Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Hounding claim on Chinese Wikisource

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
XsLiDian (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Midleading (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST)	diff
红渡厨 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST)	diff
沈澄心 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST)	Self-nominated (no diff required)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 XsLiDian (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

XsLiDian

Description of the problem - (XsLiDian)

  Tip:TLDR: #Summary

Background

I contributed a few non-law documents on Chinese Wikisource ("Project"), in an old-fashioned naming convention (TITLE/disambiguate text) that this Project exercised in the early times, before 2010, when a community voting agreed to change law-related pages to the newer style (TITLE (disambiguate text)). This change was fairly old, that I didn't know until last week, and no other active Project users mentioned the change in related discussions in the last year.

WikiHounding #1

On Apr 16, 2024, I noticed on Wikidata that Template:Redact used for Wikisource projects (for redacted text in the source) were merged with Template:Redacted (used on talk pages) by User:Kcx36. I reverted that merge, pointing that they're different templates.

The first WikiHounding campaign was then started immediately. User:Kcx36 started by claiming that:

• I must:
  1. add a copyright tag to each article page;
  2. put AUTHOR'S NAME (of non-law articles) in lawmaker = rather than author = ;
• "Please stop making malicious assumptions about other people's intentions."

User:银色雪莉 claimed that:

• my naming convention (TITLE/disambiguate text) is "Original Naming" and never a local convention.
• s:zh:Wikisource:样式指南 (English: en:Wikisource:Style_guide) is a guideline and must be followed, so I have no right to refuse their suggestion of TITLE (disambiguate text).
• "shortest but unique" principle is nonsense and supported by no reliable evidence.

User:氧烷 (* not part of WikiHounding) added that:

• for judgement documents, s:zh:广东省高级人民法院（2021）粤民终1035号民事判决书 is a proud example of them.

User:红渡厨 claimed that:

• the Project guideline ruled that, I MUST add the exact license I was licensed with with a copyright tag.
• I was impolite in the conversation.

My response in the first round

• Copyright tag compliance:
  • I created a few template to reach the goal of en:template:PD-PRC-exempt, like Template:PD-PRC-法院判决 (lit. Court judgement)
    • Note that the Chinese Wikisource version of s:zh:template:PD-PRC-exempt was polluted with a logically-impossible-to-verify sentence: "This work ... is in the public ___domain in mainland China and any other regions."“本作品……在中国大陆和其他地区属于公有领域。” So I refused to use the existing copyright template.
• assumptions about other people's intentions:
  • I apologized for pointing out that User:银色雪莉 made no contribution before immediately joining the conversation.

For other inappropriate claims:

