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 第二次

This case is currently pending acceptance. The U4C will decide whether the case is accepted in 2 weeks since the case has been opened.

Parties

Parties	Notifications
红渡厨 (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)	Filer (no diff required)
Midleading (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Denis Barthel User:Ferien 红渡厨 (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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：

1. 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。）

1. 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）

17:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)补充：关于2025年7月16日 (三) 19:34（UTC+8），s:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1203171的不避嫌封禁，我认为我需要强调的是，我并不否认我提出的4条不避嫌封禁的证据中的言行，并不足以构成非常严重的用户间冲突，这仅为普通程度的言语不合。但是，这4条证据均发生在此次封禁发生前的15天内，同时，第三条证据中提到的高度疑似跨维基跟踪的行为发生于2025年7月16日当天，即实施该封禁的同一天；第四条证据中提到言语不合，同样发生在实施该封禁的同一天。在15天内发生了3次言语不合，加上1次高度疑似跨维基跟踪的行为。这一共4次证据中，又有2次发生在实施该封禁的同一天。这种时间上的密集性，加上次数如此之多，我认为这足以构成管理员避嫌的条件。

17:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)补充：同时，我也想强调的是，Midleading在《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》的留言中，毫无根据声称我“可能会曝光和骚扰他的邮箱”，2025年7月19日 (六) 17:15，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”。Midleading对我如此的假定恶意，一方面，说明Midleading缺少作为管理员的素养；另一方面，证明Midleading对我本人存在负面情绪，属于《w:zh:维基百科:管理员#避嫌》方针中提到的“人在自己牵涉争议中或具强烈情感的情况”。

14:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)补充：Midleading声称所谓“在zhwiki这个案件的结果明确之前，Lemonaka仍然被认为没有违反任何政策由于w:WP:AGF。”然而我前面有提到过，中文维基文库并不隶属于中文维基百科，而是独立于中文维基百科。我本人已经在《Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Lemonaka与红渡厨的跨维基争议》提供了大量证据证明Lemonaka存在不当行为（或者Midleading如果觉得我提出的证据不够，也可以问我要Lemonaka不当行为的证据，但Midleading没有这么做），Midleading现在却将中文维基百科仲裁委员会的审议作为借口，将假定善意作为借口，至今仍然未在中文维基文库对Lemonaka采取任何措施，难道没有了中文维基百科，中文维基文库就无法正常运转了吗？答案显然是否定的。从此事也可看出，Midleading完全没有具备管理员应有的能力。此外，Midleading提到假定善意，却在《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》的留言中，毫无根据声称我“可能会曝光和骚扰他的邮箱”，2025年7月19日 (六) 17:15，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”。两次对我本人进行了毫无根据的恶意揣测，实施了假定恶意行为，说明此人说一套做一套。

18:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)补充：re Special:Diff/29419564，User:Midleading，关于邮箱，“红渡厨还希望我发送删除的明目张胆的攻击邮件的内容，我拒绝了，并请求台湾的其他管理员发送，因为我的邮箱地址可能会被曝光和骚扰，而且这样的内容也可能被用于维基之外的骚扰。”这句话是不是你上次在《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》说的？再者，Midleading这个人精的很，不是一般的精明，他就是一味的要说什么我违反方针啦，我要怎么申诉啦，这些话。他就是闭口不谈我在上方提出的那些他封禁的不合理之处，或者，就是一句话，“相应表述属于人身攻击”，（U4C这帮人也是有样学样，要么不正面回应，要么也是一句话“不存在滥权”）好几个月了，一直都是这样，费心费力地跟他沟通，到头来还是什么也没改变。这让我上哪说理去？这也是我认为此人不应该继续担任管理员的原因之一。

17:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)补充：Lemonaka声称所谓“浪费精力”，这是极其没有礼貌的行为。

16:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)补充：我查阅了《通用行為準則/協調委員會/章程》，该章程指出，U4C具有處理《通用行為準則》執行規範中概述的情況下的投訴和申訴，包括“缺乏執行《通用行為準則》的本地自治能力”，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，此即证明本案符合这一条。同时，该章程指出，U4C具有處理《通用行為準則》執行規範中概述的情況下的投訴和申訴，包括“缺乏資源或缺乏意願來解決妨礙通過本地自治程序充分執行《通用行為準則》的問題”，中文维基文库至今也无人处理《s:zh:User_talk:红渡厨#对管理员Midleading对我本人的两次封禁提出的申诉》这个申诉，此即证明本案同样符合这一条。U4C理当受理此案，并对Midleading的不合理封禁作出处理。

