of three word fragments as sentences make your posts hard to comprehend. I'm sorry, but I can't understand you. I suppose the point is moot so there's no point arguing this further. When Dokdo was moved to [Liancourt Islands], the history previously at [Dokdo] was moved there as well. When I moved it back, the history was moved back as well and what remained (by means of the software), was a redirect to Dokdo. I did not delete any useful page histories. The move function automatically preserves the page histories. What is overriden are redirects... --Jiang 07:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, but I can't understand you, eighter. You still tell a thing not truth. If you really want to say that I created [Liancourt Islands], then prove it. I can't understand why the person like you can be an adminstrator.Commonsenses 09:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, Ruty, I've checked your contributions. Did you create your account just for the voting? Poo-T 05:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, since the nomination comes from an existing bureaucrat, is there a need for more bureaucrats at this time? I had the impression that there are plenty already to handle the existing load, and how many keepers of the keys do we really need?  And if there are some who are not pulling their weight (I don't know that this is the case, just hypothetically), should there be a term limit for bureaucrat? I would especially like to hear from current bureaucrats, including Kingturtle who made the nomination, on this question.  Perhaps this is too general a question and it would be better to discuss it on the talk page or somewhere else in order to not clog up Jiang's nomination. -- M P er el ( talk 01:47, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any limits on how many bureaucrats there should be. Kingturtle 03:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Policy is silent on how many bureaucrats there should be, but there is plenty of precedent for what editors are looking for in a bureaucrat. Up until now the practice has been for those seeking bureaucrat status to put themselves forth, aware of the bar to be hurdled, not be nominated. Can you give us any insight as to why you have been soliciting bureaucrats at this particular time? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware of no such silent policies. I felt it would be nice to have more bureaucrats, so I asked around to people I thought would want to participate. Kingturtle 03:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Silent policies? What does that mean? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood. you said "Policy is silent" which I read as that there is a policy, but it is unwritten. Maybe you meant that there is no policy? Kingturtle 03:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, "policy is silent" means "policy says nothing about this" meaning there is no policy. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A. Yes I have. I participated in some of them a few months back. Promotion is based on consensus. Of course, "consensus" here is defined as roughly 80% support. When the support is near 80%, then votes by potential sockpuppets and the overall discussion for or against are taken into greater importance.
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A. I don't plan to deal with contentious nominations. If it's too close to call, then I won't do anything.
 * 3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in he community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A. I have been here since April 12, 2003 and have 33543 total edits. I was made an administrator in July 2003. As of April 27, 2005, I am ranked 18th by number of edits.