• copyright tag is a MUST:
  • “Tags can be fixed later by bots. It's not user-friendly to require contributing users do everything.”
• using lawmaker = instead of author = is a MUST:
  • “Unless lawmaker = appears in zh:Template:Header/preload, I will not take extra time to type lawmaker to replace author.”
  • Note that the Chinese laws explictly allow authorities be considered as authors
• moving unique title to full title is a MUST:
  • "using (disambiguate text) makes linking more difficult, so I prefer to keep the shorter but unique title as a redirect"
• naming convention (by User:银色雪莉):
  • “my naming convention follows the "shortest but unique" principle” (exercised by Unicode CLDR etc. as BCP 47)
  • “accusing "Original Naming" is slightly nonsensical” (I stopped explain further because the user refuses to acknowledge the existance of s:zh:康熙字典/一部/一画 is an identical situation to mine)
  • “I'm already exercising the newer style in some documents”(e.g. 政府信息公开申请答复告知书 (朝信息公开(2023)第28号-答) and 北京市西城区人民法院行政赔偿裁定书 (2023)京0102行赔初18号 (2024年4月1日))
  • “I don't object moving pages to their full title and I'm already exercising that convention”
  • “keeping redirects after moving pages helps adding inline links from other articles”
  • “You are still immersed in the inertial thinking of "Original Naming" accusations. I believe no more evidence will be able to influence your common sence. I suggest you review this situation when you see more confusion in the future.”
• suggested title for judgement documents (by User:氧烷*): (* not part of WikiHounding)
  • “The original scan clearly writes COURT NAME / DOC TYPE / CASE NO. 广东省高级人民法院 / 民事判决书 / （2021）粤民终1035号 rather than the existing title used by the suggester (COURT NAME / CASE NO. / DOC TYPE 广东省高级人民法院 / （2021）粤民终1035号 / 民事判决书), which is more Original than my naming convention^*” (* CASE NO., the unique string in every judgement document in mainland China)
    • This is a common issue for court documents and can be discussed further locally. This record is kept to show that I actually expressed reasonable reasons for my behaviour.
• Refusal of using s:zh:template:PD-PRC-exempt (by User:红渡厨):
  • the local Project guideline explictly said under "Original work of someone else" [他人的原作]: “If you add someone else's original work to Wikisource, this means that you have verified that the work is in the public ___domain in the United States, or that you have obtained permission from the copyright owner before adding it, which means that you have a copyright license. … You should use the template to indicate what type of license you have in the text page. [如果您向维基文库添加他人的原作，这表明您已经核查过该作品在美国确属公有领域，或者您在添加前已获得版权所有者的许可，也就是说您拿到了版权许可证。……您应当使用模板（template）在文本页面注明您获得的是什么类型的许可证。] i.e.
    • - It's in the public ___domain in the United States, or
    • - I have a license, which licensed the text specifically to me.

The fact is, I'm never a written licensee of governmental works or court documents. So, I refused to use s:zh:template:PD-PRC-exempt, which implies I'm a legit licensee with rights to distribute the document to every corner in the world, including jurisdictions where government works are copyrighted. Which I take as an impossible requirement for normal contributors. Neither would it fit with Wikimedia's goal to build Wikisource. ”

Result

• User:红渡厨 withdrew their claim that government work can't be copyrighted outside mainland China, or earth. (I took Mars as an example of alien jurisdiction.) They commented: "Never mind. Do as you please. [算了，您自便。]"
• s:zh:西安市人民政府文件/市政告字〔2021〕3号 was erased from Chinese Wikisource after a "move" proposal by User:银色雪莉, under the chilling effect of the WikiHounding enthusiasts, marking the first milestone of WikiHounding #1.

WikiHounding #2

On May 23, 2024, User:红渡厨 requested deletion of five templates used by me to categorize pages, claiming "not necessary to be so specific".

• On Oct 18, 2024, User:Midleading claims s:zh:Template:PRC-行政复议规范性文件 [regulatory rules in the administrative reconsideration ___domain of China] is a similar template.

Four were deleted by User:Hat600 on Dec 14, 2024, without closing the discussion. 1 2 3 4

• On Jan 20, 2025, User:Midleading deleted s:zh:Template:PRC-行政复议规范性文件 without consence of other admins (a requirement in the local guideline).

• On Feb 25, 2025, User:红渡厨 requested deletion of s:zh:Template:PRC-邮政领域行政规范性文件 [administrative regulatory rules in the postal ___domain of China], a shorthand of another template, claiming "not necessary to be so specific", also trolling: "Don't create odd^* templates any more." * by using "odd", they mean "any programming code that I can't understand."

My response in the second round

Usefulness of categorization templates:

• I pointed that templates are useful code snippets which help contributors with efficiency and accuracy while violating no known rules (if there's, please point it out).

Re-design of deleted but necessary templates:

• Since 1) the deletion of s:zh:Template:PRC-行政复议规范性文件 erased s:zh:Category:行政复议领域规范性文件 to an empty state (empty category now); 2) the template is also needed in future editing, I boldly re-designed the template as a shorthand of two other existing templates, minimizing the risk of being considered as duplicate of any degree. It's not final, but it works.

On-going WikiHounding

zh-source: Phase 1

My re-designs s:zh:Special:PermaLink/2531913 and s:zh:Special:PermaLink/2531892 unintentionally provoked User:红渡厨 immediately, who then added speedy deletion templates without any <noinclude> tag, making all articles using those templates listed as candidate for speedy deletion. Then they reported me at the admin's noticeboard (Feb 25) as "Bypassing the consensus of deletion discussion and recreating the deleted template".