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：

1. 《s:zh:User_talk:Midleading#re_Special:Diff/2532112》
2. 《s:zh:User_talk:红渡厨#投诉管理员Midleading不正当使用管理员权限》

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。

以上是我在《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》上次提报至U4C的陈述。上次提报之后，我在中文维基文库自己的讨论页发了申诉《s:zh:User_talk:红渡厨#对管理员Midleading对我本人的两次封禁提出的申诉》，但未获管理员响应或受限于避嫌规则无法响应。

16:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)补充：经过User:Dbeef的提醒，我回忆起当时我有和其他管理员以及其他社区成员沟通，或其他社群成员直接发表意见：

1. 《s:zh:User talk:氧烷#关于XsLiDian》，这个是跟之前的案件相关方沟通的，以与2月封禁息息相关的XsLiDian案件的名义，对方没反应；
2. 《s:zh:User talk:Kcx36#关于XsLiDian》，这个是跟之前的案件相关方沟通的，以与2月封禁息息相关的XsLiDian案件的名义，对方没反应；
3. 《s:zh:User talk:Zhxy 519#关于XsLiDian》，这个是跟管理员沟通的，以与2月封禁息息相关的XsLiDian案件的名义，对方没反应；
4. 《s:zh:User talk:Ericliu1912#关于XsLiDian》，这个是跟管理员沟通的，以与2月封禁息息相关的XsLiDian案件的名义，沟通中有提到“我在与XsLiDian的沟通中，是否存在不当行为？XsLiDian在与我的沟通中，是否存在不当行为？”，然而Ericliu1912在4月21日才回复，而且他跟我打太极，不正面回复。我认为从他这个回复时间以及回复内容来看，他不愿意掺和此事；
5. 以及User:银色雪莉有直接对此事发表过意见（s:zh:Special:Diff/2532453）。

Suggested solutions - (红渡厨)

1. 请求认定管理员Midleading的s:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1183697这次封禁为不合理封禁，并平反此次封禁，并要求管理员Midleading就此次不合理封禁向我道歉；
2. 请求认定管理员Midleading的s:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1203171这次封禁为不避嫌封禁，并撤销此次封禁，当然，我清楚相关行为有违文明准则，因此，我认为应换由其他不违反避嫌原则的管理员重新判断此次封禁如何执行。同时，要求管理员Midleading就此次不避嫌封禁向我道歉；
3. 鉴于以上两次不合理封禁均发生在同一人身上，请求剥夺Midleading在中文维基文库的管理员权限。

另外，由于我目前被中文维基文库封禁，无法向Midleading发送通知，请求U4C代我在中文维基文库向Midleading发送U4C案件通知。提前向U4C表示感谢。

Midleading

Previous attempts at a solution - Midleading

This user seems to have a poor understanding of w:WP:INVOLVED that any administrators previously engaged in any discussions that are not in favor of this user become "involved", such that only inactive administrators are considered "uninvolved" by this users (looks more likely w:WP:AOBF). This naturally results in longer than usual review process. Also, some details are being discussed by zhwiki ArbCom as of 29 Sept 2025. (now delayed). Until the outcome of this case in zhwiki becomes clear, Lemonaka is still considered not having violated any policies by w:WP:AGF.

This user also repeatly violated w:WP:CIV, which is the reason this user was blocked in both cases (see the previous case). After the previous case is declined, this user did not stop publishing comments that violated w:WP:CIV on the user talk page both in Wikipedia and Wikisource. On Wikisource, 2598388, 2597897, 2595520 and more. On Wikipedia, this user not only published such comments on the user talk page, but also on ArbCom case page as well as on emails sent to ArbCom (提议立即暂停红渡厨的电子邮件发送权限，并移除有关留言). Then another administrator removed the talk page access of this user. Midleading (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - Midleading

Please be careful about the currently uncivil behaviour of this user. It seems too early to consider unblocking this user as such behaviour continues. Also note that the comment that led to blocking of this user is so disruptive that it had been deleted. Therefore this user will remain blocked until the outcome of zhwiki ArbCom case becomes clear or when this user promises to stop attacking others.

