Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/中文维基文库管理员Midleading对红渡厨的封禁争议

This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
红渡厨 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Filer (no diff required)
Midleading (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	diff

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Denis Barthel 红渡厨 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

红渡厨

Description of the problem - (红渡厨)

依据《Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases》：本会只处理以下特定类型的案件：针对本地管理员或其他使用者就可能违反《通用行为准则》的行为所采取执行的行动提出申诉。惟请留意，如果专案中存在仲裁委员会等其他高级决策机构，则针对上述行动的申诉应直接向该机构提出。提出本案件。需要说明的是，中文维基文库不存在“仲裁委员会等其他高级决策机构”，亦无成文的管理员封禁申诉规定。

我认为中文维基文库管理员Midleading在中文维基文库对我实施的两次封禁均为不合理封禁：

s:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1183697，此次封禁实施于2025年2月27日 (四) 00:29（UTC+8），管理员Midleading的此次封禁并不合理。他在封禁时是这样说的：“阁下近期在维基文库的行为的确很像在维基百科频繁提报他人且经常使用不文明用语导致被封禁的情况，因此我决定进行封禁。你的语气很激烈，经常导致讨论区变成战场，需要管理员给你降温了。”（s:zh:Special:Diff/2532112）
1. 其一，“频繁提报他人”不属于任何一种不当行为，通用行为准则或者是中文维基文库的方针指引都没有这样说，只要提供了合理的理由，不管提报他人多少次，都是每一个维基人的正当权利，这种权利应该得到包括管理员在内的任何人的维护；并且事实上，管理员Midleading对我进行此次封禁的涉案提报《s:zh:Wikisource:請求管理員幫助/存檔/2025年#提报扰乱用户（XsLiDian）》的正当性也表示了认可：“经过调查本人认为上方红渡厨对XsLiDian的不当行为提报有效。”（s:zh:Special:Diff/2534391）（相关情况也可以参考U4C的另一个案件《Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Hounding claim on Chinese Wikisource》）；
2. 其二，管理員Midleading直接以所谓与中文维基百科中的封禁为依据，在中文维基文库封了我一个月，然而，中文维基百科与中文维基文库是两个网站，并无互相隶属关系。
3. 其三，关于所谓的“经常使用不文明用语”，管理员Midleading在对我实施此次封禁前，声称我说的这句“请你停止你的阴谋论行径。”属于人身攻击。（s:zh:Special:Diff/2532045）然而，中文维基文库的警示模板《s:zh:模板:Uw-vandalism2》：請停止一切無建設性或破坏性編輯。閣下的編輯已對维基文库構成破壞，亦已遭回退。如果您仍需要進行測試，請使用沙盒。敬請合作。这句“請停止一切無建設性或破坏性編輯”与我说的“请你停止你的阴谋论行径”在用词上亦有一定程度的相同。模板可以说，我说为什么就成了人身攻击？这一点我当时就在《s:zh:User_talk:Midleading#re_Special:Diff/2532112》指出过，但管理员Midleading到现在也没有一句合理的解释，只是坚持声称这就是人身攻击；后来，在后续的沟通中，管理员Midleading声称：“很显然，给出一套敏感词列表或者类似的机械式的规则用来判断某些语言是否是不文明行为或者破坏行为，最后非但无法制止事实上的不文明行为或者破坏行为，反而会成为被其他不文明行为或者破坏行为所用于诡辩的工具，而且仍然会存在误判。”（s:zh:Special:Diff/2588934）这一观点的不合理之处在于，没有一个清晰的标准，任由管理员随意认定不文明行为，是在给管理员的随意封禁找借口，故意无视作为管理员的滥权行为，严重损毁社群对于管理员的信任基础。且通过管理员Midleading的该留言，我认为管理员Midleading并不能拿出切实的证据证明该封禁的合理性，靠的只是管理员Midleading的自由心证；
4. 其四，“需要管理员给你降温了”的言论，明确不符合《w:zh:Wikipedia:封禁#不適用封鎖的情況》：“请不要仅为让用户冷静而施以封锁，结果往往会适得其反；需要冷静且有扰乱行为的用户则可被封锁以阻止进一步扰乱行为。”（这里需要说明的是，由于中文维基文库的很多方针指引的设立并不够完善，很多时候中文维基文库的用户会参考中文维基百科的相关方针。）

s:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1203171，此次封禁实施于2025年7月16日 (三) 19:34（UTC+8），管理员Midleading未履行避嫌的相应要求，对我实施了1年的封禁。
附：不避嫌封禁的证据：
1. 2025年7月2日，Midleading在这条留言（s:zh:Special:Diff/2574527）的后续对话与我发生言语不合；
2. 2025年7月9日，Midleading又在这条留言（s:zh:Special:Diff/2575996）的后续对话与我发生言语不合；
3. 2025年7月16日，Midleading在隔壁中文维基百科与我毫无交集的情况下，突然到《w:zh:Wikipedia:申请解除权限/存档/2025年#红渡厨》针对于我的申请解除权限表态：不同意这一关闭理由，因为该用户已经被禁止编辑其讨论页，所以不再需要使用其讨论页进行申诉。（w:zh:Special:Diff/88301155），该行为高度疑似跨维基跟踪；
4. Midleading于2025年7月16日 (三) 16:47（UTC+8）对我的留言称：“这个章节不是讨论和提报Jusjih的。要提报Jusjih请新建一个章节，不需要提报Jusjih那就停止。Jusjih完全正常的活动也能被你责备一番，真奇怪。”（s:zh:Special:Diff/2577251）

Previous attempts at a solution - (红渡厨)

这两次封禁我都有和实施封禁的管理员Midleading进行沟通：

但未获得管理员Midleading积极合理的回应，Midleading始终坚称“相应表述属于人身攻击”“本人不存在避嫌方面的问题”。据此我认为继续通过沟通来解决相关争议是无望的。

Midleading

Previous attempts at a solution - Midleading

两次实施封禁的原因均已经以中文在中文维基文库告知当事人红渡厨。虽然红渡厨不认可这些原因有效并且反复要求重新给出原因，但是本人认为所列出的原因已经足够合理与充分，而且不应因当事人红渡厨要求事后再编造、修改封禁的原因。以下的介绍仅仅是以英语重新简要描述两次实施封禁的原因。

1. Disputes between this user and XsLiDian: On 2025-02-25, 红渡厨 reported another user XsLiDian without communicating with this user first. During this period the two users engaged in a seemingly bad-faith manner using impolite words against each other. After investigation, I found 红渡厨 behaved in uncivilized manner first (请你停止你的阴谋论行径。). While XsLiDian behaved in a disruptive manner and should be blocked, 红渡厨 also seems to use pejorative words and does not try to communicate in a good-faith manner first in this case. Such behaviour persisted for a long time (including s:zh:Special:Diff/2531979，s:zh:Special:Diff/2531833，s:zh:Special:Diff/2457840). Such behaviour is also observed in Wikipedia which leads to multiple blocks in Wikipedia (很多提報都是與指責他人行為有關；但越來越多的提報已構成動輒提報、或有情緒失控，對用戶間的協作構成影響。因此需限制參與本頁面一個月。 in Wikipedia). Therefore the same period of block as in Wikipedia is applied.

2. The second time 红渡厨 used blantant disruptive words. These words are quickly hidden and 红渡厨 is blocked for 1 year. 红渡厨 at that time is blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia. There are some questions about whether Lemonaka is engaged in disruptive conduct, but that is currently processed by ArbCom at Chinese Wikipedia and to date no conclusions are made on it, therefore Lemonaka is still assumed to be not disruptive. 红渡厨 repeatedly says I should not have deleted the content and applied a block promptly because I may be an involved administrator. But I don't think that is the case. Leaving such blantant attack in place while waiting for a "uninvolved administrator" will do more harm than good.

