Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Zhxy 519, Jusjih and Chinese Wikisource

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is currently under investigation. The U4C is reviewing the submitted evidence and exploring possible solutions. Evidence can be submitted before 2025-05-31.
Parties
Parties Notifications
GZWDer (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Zhxy 519 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) s:zh:Special:Diff/2548762
Jusjih (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) s:zh:Special:Diff/2548763

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 GZWDer (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GZWDer

[edit]

Description of the problem - (GZWDer)

[edit]

For a long time, Zhxy 519 and Jusjih accused each other for abusing admin privilege and third party user also alleged these two users for abusing admin privilege (for Jusjih, accusation also include this user's behavior in other wiki). See "previous discussion" section for detail of alleged admin privilege misuse.

Note I personally have little comment on these two users. I just transfer others' allegations here. The only opinion of mine is this is clearly an issue that can not be resolved locally (in Chinese Wikisource).

Previous attempts at a solution - (GZWDer)

[edit]

Meta-Wiki discussion:

Chinese Wikisource:

Suggested solutions - (GZWDer)

[edit]

Zhxy 519 and Jusjih may be desysoped from some certain wikis. Currently Zhxy 519 only has adminship in Chinese Wikisource, but Jusjih is an admin in 13 wikis (including Meta).

Zhxy 519

[edit]

Previous attempts at a solution - Zhxy 519

[edit]

I created Requests for comment/De-adminship for Jusjih in certain projects and s:zh:Wikisource:写字间/存档/2023#提議罷免User:Jusjih管理員. I have never counterattcked until I have reached the end of my patience. --Zhxy 519 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just found in 2022, User:Assifbus promised to be the mediator and I agreed to not to counterattack to them. However, Assifbus had no intention nor capable to keep their promise when Jusjih restarted the conflict. So it didn't work well.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Zhxy 519

[edit]

I'm busy in my life and found it painful to response every time when Jusjih started to making troubles. I won't say I can forgive Jusjih, but if Jusjih promise to stop invoking, I won't mention them. It doesn't mean that I'll ignore all their unreasonable actions or pages in any wiki project, but they shouldn't be linked as relevant issues.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As @Gzdavidwong suggested, I agree to respond to @User:0xDeadbeef here. I agree to not to close potential rfdas based on good faith, well-organized rules like this draft and supervision. I never closed, nor will close rfda just because "I believe", but as community noted they are malicious or forced in advance. Zhxy 519 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jusjih

[edit]

Previous attempts at a solution - Jusjih

[edit]

On Chinese Wikisource:

Zhxy 519 also tampered with my faithful edit in a local voting per https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?diff=2364915 , which would trigger a threat at https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jusjih&diff=prev&oldid=2364918 , to be reminded by a witness per https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?diff=2365393 as abusive. This would look like a theft of election.

These listed by GZWDer above would also try to remove @Gzdavidwong: from adminship on Chinese Wikisource, but unilaterally reverted by Zhxy 519 to shelter both of them:

  • [3] (third RFDA for Zhxy 519 in 2022; removed without archival)
  • [4] (fourth RFDA for Zhxy 519 in 2023; removed without archival)

On Meta, Zhxy 519 also stalked me several times, to name a few from Special:Contributions/Zhxy_519:

On Old Wikisource:

Zhxy 519 per https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Jimbo_Wales_against_attacks_on_userpages&diff=prev&oldid=1024138 and https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions&diff=prev&oldid=1024137 would also stalk me badly like how he stalked me on Meta in 2023 above.--Jusjih (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Jusjih

[edit]

I do not know who GZWDer is. Yet we need the de-adminship of Zhxy 519 and Gzdavidwong on Chinese Wikisource properly reopened and closed while observed by the Coordinating Committee, so if any local administrator sabotages it again, impose an emergency de-adminship per s:zh:Wikisource:管理員的離任#緊急除权 to defuse the conflict. Otherwise, the legitimacy of the adminship of Zhxy 519 and Gzdavidwong will remain too controversial with undue influence. w:zh:User_talk:Gzdavidwong#重要討論 has asked Gzdavidwong to the Chinese Wikisource Scriptorium pointing to this page.--Jusjih (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also s:zh:User:Hat600 with a bilingual announcement so if both Zhxy 519 and I cease to be administrators on Chinese Wikisource, @Hat600: will also resign to defuse the conflict. I agree to Hat600. Yet Zhxy 519 is the main issue.--Jusjih (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

[edit]

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

  • Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (12.179.208.50)

[edit]

@Ajraddatz, Superpes15, I would like to share my opinions.

If you say only ongoing issues should be discussed, I would say it is ongoing: Jusjih is bullying by never forgive and forget. The reason why GZWDer raised this at this moment is because Jusjih raised this topic again in April 2025, and GZWDer hasn't showed you that in 2024, Jusjih did it too which means that Jusjih keeps this boring game annually. They plays like Donald Trump: they may not abusing their permissions directly, but abusing their authorities to force others to follow them.