Currently, there are no Wikisource or Wikipedia administrators considering unblocking this user. UCoC should be aware of such condition while doing independent review. Also, local administrators will likely notice the most recent progress of this case and make decision according to latest evidence. This user likely reaches UCoC because this user considers administrators that made a decision "involved", but UCoC involvement might not be actually necessary. Midleading (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

红渡厨：关于邮箱的问题，之前已经解释过了，现在本人再解释一次，保护邮箱安全不等于认为“可能会曝光和骚扰他的邮箱”，保护邮箱安全只是在中国大陆所需要采取的隐私保护措施，没有暗示或针对任何个人，就好像不是所有用户都适合做用户查核员一样。关于Lemonaka的事件也已经解释过了，是因为Lemonaka在中文维基文库内的行为（只有一次发言）不足以形成严重违反方针的行为，并且在中文维基百科中的行为也“属于维基百科管理员不处理、仲裁委员会暂缓立案的轻微不当行为”，所以需要等待中文维基百科继续讨论，如果有下一步结果的话，会再作出更合适的处理，阁下发表严重人身攻击言论的行为已经涉嫌违反方针。这两次封禁都是因为出现违反文明准则的行为所造成的。目前在中文维基文库中对阁下维持封禁不存在争议，在申诉的同时，请注意文明用语，禁止人身攻击。如果有管理员认为违反文明方针的行为已经停止，会考虑解除封禁。 Midleading (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

红渡厨：我没有怀疑“我的邮箱地址可能会被曝光和骚扰”的起因是你红渡厨，这完全有可能是邮箱本身在中国大陆有安全问题。同时注意到维基百科仲裁委员会已经结案，并且认为Lemonaka在维基百科存在骚扰行为，但不足以采取下一步制裁措施，这与目前本人”除了转达User:红渡厨的“请你停止跨维基跟踪行径”以外，尚不需要进行特别处理。”的处理基本一致。维基百科仲裁委员会决定允许你在一年之后重新申诉也与目前封禁有效期为一年相一致，并且这两个案件之间存在显著的相似性，所以我认为在当时作出的持续时间为一年的封禁以及尚不需要对Lemonaka进行制裁的处理目前看仍然是合理的。由于安全原因我不会接受通过邮箱进行的申诉，但是仍然建议你继续通过邮箱向其他管理员申诉，并且你仍然拥有在维基文库向其他管理员发送邮件的权限。 I didn't assume that the reason “my email address could be exposed and harassed” has anything to do with this user, it is entirely due to email services in China have security issues. Also noting that Wikipedia Arbcom case comes to a conclusion, acknowledging Lemonaka indeed conducted harassment but do not need to be blocked, which is consistent to current decision of warning but not blocking. The decision of Wikipedia Arbcom that this user can apply for an appeal after a year is also consistent with current block duration of a year, and the underlying situation of two cases in Wikipedia and Wikisource shares much similarity, so the decisions I took seems reasonable to date. I don't accept appeals via email due to security concerns, but I still recommend you to appeal to other administrators, and you can still send emails to them. Midleading (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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 (Faster than Thunder)

I do agree that reporting others is not inappropriate if objective regardless of frequency. Accusations of disruptive behavior (like User talk:Midleading#re Special:Diff/2532112 on Chinese Wikisource) without firm evidence can be seen as inflammatory. Policies should apply to administrators just as they apply to any other user. I don't seem to find any instance of you being uncivil towards others. Sanctions should be preventative, not punitive. Your Wikisource block is invalid given all of the evidence I can find. Even worse, you don't have talk page access. However, blocks on one wiki influencing blocks on another is actually allowed by the one-strike rule. This does not mean that the exact same block settings used on the first project should be used on the second. All combined, I strongly think that what Midleading did violates UCoC points 2.1, 2.2, and 3.2. I don't speak Chinese, so please correct me if I missed anything.

I agree with 红渡厨 bringing this issue here and his reasons for doing so. I also do not think Chinese Wikisource's administration can be trusted any further. Blocking a user, especially without email and talk page access is [much] more serious than just using uncivil language towards and making groundless sanction threats against them, as happened to me earlier this year.

Hearing Midleading's response, given Special:Diff/2598388 on Chinese Wikisource, I would say to everyone involved that if another user behaves unsatisfactorily towards you, this never gives you an excuse to respond in kind. But Midleading's actions should still be broadly considered in this U4C case. In my similar incident earlier this year, I retaliated on Wikipedia and got blocked, but that was overturned yesterday. And yet, Midleading is not addressing the specific concerns that 红渡厨 is bringing up in terms of their actions, similar to what happened in my case.

