Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Minghong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


final (12/9/5) ending 00:00 May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I do read over the community's comments, and though I believe I acted appropriately, I will respond to the observation that I voted at the same time I ended the nomination. I felt that, because of the reasons I stated, I interpreted the substance of the voting (and lack thereof) and my own research accurately. I am not intending to set a precedent for myself or other bureaucrats, but I find the argument that others should have an opportunity to respond in voting to my negative vote pursuasive. So I am restoring this nomination for a full 24 hours, noting the irony that the only way I could light a fire under people to pay attention to this nomination was by ending it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

minghong has contributed greatly to technology articles around Wikipedia for quite some time now. His edits have contained excellent content and have helped to reorganize and make articles more precise and easier to read. Besides his massive contributions to lists of technology products and comparisons, he has also largely contributed to many anime related articles. I believe that he is a prime example of a quality user, and greatly deserves this position. Aside from his contributions, he holds no grudges with any other users, and has never engaged in any revert wars, or flame wars. -- Zeerus (ETCWFD) 11:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
That's cool! Thanks. --minghong 18:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  1. I definitely support minghong as an admin --Zeerus (ETCWFD) 18:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I think minghong should learn from the concerns expressed by Adrian but he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Grace Note 05:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Benefit of the doubt. I assume good faith. JuntungWu 14:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Kingturtle 06:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    BrokenSegue 02:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) - sorry my fault for the typo Changed to neutral BrokenSegue
  5. Support.-gadfium 02:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Andre (talk) 18:23, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Talk page looks good, contribs look good, and I like how he handles himself in situations where so many others might get upset and start yelling. CryptoDerk 14:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Talk page and contributions look ok. Doesn't look like he'll abuse admin power. Kim Bruning 15:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. He seems to be very active and has made contributions to a number of articles. Will make a good administrator. Ben Babcock 18:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support. Would be a welcome and fresh addition to our current crop of administrators. Wally 02:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. Yes, has shown himself to be a trustworthy and active community member, understands policy, plays well with others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:32, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Looks all right to me, and he seems to respond to rational discourse. --khaosworks 05:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