Notes:

  1. Zhxy_519 never started attacking first, only riposte.
  2. Jusjih is collecting MEATs in Chinese Wikisource publicly right now. They called GZWDer "meritorious" (Although I don't think GZWDer is a relevant party), and others who were once blocked by Zhxy_519.
  3. Jusjih interfered Zhxy_519's normal activities in other wiki projects, using Chinese Wikisource issues during this ongoing process.

Even ignoring what the real controversy between the two users, I believe Jusjih is Harassing. I totally agree that Forgive and Forget is important, but my question is: Are you going to ask both side to obey it? If it is not mandatory, what will you do when Jusjih start to harassing again?

Thank you.--12.179.208.50 15:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please beware of IP sockpuppeter involved in this case in support of Zhxy_519. Last time it was 5.157.51.66. It was globally blocked. Midleading (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15, as

  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links,

above Midleading message should be removed. And also does 0xDeadbeef below have the permission to talk with an other one? I understand U4C members might want to confirm with the talkers, but 0xDeadbeef is giving opinions rather than confirming.

I don't care if Midleading doubts about my identity in their own section. But to support or dislike someone with evidence is a right. You're welcome to criticize my mistakes, instead of just doubting identities. I can tell you that I was a victim of WMC, most of whose members are processed in OA 2021. While all other admins (except Shizhao who was never involved) had opposed Jusjih but only Midleading never, Midleading is a suspicious WMC sympathizer to me.--12.179.208.50 16:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Ericliu1912)

[edit]

The local community has been jammed by the issue for years (especially at the administrative co-operation level), so it'd be quite appreciated for the Coordinating Committee to take a fresh look at it, though I also wonder if the Committee really has jurisdiction over the issue. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 00:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also, there is a community-initiated global RfC currently still around (though basically stalled), so I suggest the Committee take that into account too. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 09:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, I think Zhxy 519's self-removal of two dubious de-adminship vote attempts initiated by Jusjih (which were basically copy-pasted essay of their opinion) should count as a part of collective failure of the Chinese Wikisource community to meaningfully solve the overall conflict between them, rather than actual initative to pursuit justice from Jusjih, or certain rogue behaviour of Zhxy 519. In reality, those votes serving as the administrative vehicle for personal argument were no different than the countless filibusters in the local Village Pump at that point. I would go as far as to say those vote attempts are partisan measures for gaming the local ststem, as oppose to both sides setting the issue straight before proper Village Pump discussions, thus lacking legitmacy of being true community decisions after all. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 10:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd like to see evidence of why you believe Zhxy 519 reverting de-adminship vote attempts is seen as a collective failure rather than an individual wrongdoing. Additionally, perhaps it would be helpful to justify why you considered it dubious. (I'd personally argue that even if dubious, under no circumstances should an admin remove any de-adminship request started against them, and in this case it looks like Jusjih properly followed the process)
partisan measures for gaming the local ststem - how? Are you suggesting that everyone who wants to remove Zhxy 519 as an admin is coordinating with each other? I'd need a lot of evidence for that. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that You understand Chinese, so let me speak in it to be a bit more clearly.
我的意思是，最近幾年本站（中文維基文庫）時常發生的情況，是Jusjih在寫字間（互助客棧）提案控訴Zhxy 519如何如何（有時把Gzdavidwong也拉下水），然後社群討論都沒有到底（這種討論顯然難有共識），他就自行提起解任投票，指控Zhxy 519「濫權」、「缺乏溝通」，然後被Zhxy 519以「濫提解任」為由予以回退，甚至封鎖。這種討論每過幾個月或幾年就輪迴一次，而且舊帳越加越多，導致無人能釐清究竟是Jusjih說得對（Zhxy 519濫權），還是Zhxy 519有道理（Jusjih濫提解任投票）。而且本地也不是沒有過他倆相關的管理員解任投票，但每次新提解任投票，理當結案的舊證據仍然會用上（例如Jusjih第三次提出Zhxy 519解任，理由有一半跟前兩次有關），這樣肯定沒完沒了啊。
更糟糕的是雙方都有濫用「管理員解任指引」（這指引可以說是Jusjih自己提出來用的，不過有經社群表決通過，是中文維基文庫的正式政策）的嫌疑，例如Jusjih認為Zhxy 519「溝通無效」所以提起解任投票，而Zhxy 519用「蓄意濫提解任案者，可能遭反坐」來反加制裁，封鎖Jusjih。雖說Midleading主張Zhxy 519如此操作是遊戲規則，但Jusjih這邊也大有五十步笑百步的疑慮，例如他提出解任的理由，除了一些可能的濫權操作（這部分比較合理），竟然還有「查找Zhxy 519的留言，『你』字太多」、「〔Gzdavidwong〕明顯太支持Zhxy 519，太反對在下」⋯⋯湊理由湊得太離譜，讓人懷疑他提出解任的本意。我說的「dubious」及「partisan measures」主要是指這些情況。所謂「partisan」，具體而言其實完全可以明確是Zhxy 519跟Jusjih兩個人的問題，其他人都要給他們站隊。事到那時，兩人爭執的起源（也就是檢討到底解任本身是否合理）已經不是重點，就是一直在翻舊帳，根本解不開死結。在我看來，前兩次解任投票勉強還在本地社群控制下，此後幾次解任投票就失去真正討論個別管理員是否失職的意義了。我要誠實地說，這已經複雜到我也不知道到底他倆的關係怎麼壞到這個地步。中文維基文庫沒有互動禁制政策，不過是雪上加霜。
我個人的意見如前述，Zhxy 519程序上比較站不住腳（尤其是封鎖Jusjih時沒有避嫌，是一大扣分），但這歸根究底是因為維基文庫社群始終沒有辦法討論出解決方案（他倆自己提的方案，對方如何同意？其他人淌混水，也泰半沒有結果），祇能放任他們「自行開打」。我不想袒護Zhxy 519，若社群再次發起解任投票，他不應該自行關閉（前提是解任投票理據正當）；但是Jusjih在這事情上也並非清白，他時不時的辯難及追纏行為讓事件加劇而難以結束（可以注意到每次討論都是他開頭的，且這類言論並不是孤例，請見某年監管員選舉；其他跨維基騷擾則暫且按下不論），差別在於，他懂得謹慎在規則框架內活動，而Zhxy 519有時便不那麼冷靜，顯得記錄在案的錯誤全在他那邊。
中文維基文庫社群似乎不是沒試過向外求援，但監管員曾經建議由本地社群自行處理Jusjih跟Zhxy 519兩人的解任案，於是最後還是回到本地，死路一條。所以為什麼當初Zhxy 519要親自封鎖Jusjih？他難道不知道要避嫌嗎？顯然不是，而「無人能管所以我要自己出手」似乎也是原因之一——目前，本地所有管理員，除了比較不活躍的Shizhao以外，都不免涉入他們兩人的爭執（包含我；不過他們吵得最激烈的時候，我還不是管理員），難以脫身。雖然日常站務仍能運作，但每當他們吵架，社群必須奉陪，就又是幾百條沒有結果的留言。所以我說這是「collective failure」。
或許委員會確實應該受理此案，在遠離中文維基文庫的清淨地方討論。我唯一的擔憂，是委員會懂中文（乃至於以中文為母語）的人太少，難以充分理解他們冗長爭吵的內涵。—— Eric Liu（Talk） 13:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Liuxinyu970226)