This case is getting basically no feedback, which is worser than what happened in my similar case. In my case, I got a fair amount of U4C feedback, but the U4C members despised my statement and jumped to conclusions even though my statement was crystal-clear. I suspect that what happened in both your case and my case is simply because the U4C is clear-cut applying the duck test, because the accuser is sanctioned, and because of the accused user's seniority. The following is not intended as retaliation, but in line with policy. If this case gets declined, in the next U4C election, I will vote remove for Ajraddatz, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, and Ghilt. Should this case be declined, I've subscribed to ML's Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikisource talk pages.

@U4C: if the U4C insists that there is no abuse of power, they should consider the language that Midleading used brought up in 红渡厨's statement, not the sanctions themselves.

Arbitrarily determining uncivility and making blocks based on that arbitrary standard is an abuse of power, since blocks are serious. Only content policies should be locally determined. Conduct policies are determined by the UCoC, which applies globally, not by project regulars.

@Ajraddatz: I've tried prodding 红渡厨 to try appealing again, but they aren't responding, so I think that means that they know what will happen and are using Meta as a refuge, just like me.

P.S. I've been through a similar incident myself earlier this year. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Faster than Thunder (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (阿南之人)

阁下之前第二次封禁中Midleading提及到这是「顯而易見不會存在爭議的情況」，你就祭出Zhxy 519的意见反驳，但你咋不看看他现在的看法？所以现在来看，此封禁的争议已经消失，不存在避嫌的问题。你就别这么粗心大意，啥也没看就跑过来吧。Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 08:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This unjustified case has been staled for more than a month! It is now only to take one declined vote to close this case. Informing U4C again: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF, thank you. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 09:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, glad to see that the case can be finally closed. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 11:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Lemonaka)

Please consider setting this decision, if is declined, to be the final decision. Thank you. It will really waste too much energy of the community due to repetitive appeals.Lemonaka (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

As the requester is not familiar with English, I strongly recommend them to ask a editor who trusted by them to translate their words, just for the fairness. Lemonaka (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder Trying to threaten to remove a vote to change the outcome of a trial is unacceptable. This behavior is clearly disruptive, and by the way, U4C doesn't care how you vote. Lemonaka (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@红渡厨: this request appears to be a copy of the previous one we declined at the beginning of September. My suggestion is to reach out to a local admin, ask for talk page access so that this can be dealt with locally. (G-translation) 这次的请求似乎是我们9月初拒绝的那个请求的副本。我的​​建议是联系当地管理员，申请讨论页面访问权限，以便在当地处理此事。 --Civvì (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Civvì先生/女士您好，我的这次申请并不完全是出于我在中文维基文库的讨论页权限被剥夺，而是由于以下两点：

1. 在《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》这次提报之后，我已经在2025年9月13日，在中文维基文库我自己的讨论页发起了申诉《s:zh:User_talk:红渡厨#对管理员Midleading对我本人的两次封禁提出的申诉》，但半个月过去了，未获得任何无需避嫌的管理员的处理；不仅如此，中文维基文库的其他管理员还以其他理由封禁了我的讨论页权限；
2. 由于中文维基文库曾经发生《Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Zhxy 519, Jusjih and Chinese Wikisource》这样一个持续多年而无法在中文维基文库本地处理的中文维基文库管理员争议事件，而本案件本身也涉及到中文维基文库管理员处理能力的问题，因此我完全无法信任中文维基文库任何一位管理员对于本案的处理能力。

红渡厨 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

截至今日，我在中文维基文库自己的讨论页发起的申诉《S:zh:User talk:红渡厨#对管理员Midleading对我本人的两次封禁提出的申诉》仍然未获得任何无需避嫌的管理员的处理，中文维基文库本地并无意愿或者说能力来处理本案，我再次呼吁U4C受理本案。 红渡厨 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