• I wasn't aware of the report, and reverted the destructive edit in zh:Special:Diff/2531963 and zh:Special:Diff/2531964.
  • User:红渡厨 then reported again, with reason "revertion of G5 speedy deletion".
    • User:Midleading, an admin at Chinese Wikisource, also close friend of User:红渡厨 and a member of the on-going Wikihounding, agreed with User:红渡厨's claims; decided to remove my access in Template: namespace, citing "recreation of deleted templates without a restoration proposal."
      • I respected that decision, since I did make bold edits before the block.
        • I never re-created categorization templates after the warning.

• I followed up with a reverse report, proving the bad result of false claims with the common sense procedure (bad-faith statement causing the community to behave accordingly, causing damage).
  • User:Midleading dismissed all evidences I provided, saying #WikiHounding #1 are good-faithed reminders, not cyber-bullying; claiming dual-redirects can be fixed automatically; claiming government documents are impossibly copyrighted outside mainland China; claiming the community atmosphere aren't disrupted by claims of User:红渡厨.

wikidata: Phase 1

On Mar 4, User:Midleading filed a series of deletion requests on Wikidata, claiming some category entities created are "Commons only category that does not follow language policy on Commons to use English". Tricking me that Commons require categories to be named in English. Then I came up with typical ancient document categories: Category:通知 - non-Latin names are actually acceptable as proper nouns on Commons.

• The deletion succeeded as expected], because User:Midleading has carefully selected categories which I didn't have time add interwiki links, e.g.:
  • Q129843186 (Q129843186) has been on zh-source since 2020 (restored and merged into Q88757084 (Q88757084))
  • Q129839711 (Q129839711)'s subset has been on zh-source since 2023 (restored as Q133467740 (Q133467740))
• User:Midleading chose to request deletion, rather than merging, to enjoy their hounding campaign against me.

wikidata: Phase 2

On Apr 1, User:Midleading continued to request deletion of 39 category entities which I didn't got enough time to add interwiki sitelinks.

• Their bad-faithed attempt wasted time of both Wikidata admins and me.
  • It took me a weekend to restore most sitelinks to an usable state.

wikidata: Phase 3

On Apr 10, a clear sock User:0x0a (who had no interest in lawsuits I'm involved) requested deletion of Q133829236 (Q133829236), claiming "Unnotable document."

• I pointed out the case id files for verification.
• User:Midleading immediately voted to support User:0x0a, saying "This user has created items, categories, files, articles for every single document related to his own lawsuits, regardless of whether there are external references or media reports." Implying that only cases reported by media could have a place on Wikidata.
• This time they didn't succeed, because I had a strong reason to put that document onto Wikisource -- the case along with Category:（2025）津0106行初88号 (filed at a court in Tianjin) are perfect models to illustrate how courts would decide on unpublished regulatory rules of authorities asking for non-existing evidence. The first hearing will be held next month in Beijing's Xicheng Court. They are good materials to learn about administrative laws in mainland China.

zh-source: Phase 2

In the most-recent trap set up by User:Teetrition (“The openness of public cases does not mean that the court is like a vegetable market - you can come and go as you please - even the United States, which you takes as a role model, does not allow this.”), I pointed that the only reason I cite and respect US laws is that the Wikimedia servers were hosted in the US.