[edit]

Your honour, one of the RFCs above was created by someone listed above, via their en.wikipedia sandbox, that later pointed by other enwiki contributors as attack page: w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#m:Requests_for_comment/Global_de-adminship_for_Jusjih, and hence I carefully read that "sandbox", hence of hence I filed w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zhxy 519/sandbox, IIRC the creator only knows how to "empty" the page, with even the MFD tag removed, I later warned that user to not do so anymore, I don't know how to try my best to describe else here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GZWDer and Civvì: Can @Gzdavidwong: be also listed on the "parties" table above, due to large scale matter involving disclosed by Jusjih above? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your honour, with more evidences provided by Midleading, and due to recent Incubator's situation (someone who pointed an IP voter (that voted delete, against that keeper and said "per nom") is "my IP sock", later I checked whatismyip.com, no, I even don't familiar with their IP address as I didn't ever login via that IP address), I'm not sure whether Zhxy 519 is trying to elute their wrong behaviors (even recognized himself) by logged-out editing on somewhat purposes. I'd not love to request a CheckUser, since CU requests between a registered user with certain number of IP address only result Not Done with "Checkuser can't disclose relations between user and IP...". That user always speedy refuse too many suggestions on amendmenting of adminship removal policy/guideline (unless for some suggestions to just match how zh.wikipedia did, e.g. to introduce SecurePoll, ArbCom, Jimmy's tool, etc.), but realllll(65535*l)ly, Wikisource isn't Wikipedia, Wikisource doesn't need to be "an encyclopedia", doesn't need to NPOV, doesn't need to "use, edit, and distribute by everyone", doesn't need to "treat each other with respect and civility", doesn't need to have "no firm rules", in short: doesn't need five pillars. Eventually, that user was blocked by zhwiki for 7 times (2 in 2009 for violating 3RR, 3 in 2011, 2012 and 2014, for insulting, insulting and insulting, last 2 in 2018 for again violating of 3RR in Zhanhaite Event), is this panorama still really "never counterattcked?" Every mention of this history on zhwikisource will likely impose his "4im warning" , by mentioning it second-ly, a user can be blocked quickly with nonsense reasons e.g. "un-political", even that user really politically pointed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef So, as suggested by me above section, can we please add Gzdavidwong on the above Parties table? And also notify that user to participant in this case? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about Gzdavidwong's involvement here. A de-adminship request was started against them, but the removal is done by Zhxy 519 right? We'd need evidence if the conduct of Gzdavidwong also needs to be evaluated. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, for RoyZuo, I'm wondering whether should I submit a CheckUser request to try clarifying their relationships with Roy17? Both are having same talk page protectisms, that both always revert many of other peoples' comments on their talk pages, even though this already caused previous one indef-blocked on enwiki from editing Wikipedia (talk) namespace pages. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Midleading)

[edit]