红渡厨 on the talk page then repeatedly requests me to give reasons to these blocks and give reasons to the reasons I provided, even though the reasons are already given and there is no doubt on whether 红渡厨 should be blocked among Chinese Wikisource administrators. Some administrators expressed that a shorter block may be sufficient (s:zh:Special:Diff/2577930), and I publicly expressed that 红渡厨 can file an appeal on the talk page. But the appeal is never filed. I also suggested 红渡厨 can also contact other administrators if I could have behaved in a biased way, but this user also never tried to contact other administrators. The conflicts between 红渡厨 and Lemonaka seems to continue in off-wiki space (s:zh:Special:Diff/2579282, Special:Diff/29194323) but I cannot confirm independently. 红渡厨 also wants me to send email with the content of deleted blantant attack of Lemonaka, which I refused and requested other administrators in Taiwan instead of mainland China to send it, because my email address could be exposed and harassed, and such content could also be used for harassment off-wiki.

Other feedback

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 (沈澄心)

红渡厨 demonstrates poor understanding of w:WP:INVOLVED on s:zh:User talk:红渡厨 and this page. 红渡厨 considers calm and reasonable explanations as disputes and therefore sees Midleading as an involved admin. If this assertion holds, any admins can easily get “involved” and thus no one can handle this case. I don't think it's appropriate to unblock 红渡厨 at this point in time.

In s:zh:User talk:红渡厨#c-红渡厨-20250722111600-投诉管理员Midleading不正当使用管理员权限, 红渡厨 said that “我在那条留言里清楚的说过，我十分清楚地知道那条留言会导致我封禁” (I clearly said in that message that I knew very well that the message would lead to my being banned.), showing that 红渡厨 was knowingly violating policies, and therefore any admin – even if involved – can take appropriate measures to prevent further violation.

In reply to #c-红渡厨-20250831090600-Ghilt-20250830115900: I don't think Midleading's comment here is slander. Any user can choose not to receive emails, or to only receive notifications from MediaWiki software. Users are not obliged to disclose their email addresses to anyone. --dring sim 13:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to #c-红渡厨-20250831160000-Ghilt-20250830115900: The proposal s:zh:Wikisource:請求管理員幫助#c-Ericliu1912-20250719214800-Midleading-20250718035500 has been withdrawn in s:zh:Wikisource:請求管理員幫助#c-Ericliu1912-20250723064700-Lemonaka-20250723032800. This can be seen as Ericliu1912's acknowledgment of Midleading's actions. dring sim 16:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (魔琴)

I don't think 红渡厨's indef block on zhwiki is appropriate. I may have to express my dissent on the zhwiki administrators' choices. I hope the zhwiki ArbCom who is currently trying the case will lift the block. I have no comment on the zhwikisource case. Thanks. 魔琴 (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@红渡厨: 你还联系了哪些其他机构？TRANSLATION: Which other places have you contacted (in zhwiki or zhsource)? --Ghilt (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

我目前没有联系其他机构。据我所知，中文维基文库没有成立仲裁委员会，也没有成文的方针指引可以用来处理本次事件。红渡厨 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: 我尊重您的意见，但我想指出的是，中文维基文库没有成立仲裁委员会，也没有成文的方针指引（比如管理员封禁申诉或管理员操作复核请求）可以用来处理本次事件。我在中文维基文库唯一能做的就是直接与当事管理员沟通，但从我与该管理员多次沟通的情况来看，双方均不满意沟通的结果，未能有效解决问题。红渡厨 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

我在此抗议，Midleading仍然在借着这里的回复污蔑我“可能会曝光和骚扰他的邮箱”，这种事情不是第一次发生，在中文维基文库，s:zh:Special:Diff/2577791，Midleading也曾污蔑我“所以红渡厨事实上想要的是Lemonaka和阿南之人这些用户不要在本页面和管理员交流”。张口闭口就是对他人假定恶意的人，不配做管理员。还有，我不清楚s:zh:Special:Diff/2579282这条留言中Lemonaka发给Ericliu1912的东西是什么，但我从未使用邮箱骚扰过包括Lemonaka在内的维基各项目的任何一个人，以前没有，现在没有，未来也不会有。——红渡厨 (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