• I further shortened my self-requirement to I'm only capable of following the law order of where I live. - which is based on the double-standard state of community consensus, i.e. for the same type (nature) of documents, they hold different opinions (keeping police press releases but erasing* court and government press releases), causing copyright state of many public ___domain documents undecided according the community consensus. (* carried out by User:Midleading)
  • This shortened description of my personal behaviour, became the final clause to block my account on Chinese Wikisource:
    • User:Teetrition : “The statement may be contrary to local copyright policies. If the user has no intention of complying with local copyright policies and is only willing to comply with the copyright regulations of their place of residence, it is necessary to take certain preventive measures against them.”
      • User:沈澄心 : “The user still did not add the copyright templates as required after being reminded several times ... zh:阳公捕通字〔2023〕000019号、zh:大同市中级人民法院出庭通知书 has no copyright templates”
  • plus another sentence I talked about AR^* cases:
    • me: “On a smaller scale, I am the only user who frequently contribute administrative reconsideration (AR^*) documents. When situation changes, I naturally have the right to change the main category name from “Category:Administrative Reconsideration cases” to “Category:Administrative Reconsideration cases in mainland China” (by editing the template shared by those documents) without any discussion. As long as w:Wa State (a state in Myanmar (Burma), with authories named similarly like mainland China) issue their first administrative reconsideration decision document in their history, I will boldly follow up (to create a separate category for them). Such objective facts do not need to be discussed before change.”
      • User:沈澄心 : “Clear refusal to cooperate.”
  • User:Midleading : “This user has refused to follow Wikisource's policies despite repeated warnings, and has called all attempts to remind this user of existing policies "repeater" and "extremists," causing a continuous disruption to Wikisource's order, and therefore needs to be blocked indefinitely.”
    
    • The final block was done without noticing other admins (as required in the local guideline).

• User:红渡厨 requested mass deletion of government documents contributed by me, including defence statements by telecommunication authorities of Beijing, Jiangsu, Hunan, Chongqing.

Note: administrative reconsideration is a legal proceeding, whose name only exists in mainland China right now. So I don't add the "in mainland China" suffix which is unnecessary.

My response in the final round

Forgetting of adding copyright templates:

• “Before saying "Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond", we need to find out whether the newly-added article is actual sewage. Is an article forgetting copyright template sewage? No. A contributor is responsible for the copyright status of that article. As long as the article is in public ___domain, simply missing a template is easier to fix than to hound the contributor. ”

Respecting of Hong Kong government copyrights:

• “I only contribute mainland China materials, and there's no need to consider whether mainland-China-sourced (public ___domain) texts were copyrightable in other areas. All I need to care is not to bring copyright lawsuits to the Wikimedia Foundation.”

Re-design of deleted but necessary templates:

• Based on current consensus, I suggested spliting the existing template (designed by me) into two, one for copyright tagging purpose, the other for categorization purpose. I planned to do that next week, which would solve all existing copyright issues I'm involved.

Listening to others' voices:

• I've read every comment in the above pages... but double-standards appear everywhere on Chinese Wikisource. I followed every written guideline, but the admin User:Midleading required me to OBEY undocumented hidden rules that changes as others' wish, but not my reasonable wish.
  • I repeatedly said "can be discussed further later" before getting blocked on zh-source:
    • “... to add an acceptable copyright template per community consensus, considering the diversity of community users, and to avoid disputes. Which one to use exactly, can be discussed further later.”
    • “... whether that (press release) article meets the extremist copyright opinion in the local community, and which copyright templates should be applied, can be discussed further later”
• The final blocking is based on false claim (that I “refused to follow Wikisource's policies despite repeated warnings...”) and not discussed with other admins, imposed by the exact WikiHounding activist who dislike constructive edits.
  • The block prevents me from taking part in the community discussion.
    • The block prevents me from contacting other admins locally.
      • User:Midleading implied a document of litigation I was involved was non-sense.
      • The behaviour of User:Midleading against me is disruption to my own enjoyment of editing, also disruption to the Project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason.

Summary

• I committed no bad-faith operations on Wikisource, Wikidata or Commons in the recent two years.
• I never create bad-faith articles or templates on Wikisource.
  • Non-admin users disagree with me on namings, redirects, categories, templates etc, not on article texts^* I contributed (excepting one phone transcription, which was already deleted in Hounding #1). (* Most are simply documentary texts.)
  • The admin user (User:Midleading) disagrees with me on whether a short but documentary article (filed at court too) should be kept. User:Midleading implied litigations costed ≤CNY 50 aren't worth-keeping.
• I strongly support discussion over controversial edits.
• I followed revert and ignore and WP:BAIT guides to deal with obvious vandalism and trolling.
  • User:Midleading didn't suppress the dominant trolling on Chinese Wikisource until Feb 27, 2025.
    