At first I opposed deadminship of Zhxy_519 in the first round of deadminship voting. However, the second round of deadminship vote held in 2021, which is the last time voting ever took place, passed 11-5 in favour of deadminship. Since then, all deadminship votings against Zhxy_519 are reverted by Zhxy_519 himself with conflicts of interests without voting (evidences are given above), and the reputation of Zhxy_519 in Chinese Wikisource never gained better. Zhxy_519 being able to delete deadminship voting is the reason why this matter requires U4C involvement for these events happened before U4C establishment. Chinese Wikisource urgently needs to be able to hold a fair deadminship voting without the voting page being deleted by the involved administrator. Many members of our community is deeply concerned about the privilege of permanent administrators being without regulations, for example, the User:囍鵲 who changed his signature to "#Kill the zombies in zh.wikisource.org, it's very important.". I suggest such voting could take place in Meta, because Zhxy_519 is not an administrator here, so would be unable to delete the voting page or block people. Midleading (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, we can also passpropose and vote on a motion to temporarily desysop Zhxy 519 if a de-adminship vote was to be opened locally. I personally don't see a need to take a local de-adminship matter to a broad Meta audience. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gzdavidwong, another involved administrator, has only 139 edits since 2020, and 574 totally. Most of these edits were repeating the narrative of Zhxy 519 related to this case, therefore can be considered a party of this case, but being so inactive that he has not commented here. Midleading (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the IP sockpuppet since 5.157.51.66. A list of related IPs are 5.157.51.66, 104.192.5.144, 84.16.238.247 (all blocked) and 12.179.208.50 above. I’m not able to provide a list of all IPs used on Meta because I’m not active here. Zhxy 519 and Gzdavidwong are inside China, however all the IPs used are outside China, and many are confirmed open proxies later, free or paid. So this one is either intentional logged-out editing, or an unregistered user who supports Zhxy 519. The claims made above by this unregistered user related to me are lies. I am not active on Chinese Wikipedia, and WMC is not active on Chinese Wikisource. There doesn’t exist an unregistered contributor on Chinese Wikisource who shares similar viewpoints as this one (my long term observation, can be confirmed by checking the recent changes on Chinese Wikisource for anonymous edits). I never participated in any activities related to WMC before and after OA2021. Jusjih is from Taiwan, not a participant of WMC.

I support following local de-adminship process on Chinese Wikisource. I believe Jusjih has the right to start the de-adminship process whenever he is blocked and pages created by him is deleted and add all the previous blocks as evidence. Jusjih can also restart this process right now. But we all know Zhxy 519 will delete the de-adminship page before voting begins based on history. Therefore, there should be commitment from U4C members that if Jusjih restarted the local de-adminship process, and it is deleted again by Zhxy 519 unilaterally, it can be submitted as evidence of emergency de-adminship in order to allow the process to continue normally. If Jusjih is blocked because he restarted the local de-adminship process, he should be unblocked. Midleading (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the local de-adminship process can be started against any admins, including Zhxy 519, Jusjih and myself, provided that the local de-adminship process is strictly followed to ensure a fair discussion, and once started voting cannot be closed early except when it reached the termination condition defined by the local policy (5 more oppose votes than support votes). Midleading (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (RoyZuo)

[edit]

As far as I can understand:

  1. the whole years-long drama originated in 2020 from this block zh:s:special:redirect/logid/994116 (a block of 1 day against a user, who often made comments that, many users would agree, were hard to understand).
  2. #1 led to this discussion zh:s:Wikisource:管理员/除名存档#c-Patlabor_Ingram-2020-10-15T02:39:00.000Z-User:Zhxy_519.
  3. from then onward, for some unknown reasons, Jusjih just kept repeating the drama against Zhxy_519. Every few months you see they start a new thread. Now it's almost 5 years later.
  4. #3 is so strange, because neither the user blocked in #1 nor the user who started #2 has continued this quarrel since a few years ago, but Jusjih just kept going...
  5. You can also see from the archives zh:s:Wikisource:管理员/除名存档 that Jusjih has escalated this drama to desysop votes in different years, but no one has retaliated against Jusjih.
  6. claims of Zhxy_519's abuse of sysop rights are very doubtful, as you can see the user who started #2 has never been blocked.

My suggestions:

  1. Jusjih should be subject to a vote of confidence in their sysop rights. (Voters should be (1) recently (2) active on zhws.)
  2. Optionally, change all zhws sysops' tenure to a maximum of 6 years. Renewal requires a vote of confidence.

--RoyZuo (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. special:permalink/28565913#Motions this motion is clearly biased.

    It sets a precedent whereby a relentless sysop can succeed at their agenda.

  2. User:0xDeadbeef should recuse from this case since it's clear from the long argument on this page that they only go after one user involved, hence demonstrating bias.
RoyZuo (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These U4C members, as enwp sysops and hence well aware of conventions such as en:Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Repeating_the_same_argument_without_convincing_people, choose to ignore Jusjih's actions (some of which such as zh:s:Wikisource:写字间#c-Jusjih-20250407020700-Zhxy_519-20250406010900 would most likely be treated as trolling if it were on enwp), but they only grill Zhxy_519.
Anyone will not be able to see how their discussion so far and their motion are fair and unbiased, or how "this motion would protect that". RoyZuo (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Gzdavidwong)

[edit]

Firstly, allow me to copy and paste these from Zhxy_519 again, so that they won't be flooded in threads.