I cannot in good conscience support a candidate who campaigns as a "deletionism". Kelly Martin 00:12, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood the term. Anyway, keep your vote if you want. --minghong 00:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 18:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I have nothing against him as an editor, but his deletionism is too intense for me to be able honestly to support him for adminship. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'm afraid I'm going to have to tip the scales vote against this one. There is very thin support (there were only 9 positives up to the original end time plus 2 added after) despite posting a short-time notice. Though there are two direct opposes without mine, three of the four neutrals read as negatives with substantive complaints. I looked into the user's contributions and this RfA and found the following:
    • I looked to see how someone with such a high edit count could attract so little interest and see a textbook example of why edit counting is useless. The candidate has nearly 1,100 edits in just the last 11 days. In addition to the overwhelming number he has marked as "minor," others not so marked that I sampled were also minor. The edit count would also be cut down by more judicious use of the Preview. I don't view lots of little necessary edits as bad, but it does argue against crediting the 5,000+ edit total.
    • The complaints about deletionism do seem to have an echo in his answer to Q1: "It would be great if I can revert bad edits and delete improper contents." Actually, other than the ambiguous subjectivity expressed here, it seems to indicate that the user has a poor understanding of the fundamental abilities and duties of an admin: he (and all of us, even anons) don't need admin powers to do either of the above. Admins can only do reverts a little more easily and, even then, since the revert button does not allow for comments, reversions based on an opinion of "bad edits" or "improper comments" should probably be done manually with appropriate edit summary or even an explanation of Talk.
    • User User:Minghong seems generally amiable and anxious to work productively here. Perhaps If this ultimately fails this time around he should keep up the good work and bone up on admin responsibilities and come back as soon as he is ready when he will hopefully get a more interested and positive reception. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • NOTE: I'm posting this here as it's relevant to Cecropia's objection. This is originally from the talk page of WP:RFA. CryptoDerk 00:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • I would imagine that his phrasing and word choice is perhaps because English is not his first language (his responses certainly read that way). With respect to the neutral objections, I found minghong to be in the right when dealing with the UML page, as he removed massive POV (the article was previously calling programs "fast", "simple", "powerful", etc.). The other objections didn't cite anything specific, and I (in my cursory look) didn't see anything about him putting speedy tags on stuff that weren't speedies. CryptoDerk 22:41, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
          • No disrespect to Minghong--he speaks English well and I'm sure I don't speak his native tongue at all, but this is English Wikipedia, admins need to deal with other editors, and misunderstanding in language can have significant consequences. And we don't know that he didn't mean what he said. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose TigerShark 00:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. This answer below concerns me: It would be great if I can revert bad edits and delete improper contents. Any editor can revert bad edits, but delete improper contents? That answer, together with the comments of others here, leads me to reluctantly oppose this time. Jonathunder 02:49, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, like Jonathunder, his answer to question #1 doesn't tell me that he knows what an admin does. Cburnett 05:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I have to agree with Jonathunder. --Kbdank71 13:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. Too many people oppose already.
    Vote made by Dmn [1]
    Is the amount of votes on a side a reason to vote on that side? Kingturtle 22:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure it is. Dmn / Դմն 22:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I've become even more convinced that Wikipedia requires community awareness and restrained boldness from experienced editors, and even more so from administrators. Rash actions are mostly more harmful than inaction. --Johan Magnus 20:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. I am was quite disappointed about minghong's bold deletions on List of UML programs. The list once contained short descriptions of programs. Minghong then did a massive "cleanup" (as he told it) by deleting all descriptions and replacing entries with internal links to (nearly) all non-existing articles for the programs. He did this without any prior discussion on the talk page. This created quite some pressure to start new articles for each and every program, which in turn are now accused being plain advertisement articles. He also quickly and boldly reverted my edit (adding external named links) without any attempt to discuss it or to consider my argumentation or presenting arguments himself. The list itself now has no info besides the names of the programs (in the form of internal links to mostly non-existing articles) and some unnamed external links (which are deemed very bad style according to Wikipedia:How to edit a page) - but he only tolerates these on entries for which no article exists. Quite disappointing behaviour. For me, minghong behaved in this case as he were the master of the article. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:14, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
    • If you even see other software lists in the Category:Lists of software, that is the style we used to: a clean list with no/minimal description, all using article links, except for those not created yet. I might feel like "master", but that's because I contributed (and created) lots of those list of software articles. --minghong 00:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. I just found that Adrian is the author of Cadifra UML Editor, a page which was once Vfd. So... I wonder if this vote is biased or not. --minghong 05:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, my vote is biased, as I already elaborated above. minghong's delete actions pressed me to the creation of the article Cadifra UML Editor, because he did not want to have a short text about Cadifra UML Editor on List of UML programs. Some anonymous then claimed on the talk page that Cadifra UML Editor is "merely an advertisement" ("Delete this blatant commercial" in edit summary) - a situation that is somewhat understandable and forseeable, because not every product is so important that it deserves it's own article on wikipedia (even Cadifra UML Editor). But if you do not allow even the shortest description (a few words) on List of UML programs, there is no other option than creating a separate article. And if I do a separate article I do have to fill in some information about it, which then might trigger "advertisement" feelings of others. On the other hand, if someone starts an article List of UML programs on wikipedia, I feel it's natural to add our program to that list. If this is not wanted, then please remove the article List of UML programs. On the other hand - what is the "value" of an article, consisting of about 90% internal links to non-existing other articles? -- Adrian Buehlmann 08:16, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    • And, yes I am one of the authors of Cadifra UML Editor as anybody can see on my wikipedia homepage. I documented that fact from the beginning. You will also find my email address on my homepage. So there is not much research needed to "find" that fact - simply click on my signature . -- Adrian Buehlmann 08:16, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
    • After finally having reached some minimal consensus about my List of UML programs concerns with minghong, I decided to change my opposition to neutral. I hope minghong in the future will be a bit more sensitive to concerns of others. As beeing relatively new to wikipedia I respect his longer experience and do not want that this one "incident" with me is given too much weight. I therefore moved this thread to the neutral section (hope that's ok). Good luck to minghong for his admin power. Please use it carefully. -- Adrian Buehlmann 20:28, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  2. BrokenSegue 19:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. I've not directly encountered the alleged "intense deletionism", but the comment about "deleting improper contents" is rather open-ended in a way that could give rise to some concern. (Hopefully what's meant is "carry out admin tasks on VfD"?) I'd be more enthused if there was a fuller answer on sysop tasks in general -- isn't that what we're promoting people to do, at least in theory? Alai 02:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I've looked at his edit summaries and talk page, and he seems to be a deletionist. I don't want to give the power to delete on sight to a deletionist who might occasionally delete something good. It's my personal bias so I'm not acctually opposing him. Howabout1 15:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. He currently seems a little bit too far on the side of deletionism. I might support him later if he moves back towards the ways of mergists or inclusionists. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Minghong currently has 5198 total edits: 4455/233 to articles/talk, 193/64 to User/talk, 79/5 to Wikipedia/talk, 73/3 to Image/talk, 33/13 to Template/talk, 43 to Category, and 4 to Help. —Korath (Talk) 00:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. It would be great if I can revert bad edits and delete improper contents.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The software comparisions and software list. ;-)
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Sorry Zeerus, I do have been a few edit wars, e.g. the edit wars started by User:Beachy. But I'll go to the talk page or user talk page to see how this could be resolved. P.S. I hate edit conflict! :-( So, I usually try to break the article into sections, as editing sections (instead of the whole page) would reduce the chance of getting edit conflict.