    

• I mentioned "which can be talked further" multiple times before getting blocked today by User:Midleading, claiming I refused to follow Wikisource's policies....
• User:Midleading enjoys hounding rather than constructive building of WMF projects along with others.
• User:Midleading didn't make a public request for all other administrators to help for a re-examination per local guides the day they blocked my access (including admin/talk pages) to Chinese Wikisource.
  
  

• I was diagnosed with depression and stress disorder during Hounding #2. The diagnosis report was confirmed to be received on Oct 10, 2024 by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
  
  

• User:红渡厨 requesting mass deletion of public ___domain texts contributed by me (with page title heading to me) after User:Midleading imposed the block.
  
  

• User:沈澄心:
  • false claims (not respecting local copyright template policy; non-cooperation with others) on admins' noticeboard led to my final block.
    • After the block, accusing me "Clear refusal to cooperate."
  • Removal of legit and notable entities in mass (44 entries) on Wikidata.

  #my response to the new hounding by User:沈澄心

Previous attempts at a solution - (XsLiDian)

I have warned User:Midleading not to continue their hounding behaviour. User:Midleading blocked me on Chinese Wikisource after they failed to delete Q133829236 (Q133829236), a legit document filed by Chongqing Communications Administration to the court.

See also :

• #My response in the first round
• #My response in the second round
• #My response in the final round

my response to the new hounding by User:沈澄心

• Apr 19 on Wikidata:
  • I responded reasonably to their batch deletion request of 44 entities: “All subclasses I used for documents can be verifable with a legit document already uploaded to Commons, which can then be verified in-person with respective authorities (government, court etc).”
• Apr 19 on Commons:
  • I responded reasonably in their deletion request subpage: “You have the chance to improve them, rather than to follow and erase them.”
    • Note the requester claims that Chinese category names doesn't comply with Commons' language policy.

my response to other users' statements in this page

Background: Before Hounding #1, I already stated on Apr 4, 2024 that “The community can handle this page based on the consensus of the discussion, without asking for my further opinion. [社群可根据讨论共识径行处理该条目]” Which means I respect community consensus more than politely.