Also for Gzdavidwong's block of an IP, in 2023 again in a redundant discussion, the community agreed that Gzdavidwong had no mistake and even Jusjih was accepting that. However, today Jusjih forgot that and still accusing Gzdavidwong. Moreover, Jusjih wrote Gzdavidwong is being wrong because they "support Zhxy_519 too much"(太挺Zhxy 519).

Jusjih threatens all other admins on zh.ws who opposed them. See what they did against Hat600, Gzdavidwong（Please check the link to see what Jusjih did, they started a de-adminship just because they had disagreement) and Ericliu1912.

I deleted Links to avoid errors. I'd like to feedback especially the 2nd paragraph. I'm sorry for Zhxy_519, because Jusjih created this toxic environment, other admins wanted to avoid troubles, so he had little choice. Maybe Hat600 and Ericliu1912, even Midleading were same as me. We couldn't discuss with Jusjih. I hope this toxic environment can be realized by U4C.--Gzdavidwong (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhxy 519 We are all new here, I understand your may get frustrated. But based on the spirit of peace, your relationship with U4C members is important. So, forget that section, and how about respond that @0xDeadbeef's question in your own section? Gzdavidwong (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

[edit]

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

It's the first time that I am directed to such a process. Honestly I have more questions than proposes.

  1. Did GZWDer get any authorization to start this at any time? If no, is this really the correct process?
  2. Civvì claims that U4C has saw this, but as a party, I have no idea that what will be the next steps to face.

Based on my above questions, I want to point that GZWDer started this process without explanation to both parties in advance, and their suggested solutions are just "both parties are to blame in a quarrel". Please someone to provide more information for this process, thank you.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zhy 519, you can find the procedure details at Cases. Ghilt (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, see my above words please.
Again, @GZWDer started this request without joining the discussion nor explanation in advance. However, I won't oppose to let U4C have a further check. Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhxy 519: 你可以提供与任何涉案用户相关的证据。我们会审理所有于此提供的证据。You can provide any evidence against any party listed for this case. We will consider all evidence submitted. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to focus on onging things only, or old things as well? Zhxy 519 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be hard to answer. Speaking for myself, I do try factor in the time that has passed when it comes to evaluating evidence, and I am sure my colleagues do as well. My comment here is based on an impression that Jusjih's felt that due process was not followed. I would want to ensure that due process can and will be followed. Because right now it feels like zhwikisource has the ability for resolving the issue itself, but no one is willing to do anything. Jusjih has mentioned many times about the incident in which you removed a de-adminship request against you. And many times in recent months too.
Based on that, if Jusjih's intention is to have a fair community process followed through, then it would make sense for us (or the Stewards if they agree to) intervene to ensure that the community process does not get obstructed. I'd hope that both of you would be okay with respecting any consensus the community forms through de-adminship process, if that is to be the conclusion for this case. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don‘t mind to talk about old things, it's OK. What I can tell you is "due process was not followed" is an excuse. The reason is inclusive and not limited to:
  1. Jusjih's process to to start a de-adminship is wrong. Since 2021, other admins @Hat600, @Gzdavidwong and @Midleading passed a consensus that Jusjih's forcing the process, not reasonably. What Jusjih's process later started was also abusing invalid communication.
  2. Jusjih starts all process maliciously which is forbidden by local de-adminship process. The evidence is inclusive and not limited to:
    1. As prviously mentioned that Jusjih abused invalid communication.
    2. Jusjih can't wait to de-adminship as soon as a previous local process edition passed.
  3. Jusjih threatens all other admins on zh.ws who opposed them. See what they did against Hat600[5], Gzdavidwong（[6] Please check the link to see what Jusjih did, they started a de-adminship just because they had disagreement) and Ericliu1912 [7]. I'm a victim among them who had little choice, as you are aware that "no one is willing to do anything."
If you read these all, I hope you would agree that no one should just say "You are wrong, admit you're wrong, or I'll get you down" without let the "defendant" to defend for themselves. I understand it is getting too long, but you wish to investigate the source of the controversy, you should know this. Zhxy 519 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by abus[ing] invalid communication. We're also talking about your revert of a de-adminship request started against you on 2023-04-03. That was one year after the new de-adminship guidelines passed. What was your reasoning to remove the request then?
If Jusjih or any other community member would start a request for de-adminship again, would you still remove it? 0xDeadbeef (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another case in point would be what happened in 2022. Per history the new guidelines were passed on 2022-04-21. A de-admin request against Zhxy 519 was posted on 2022-04-28 [8]. During the course of that de-adminship request, Zhxy 519 has removed such de-adminship request three times.
Looking at Jusjih's block log, every time Jusjih started a de-adminship request, they were blocked for upshots of 7 days by Zhxy 519 for 蓄意濫提解任 (maliciously abusing de-adminship requests)
Do you agree with my summary above? 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, there was also a SRP thread during the 2022 issue, but stewards at that time did not act on anything. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef: Thanks for acknowledging the issue. Zhxy 519 created too many controversial blocks listed at s:zh:Wikisource:不合理的封禁/2025年. Trying to locally delete it locally means the conspiracy to destroy the evidence. Hiding wrongly imposed blocks from the public view is possible via adminship. Yet Zhxy 519 reverting my faithful edit to improve an essay would further show that he would like someone forever defamed. I support proposing and voting on a motion to temporarily desysop Zhxy 519 if a de-adminship vote was to be opened locally, due to the preexisting conflicts that he is far more dangerous.--Jusjih (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Like I mentioned, you can't just say "You are wrong, admit you're wrong, or I'll get you down". Asking for a confession instead of discussion is not a communication in good faith, especially when such a request is refuted like in 2021.
  2. For 2022, You shouldn't count that way. The preparation part of a process should be counted, that's why I put that talk link, so 04-21 edition passed then they immediately asked me to confess. Also, I found that Gzdavidwang pointed Jusjih's lie during the preparation part.
  3. For 2023, the proof of maliciously abusing de-adminship requests is here. There you can also found Admin Hat600 and later admin Ericliu1912 agreed that Jusjih was forcing the progress.
  4. No more comment for SRP since no action was taken. I requested a SRP for Jusjih in 2021 as well, but no action taken as well.
Zhxy 519 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: even if many of the issues described in that page is before the adoption of UCoC, it may be considered casting aspersion if the accusations described there are unfounded (which is a current issue). Therefore U4C should also investigate the issues described there.--GZWDer (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your words are authoritative, I hereby accuse Jusjih of casting aspersion.
The page is full of incompatible Chinese and hard to understand. But I'd like to pick some examples. Like for my block of Longway22, Jusjih says I'm Involved, but when? how? Jusjih never pointed nor listen to me.
Also for Gzdavidwong's block of an IP, in 2023 again in a redundant discussion, the community agreed that Gzdavidwong had no mistake and even Jusjih was accepting that. However, today Jusjih forgot that and still accusing Gzdavidwong. Moreover, Jusjih wrote Gzdavidwong is being wrong because they "support Zhxy_519 too much"(太挺Zhxy 519). Zhxy 519 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get back on topic because right now these comments appear to be derailing the thread. Following some links I can see that other people have already written about why they think you are involved. That is directly linked in the page.
You still have not answered my question: What was your reasoning to remove requests to your de-adminship? Let's take a look at 2022.
I'll roughly translate:

