Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Miborovsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moved from main. El_C 02:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Edits, while not entirely one-sided, seem designed to foster separatist politics and appear especially problematic in terms of the selective use of sources and historical methodology. That said, seems to be consistently civil (my familiarity mainly extends to old username). Even though the (minority) Pro-Taiwanese nationalistic viewpoint already seems to predominate Wikipedia on many fronts, thereby unsurprisingly amounting to the systemic bias in many areas, user seems unlikely to abuse admin tools even if such forces which are clearly advantageous to his viewpoint were not so strong. If he ends up using these (or admin status) to initimidate non-separatist editors, then I have made a terrible mistake here. As it stands, an extremely qualified support, with great trepidation. El_C 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hello El C, thanks for your comment. If the range of my edits seem to be selective and limited, it is because I chose to work on them, because I am interested in them. I'm not particularly interested in contemporary Chinese history, ie. 1949-, therefore my edits are heavily concentrated in the time period of my interest, namely 1931-1945, a time when Taiwan was occupied by Japan. From time to time I do edit articles about the People's Republic of China, which I am a citizen of, but like I said I'm not interested in that, therefore it might appear to you that my viewpoint is pro-Taiwan, which most people associate by default with pro-ROC, which is two completely different things. Besides, I'm a pre-1911 ROC loyalist, and the ROC was formed 10 Oct 1911... I hope that clears up the confusion. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hello. Yes, I know that; from my vantage point, the two are far from mutually exclusive. El_C 04:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing Taiwanese nationalism (article needed) with Chinese nationalism. The two are very far from the same and at many points opposed to each other. Miborovsky seems to be a Chinese nationalist in the mold of Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT (though he tries to disassociate himself from this by calling himself a "pre-1911 ROC loyalist"). While I acknowledge that there may be a systematic bias here in favor of Chinese nationalism (KMT style) in articles related to Taiwanese politics, the systematic bias in modern Chinese history (i.e., what Miborovsky edits on) is against modern Chinese history in general regardless of politics (Miborovsky is writing articles on all the major WWII battles fought by the KMT, but articles for the major battles are already thoroughly completed for the European theater while this still has a bunch of red links and stubs in it). Systematic bias or not (we all have biases), I do not see noticeable POV editing (as in the insertion or deletion of biased text) on the part of Miborovsky. That's all that matters.--Jiang 09:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. No, that's incorrect, I am not confusing them nor am I unaware of these considerations. He's a "a pre-1911 ROC loyalist who supports Chinese reunification under the ROC flag". I've noticed problematic edits, but I don't have sources at my disposal to challenge these at the moment. At any rate, I'm positive such an exchange will be a collegial one, after all, I voted support. El_C 09:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- The proper term is "counter-revolutionary" or, in light of recent events, "compatriot". Remember, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Supporters of Taiwanese nationalism are in favor of Taiwan independence (whether this be in the form of an independent ROC that is synonymous with Taiwan Chen Shui-bian-style or a completely independent Republic of Taiwan Lee Teng-hui-style). Any attempt to reunify (no matter which flag this is under) reduces Taiwan to the status of a mere province and is counter to Taiwanese nationalism.--Jiang 04:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- To finish my thought, I'm just not certain how he'll treat anons and so on with admin powers. Perhaps I'm overstating my trepidation and it is a product of my own bias: long live the revolutionary legacy & teachings of Chairman Mao! Time will tell if I'll need to issue an apology (for my support vote, no less! :p). Indeed, the few direct interactions I've had with Hmiborovsky proved both pleasent and productive (then again, we were all on the same side against ultra-right Japanese historical revisionism). Keep offending the motherland, Hmib. ;) El_C 10:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- El C, I just wanted to make it clear that some of what I have on my user page was done in jest. I've a really irreverent sense of bad humour, so don't take it too seriously, please. (I'm almost libertarian, for Pete's sake.) Also, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me which of my edits you found problematic. After all we all have POV so I guess the best we can do is to tell others to look out for them. (On my user talk page, please.) Thanks for your comments. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- On your talk page, you say. Is that a request? At this point my spammage of your RfA is not to be curtailed so easily, unless... You definitely have a special sense of humor (btw, being libertarian is just as bad in my view, so that dosen't help you on the ideological battelfield, 'tis much more vast than the doublespeak of ROC-led unification=seperatism!), and I'm all for the inexplicable as the highest form of humor! What? (see, it can't be forced, that's the whole point). Anyway, point taken on that front. *** It's been quite a while since I studied the material, but some of the figures, distribution, etc. did not seem correct on first glance (I'll try to revisit with sources). More importantly, I might, on the basis of limited experience and bad memory falsely mis-attributed editing patterns to Hmib on account of another editor. I'm increasingly finding that to be within the realm of possibility. I'll try to double check and get back to you about that, too. Regardless, I'm satisfied with your responses, you meet my qualifications. I moved the commentary to talk, since in light of the above, I'm unsure how useful it is to the reader. Thanks again. El_C 02:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. No, that's incorrect, I am not confusing them nor am I unaware of these considerations. He's a "a pre-1911 ROC loyalist who supports Chinese reunification under the ROC flag". I've noticed problematic edits, but I don't have sources at my disposal to challenge these at the moment. At any rate, I'm positive such an exchange will be a collegial one, after all, I voted support. El_C 09:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hello El C, thanks for your comment. If the range of my edits seem to be selective and limited, it is because I chose to work on them, because I am interested in them. I'm not particularly interested in contemporary Chinese history, ie. 1949-, therefore my edits are heavily concentrated in the time period of my interest, namely 1931-1945, a time when Taiwan was occupied by Japan. From time to time I do edit articles about the People's Republic of China, which I am a citizen of, but like I said I'm not interested in that, therefore it might appear to you that my viewpoint is pro-Taiwan, which most people associate by default with pro-ROC, which is two completely different things. Besides, I'm a pre-1911 ROC loyalist, and the ROC was formed 10 Oct 1911... I hope that clears up the confusion. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