沈澄心的留言表明他/她并未真正理解“管理员避嫌”的含义。此处我引用中文维基百科的《w:zh:维基百科:管理员#避嫌》方针，该方针明确指出：“人在自己牵涉争议中或具强烈情感的情况可能无法作客观判断。”因此，在既有证据证明管理员Midleading近期与我存在言语不和及疑似跨维基跟踪的情况下，理应将情况汇报至其他管理员进行处理。我是清楚那条留言会导致我被封禁不假，但众所周知的是、各维基项目的管理员均具有较高的自由裁量权，有的管理员可能觉得要封很久，有的管理员可能觉得较短期的封禁就足够，很难说每个管理员抉择时是否受到了其他因素的影响，这也正是避嫌的意义所在。该方针亦指出：“显而易见不会存在争议的情况（即任何其他管理员正常也会得出相同结论的情况，如执行社群共识或针对破坏、侵权、公开个人隐私的封锁及删除）亦不适用避嫌原则。”然而，现已有其他中文维基文库管理员表态s:zh:Special:Diff/2577930、s:zh:Special:Diff/2577673，认为管理员Midleading的封禁时间过长，这更加从侧面证明了管理员Midleading的决定很有可能受到了个人情感的左右。另外，身为管理员理应比普通用户更加模范地遵守相应方针，尤其是管理员方针。——红渡厨 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midleading在本页面XsLiDian案件的陈述中，显然提供了虚假陈述，早在2024年4月，我，以及其他的中文维基文库用户，都曾到XsLiDian的讨论页《s:zh:User talk:XsLiDian》告知他不要再扰乱。当时我在XsLiDian的讨论页曾明确告知他：“以及，在与其他用户交谈过程中，应保持最基本的礼貌，且不应擅自揣测他人。阁下上方的数次回复都涉嫌违反了w:维基百科:礼仪和w:维基百科:假定善意，这是对你的警告，若再有发生，将不得不考虑将阁下提报至管理员处。”（s:zh:Special:Diff/2394424，2024年4月18日 (四) 11:54（UTC+8））。不仅如此，这些情况我在当时提报时说过（s:zh:Special:Diff/2531931，2025年2月25日 (二) 21:14（UTC+8）），与Midleading的沟通中说过（s:zh:Special:Diff/2533433，2025年3月2日 (日) 23:25（UTC+8））。Midleading在本页面公然颠倒黑白，声称“红渡厨在没有与该用户先行沟通的情况下举报了另一个用户XsLiDian”这样的陈述是令人震惊和难以接受的。红渡厨 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re Special:Diff/29205503，我不清楚当时Lemonaka发给Ericliu1912的东西是什么，因此我无法评论Ericliu1912修改自己表态的行为。但无论Ericliu1912是否修改自己表态，都不影响我上方论据的合理性。——红渡厨 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

One thing I would like to note is that administrators do not necessarily need to treat cases from different wikis in isolation. If someone has been disruptive and blocked on another project, I see nothing wrong with an administrator taking that into account when making a block. Therefore, I do not see any abuse of tools or power in this case, and I believe this matter should be resolved locally at zhwikisource. The talk page access at wikisource hasn't been blocked yet based on what I see.--BRP^ever 14:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested solution of Midleading seems reasonable to me. An independent admin can have a look at your case, we are not needed here. TRANSLATION: 我认为 Midleading 建议的解决方案是合理的。独立管理员可以查看您的情况，这里不需要我们。 --Ghilt (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case can be handled locally, as pointed out by Midleading. Luke 081515 20:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case should be dealt with locally. --Civvì (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

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

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case can't get accepted anymore by 5 U4C members, hence the case is closed as declined. On behalf of the U4C, Luke 081515 20:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]