若U4C仍然无法受理，我希望U4C可以告诉我如何处理该事件。退回到中文维基文库处理我是无法接受的，同时，我也不可能让这件事情不了了之。 红渡厨 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@红渡厨: I am wondering why you did not simply ask for an unblock (I see there is a template for that) after the first block of July 16 instead of abusing your talk page in a way that resulted in the removal of your access to it. When we declined the first request the suggestion was to use local procedures to appeal the block, I can't find that on your talk page. @Midleading: the language barrier does not help but looking at wikisource:zh:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unblock the template does not appear to be linked in a specific Wikisource namespace page concerning blocks or admin actions, is there a description anywhere about how to request an unblock or appeal a block? --Civvì (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

我觉得我在《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》和《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 第二次》的陈述都白说了，我到这里来是为了处理管理员Midleading不正当使用权限的问题，如果这个问题不解决，就算我能解封，下一次管理员Midleading仍然可以不正当使用权限，然后封禁我，这样毫无意义。而且，我已经说了好几遍了，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。为什么你们要一次又一次地无视我说的这句话呢？ 红渡厨 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently, there are no written policies about unblock appeals. Therefore, users are supposed to apply for an appeal using the unblock template or any other form they like. This user made two requests on the user talk page, 对管理员Midleading对我本人的两次封禁提出的申诉 (the same as 中文维基文库管理员Midleading对红渡厨的封禁争议) and 对Lemonaka进行跨维基骚扰、诽谤行为，且提报后未获得管理员有效处理的申诉 (the same as Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Lemonaka与红渡厨的跨维基争议). However, the user denies any of the two U4C cases are unblock requests. Midleading (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever:为什么你们要无视我在中文维基文库作出的《s:zh:User_talk:红渡厨#对管理员Midleading对我本人的两次封禁提出的申诉》这次申诉呢？红渡厨 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I meant a genuine unblock request demonstrating an understanding of the issue, which I don’t see here. On the wikis where I’m an admin, unblock requests typically include an acknowledgment of the issue, followed by an explanation of the corrective steps taken to avoid similar situations in the future. (I’ve added “unblock appeal” below to clarify the wording.) BRP ^ever 10:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

你们U4C到底有没有理解我提出的是什么请求？我不是要找U4C申请我在中文维基文库的解封，我是要处理管理员Midleading不正当使用权限的问题。而且我一再讲过，中文维基文库没有管理员封禁申诉相应方针，一个字也没有。 红渡厨 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

我还想问一个问题，各位U4C成员是否仅通过s:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1183697此次封禁便判断Midleading的两次封禁毫无问题？红渡厨 (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

这又过了几天了，这几天没有一个U4C成员讲话，所以现在是要怎样？红渡厨 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

要么你们直接把我全域封禁，否则我绝不退缩，坚决与滥权管理员斗争到底！！！！！红渡厨 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

Decline votes

• I don’t see U4C cases as a replacement for local appeal processes. There was no genuine unblock appeal from the user showing understanding of the issue. On many wikis, talk page access after a block is meant for appeals, and using it for other purposes can be considered misuse, which may justify its removal. In this case, a different admin enforced the talk page block, and the user’s own comments on that talkpage also raise concerns. Overall, I don’t see this as an unreasonable block or an abuse of power.--BRP ^ever 06:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding the block set by Midleading, i don't see an abuse of power. The block could have been appealed to another admin. But: The removal of the talk page access came after talk page abuse occurred instead of appealing properly. The removal of talk page access was done by another admin than Midleading to avoid a conflict of interest of Midleading. Seems like a correct process to me. --Ghilt (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Having read the case and the links again, I don't see any abuse of power. This is the third case filed by the user. I would warmly recommend taking a break. Once the block has expired, come back, be calm, civil and cooperative. Sister projects usually have less users, less administrators and less familiarity and tolerance for repeated conflictual behaviour than larger projects. --Civvì (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• 我并不认为在2月的一个月封禁是完全合理的，但是不同管理员对于是否、如何实施封禁可以有不同的衡量标准，因此无法当作Midleading「滥用权限」的证据。7月的封禁中，本人在阅读列出的两个此前红渡厨与Midleading的交互后认为并非存在需要避嫌的情况，因此，我个人没有看到滥用权限的行为，若要申请解封还是在本地申请吧。
  I do not think the one-month block on February was completely justified, but I think it was within admin discretion, so not really depicting an abuse of power. I did not find evidence for Midleading being INVOLVED for block on July convincing. Thus, I do not see abuse of power. If you'd like an unblock please request locally. dbeef (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Per above - local appeal should bave happened before escalation to the U4C. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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) 11:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)