Any uninvolved administrator or bureaucrat can only close the de-adminship discussion early when the vote has been open for at least seven days where there are 5+ net opposes to the de-adminship
— De-adminship guideline at that time

Uninvolved administrators can only end the vote early under certain conditions. There is no restriction on involved administrators to end the vote early.
— your comment about the removal

For 2023:

De-adminship requests are a final measure, so votes for de-adminship should only be started when there is a failure to communicate
— guideline

maliciously abusing de-adminship requests
— block reason

abusing invalid communication
— comment above

This doesn't seem like enough justification to me as to why you found it justified to remove both the de-adminship votes. Are you suggesting that there was never a failure to communicate? My reading of the discussion suggests that Jusjih has attempted in many ways to communicate without success.
Before responding to any of the things I wrote above, please answer this question first: In case a de-adminship request is started against you now, by either Jusjih or other community members, would you still do either or both of: remove the de-adminship request unilaterally? block the person who started the de-adminship request? 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As I mentioned, since it is a conflict between Jusjih and me, the issue is Jusjih never pointed nor listen to me, not a third party. And even Jusjih didn't take that as an issue when they started their 1st rfda in 2021. I can also tell you that one is wrong because it mistook in the key action lead to Longway22's block, if my memory is correct.
  2. The reason is simple: you can't deny Jusjih did wrong and as you are aware that no one is willing to do anything, I had no other options then to stop them. I want you to remember that zh.ws is a small wiki project. Since 2021 I had asked help like s:zh:Topic:Wecpdtyy4bkll5a0 and [9], but no one helped. I tried my best like to warn first, then take the final action to follow the etiquette.
  3. In a word, a so-called "communication" started without good faith won't lead to any result, as it is invalid from the first. It's not just to put a message there then saying "Hey I'm communicating to you", nor "You didn't listen to me so I'll kick you away". As above, in 2022 Gzdavidwong pointed out that can't call that a "communication" at all, and Jusjih was lying. Also in 2023, Ericliu1912 and admin Hat600 pointed out, Jusjih forcing the process unilaterally. And Hat600 made an impressive comment: 好像Jusjih是老板而其他人只是Jusjih的雇员。(It seems that Jusjih is the boss, and the others are just their employees.)
  4. As you respect local process, you understand that starting a rfda process is still a result of communication failure (I called invalid communication so far). Jusjih is incapable of conducting a communication in good faith as above mentioned. Instead of answering a further uncertain thing, I suggest your efforts can help supervising and conducting real communication in good faith for everyone.
PS. Here is an example in English so that all the U4C members can understand better. Jusjih is incapable of conducting communication.
Thank you. Zhxy 519 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. There are examples of you explicitly not following proper local processes, and your comments appear to be refusing to address these concerns.
Communication cannot happen without either parties admitting at least some of their faults. I understand that this is a dispute and conflict with years of history, and both parties are bitter at this point. Your linked attempts to de-admin Jusjih as an emergency right after they requested de-adminship for you are quite inappropriate, Special:Diff/21918696, even though Meta users were unable to determine who is at fault in the previous attempts. (perhaps due to the lack of language ability to truly examine the timeline)
I believe that local processes should always be attempted to address conduct issues where possible, and in this case, local processes have not been followed, largely due to the premature removal of these requests. Accusations are being laid out here and there, but there was still not a valid justification to me why you'd remove de-adminship requests started against you, and to block Jusjih who started those requests. That is very inappropriate to me as you are an administrator directly involved in this matter, and that is the thing that this discussion should focus on. Because yes, I can see that behavior and conduct (specifically: tone, language, attitude, etc.) from both parties have been subpar, but the main difference is that Jusjih has been attempting to follow local processes while you have not. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┘
I'd also like to note here that I personally would not be opposed if any parties in this case would like to start a de-adminship request against Jusjih if they feel that they have a valid reason to. As long as everyone agrees to abide by local processes, remain civil, and respects the outcome of such processes. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I insist one point agreed by most zh.ws admins that I previously mentioned, although you haven't: Jusjih is forcing the process by forcing confession and refusing to listen, which means they didn't follow local process. Due to current local process, this is obvious malicious and actions should be taken.
  2. Even Though, I admit current process is controversial and I was glad to join the discussion and see completed drafts like this, a real good faith attempt. I cannot comment its end in smoke due to too little support，although nobody opposed it. Currently I see 3rd parties‘ discussion on modifying the process again. I respect such works as well.
Zhxy 519 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my question. There is no point in dwelling on other topics if you are unwilling to answer my question. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to not to close such potential rfdas based on good faith, well-organized rules like this draft and supervision. Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhxy 519: so you will still close potential rfdas against you if you believe them to not be made in good faith or if you believe them to not be well-organized? 0xDeadbeef (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe if you respect the local process, you will respect those work really intended to fix the source problem in local site like User:银色雪莉 has did too, rather than ignoring the source problem itself. Even in an environment without me, Gzdavidwong, Hat600, Ericliu1912, more small wiki projects admins, will still be harassed once they disagree with Jusjih. That happened in the past, and still happening recently. Zhxy 519 (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you answer my question? 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back on topic because right now these comments appear to be derailing the thread.
— When 0xDeadbeef are trying to avoid "derailed" topics

你可以提供与任何涉案用户相关的证据。我们会审理所有于此提供的证据。You can provide any evidence against any party listed for this case. We will consider all evidence submitted.
— When 0xDeadbeef firstly indicated what me and U4C members can do in this section

Now I believe that your questions are derailed as you haven't consider my evidence submitted. Because of your argument and questions, my evidence has became fragmented. Still, I have provided some and you should follow your indication to start looking at my evidence.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the section for discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members. We are able to review evidence. You are free to present evidence on your section of this case page, or on here, but you unwillingness to answer a yes/no question is quite telling.
I've said multiple times that I understand that conduct of all editors in this case may be subpar. But in this case, the conduct problems are shadowed by a more important problem of refused engagement in due process. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you said at first that here is a place to provide evidence, I see it as the main purpose in this section. You should at least explain in advance that your any other actions beyond reviewing evidence. Now I have no intention to comment your opinion, but criticizing you're not following the procedure indicated by yourself. I wish other U4C members could clarify the function of this section before further interacting with you. Zhxy 519 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoyZuo I am strongly opposed to your request that Deadbeef recuse. Deadbeef has been acting in their capacity as a U4C member. If U4C member feels one party is more at fault than another, that does not make them biased, that is them doing the job they were elected to do. Roy: I do agree with you that the conflict between the two admins is unusual. If the zhsource community wishes to hold an RFDA about both admins this motion would protect that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roy I certainly agree with you that the U4C is not taking a comprehensive look at this issue. Instead my hope with this motion is that we facilitate zhsource resolving this locally. I hope that can be done. If it can't then it might be appropriate for the U4C to take a closer look and even assign blame - something this motion does not do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef: I also need mediation involving Ericliu1912 claiming me "在這事情上也並非清白" in this case while we also have many unsolved run-ins. Maybe open a separate case? Gzdavidwong is repetitively too inactive on many wikis with adminship. [10] Zhxy 519 repetitively reverted de-adminship against not only himself but also Gzdavidwong, thus preventing us from properly judging if Gzdavidwong should have the adminship removed or demoted to temporary term.--Jusjih (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

[edit]

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

[edit]
  • I appreciate that the filer is trying to do the right thing here, but I'm not sure that this is the right venue. Both users seem to have a long-standing conflict, and both have accused each other of generically abusing admin rights. If there is a specific case to bring against one or another for abusing their admin rights I wouldn't object to us hearing it, but there would need to be a) standing on the part of the filer (i.e. they were impacted by the alleged abuse of permissions) and b) a specific and preferrably recent case of alleged abuse to focus on. I don't think it's particularly useful to just dump a decade's worth of links here and expect the U4C to do something about it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Ajraddatz, I remember knowing and looking into the matter during SE 2023. Are we talking about ongoing issues that violate the code of conduct or are we just talking about the same old identical facts? Because in the second case I'd say to forgive and forget. The best solution was to try to interact as little as possible between them, if they want to find a mediation I think we are all available, but I don't think that without new elements we can support a case based on issues that even precede the UCoC. I think we would all like the issue to be resolved peacefully, but sometimes it can happen that there is no "feeling" between two users, the important thing is that this doesn't lead to abusive behavior. If there are recent facts worthy of note regarding individual users involved in the matter (as already explained above by Ajraddatz), we are nevertheless available to investigate further. --Superpes15 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 据我所知，这里其中主要的一部分问题就是即使本地已有解任投票指引，但上次向Zhxy 519提出的解任投票却由Zhxy 519擅自回退，虽然我没有非常仔细去阅读相关讨论，但这样的行为不合理，可以说是在无视其他社群成员。我在想是否能够提议允许Jusjih或其他用户在中文维基文库上提出对Zhxy 519的解任投票，而禁止Zhxy 519直接将此投票删除，让社群合理走一次本地的流程。
    As far as I know, one of the main aspects of this problem is that even though there is a local de-adminship process, the last de-adminship discussion initiated by Jusjih against Zhxy 519 was removed by Zhxy 519 themself unilaterally. Even though I have not read the relevant discussions closely, but this appears to be inappropriate and can be thought of as ignoring other community members. I am currently thinking whether we should propose to allow Jusjih or any other Chinese Wikisource members to initiate a local de-admin process, and prevent Zhxy 519 from deleting the discussion again. This would allow the community to go through its local process fairly.
    cc @Zhxy 519 and Jusjih: 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with my colleagues above. I have seen how abusive administrators can undermine the culture of an entire project. So, for me, someone does not need to have directly experienced abuse in order to have been negatively effected and in fact "here's all the things I think have been abusive and I'm saying that despite having no negative effect" is stronger than "here's all the things I think that have been abusive, including this block of me" given that even if the block was in appropriate it doesn't mean the person who was blocked as completely innocent. That is my generic opinion. In this case where it's a conflict between two administrators, and it's not as clear about the broader cultural pieces, I'd have preferred it be brought by one of the two directly involved people. But here we are. I am intrigued by the path forward that Deadbeef offers above. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

[edit]
  1. My colleagues have published a way to have the issue resolved correctly on the local project. --Ghilt (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Something should be done here. There are conduct issues and allegations, and there is potential abuse of power, privilege, or influence given that the primary parties to this case are both administrators on Chinese Wikisource. Hopefully the actions we decide upon will help resolve the conflict and tension within this project. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with beefs accept reason. Luke081515 20:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Still not happy with the nature of the request, but significant enough issues have been identified that I think merits our review. In the future, I would prefer for the filer to pick one recent area to focus on. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As said by Ajraddatz, although I'd say that the continuation of the discussion after the first comment brought to light other noteworthy situations, likely within the jurisdiction of the commission and to be investigated further --Superpes15 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline votes

[edit]

Motions

[edit]

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.
The U4C resolves this case by motion. We encourage the zhsource community to continue to resolve the conflict presented at this case locally. As a first step, an RFDA for Zhxy 519 should be held. No party to this case may close or remove the RFDA. Any interference with this RFDA may be reported to the U4C. We also warn all zhsource admins against improper interference with RFDAs. This includes not closing or removing any RFDA about them. The U4C may remove adminship by motion against any zhsource admin who improperly interferes with an RFDA in the future.

Translation/翻譯

U4C 藉由動議結案。我們鼓勵 zhsource 社群繼續在本地解決此案所提出的衝突。作為第一步，Zhxy 519 的解任案應該舉行。本案的任何一方都不得關閉或移除此解任案。任何對此解任案的干擾都可向 U4C 報告。我們警告所有 zhsource 管理員不要不當干擾 RFDA。不當干擾包括關閉或移除任何關於自己的 RFDA。U4C 可能會對此後不當干擾 RFDA 的 zhsource 管理員提出除權動議。

Support

[edit]
  1. As a procedural note, we have one U4C member who can write in zh and so the translation may get replaced by them. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've rewritten the translations. As I noted above, a significant issue in this case has been one party not properly following procedures. I believe this motion is a positive step towards addressing this issue, and I hope the zhsource community can move forward with resolving this issue locally once this motion passes. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. i would like to have a look if the processes were and will be fair and correct. --Ghilt (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sensible path forward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This seems a reasonable way to adress the issue locally --Civvì (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seems a great procedure to try to solve the matter without escalating further --Superpes15 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I hope that this resolves the issue, without further actions from our side. Luke081515 20:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with the motions, I hope this helps solve the issue.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

Abstain/recuse

[edit]

Updates

[edit]

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

  • Acknowledging that this request has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case was accepted by 5 U4C members, hence moving it to the next (investigation) phase. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 08:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since there was a request for me to recuse from this case, this was subject to an internal vote. Out of 7 members that could vote on this matter (all 8 members minus myself), there were 6 votes against my recusal, with one member who did not comment or vote on the request. The recusal request is therefore declined by the committee. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/Zhxy_519,_Jusjih_and_Chinese_Wikisource&oldid=28658185"