• User:Midleading:
  • Statement on 18:55, 19 April 2025:
    • [Apr 16, 2024] "verbal abuse hobbist"("口水仗爱好者"): this is an intentional garble of my netural words. "口水仗" (verbal debate), unlike the old-fashioned definition written in Wiktionary (Synonym of “war of words”), is a netural word in the modern online language, to describe a hot online situation where each side replying other sides' options quickly, especially on BBS.
      • My phrase was stated in the context of "no documented community consensus" -- “... As for your suggestion, it cannot "perfectly and elegantly" solve the title conflict problem of 市政告字〔2020〕2号 and 市政告字〔2021〕2号 (both documents share the same title), so I will not adopt it as a routine for the time being, in case that "community consensus" changes then changes all around. (I used half-angle brackets to add document numbers before. If the community consensus changes, it will take extra time to rename each page. Rather than being led by the nose by the verbal debate enthusiasts whenever they change minds, it is wiser to use the "most unique document id string" to create pages first; then, when the community reaches a final consensus, a bot can rename all the pages to an ideal state.)”
        • This message was a reply to User:Kcx36, who required me not to use "most unique document id string" as page name when creating pages.
      • I didn't blame User:Kcx36 for their lack of knowledge of library science.
      • In fact, before User:Kcx36 suggested the naming style on Apr 16, 2024, I already exercised that style, e.g. on Apr 4, 2024.
        • This means, I have never objected that style. It's used in my contributions quite a lot. I simply pointed that it may not fit every type of document.
          • I believe my behaviour is already-operation, not non-cooperation.
      • The impression of verbal debate hobbist was observed on Apr 5, 2024 when User:红渡厨 requested deletion of a talk page, using impolite and non-civic language claiming a message I left in a talk page is unrelated to the main article: “I object anything on talk pages that have nothing to do with the main article content or Wikisource. Whether [A] is public or not, it has nothing to do with [Approval of A]. Wikisource is for checking/reading documents, not for these irrelevant things. [我反对在讨论页讲这些与主页面内容无关，同时与维基文库无关的事情。...公开不公开，关...什么事情。维基文库是查/看文献用的，不是用来搞这些无关的事情的。]”
        • two other users already pointed out that my message on that talk page was actually related to the main article.
          • That talk page wasn't so important to me, so I voted to delete that talk page before other users pointed out the relevance concern.
            • I don't have many time debating on that minor talk page line by line. My attention is on article pages themselves. The deletion of that talk page doesn't hurt the project so much, so I chose the quickest way to end that discussion without any quarrelling.
    • [Apr 17, 2024] "a "gang" that tried to vandalize Wikisource" is a line made up by User:Midleading.
      • The quoted Chinese text comes from my reply to User:氧烷's previous message (Since you said you have a scanned copy of the government document to be entered, I suggest you make it public for other contributors. This will make it easier for everyone to see the original document and facilitate subsequent discussions on appropriate naming and formatting styles. ... [您既然说您有要录入的政府公文的扫描件，我建议您把它公开给这里其它参与录入的人看，这样方便大家看到公文原貌，便于后续讨论合适的录入标题和格式。 ...])
      • My original phrase in the reply was:
        “The creation of this talk page [2024-04-16 23:23] is purely a hounding practice of a "gang" campaign to stalk dissidents, carried out immediately after the proposer's destructive merge (on Wikidata) was reverted by me (2024-04-16 23:21:05). My plan to upload source documents was interrupted by User:Kcx36's stalking.
        The provocation happened 29 minutes after the questioning page was created. [2024-04-16 22:54] The false-claimer (User:银色雪莉, claiming [https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:%E6%97%A5%E5%BF%97&logid=17332 the old naming style is "Original Naming"]) has made no contributions today, before they joined and messed the quarrelling at 00:11, 77 minutes after the creation of that questioning page. Considering these points, if you were to blame that I didn't upload source documents for verification is the reason of this quarrel, I might suspect you were part of them and not trying to help new-comers. [此段落的提出，单纯是提出者的破坏性合并行为被我撤销后，立刻执行小圈子惯例，对异己死缠烂打之表现。我上传原稿的计划已被其打断。 / 阁下在页面创建不满一整日之际，无视挑衅行为发生在页面创建后第29分钟、当日无编辑行为者于页面创建后第77分钟迅速以不实陈述加入论战之事实，将争端归责于贡献者未上传原稿，恐非出于志愿者的互助之心，亦有洗版帮战之嫌。]”
        • I said so seriously, because I saw no constructive opinions until User:氧烷, whose words are reasonable and polite.
          • I owe an apology to User:氧烷, because I suspected them at the time.
            • When User:氧烷 replied, existing "gang" members had been committing sychological manipulation with false claims. See #WikiHounding #1.
        • I'm capable to recognize a "gang" out of all users, because I'm a Wikimedian with Asperger's, who processes language details so seriously, that I recognized grammar errors in their Chinese language long long before the quarrel. All users in this "gang" share the same slang-style grammar and call "him/her/them" as "you". This invalid grammar doesn't appear in the Chinese Wikipedia community, or other free projects I participated. I can identify the members of that "gang" simply reading their phrases, without stalking.
    • "The user stopped being active after a few days." I don't want to put time arguing with extreme users like User:红渡厨, who helped User:Midleading erases many public ___domain documents from Chinese Wikisource, especially COVID-19 related documentary texts.
      • I don't even log into my account in my everday life. This user name only appear when I have something valuable to share.
      • Ignoring is a simple way to avoid unreasonable arguing or escalation of conflict.
        
        
    • "When the user becomes active again in 2025, the same behaviour continues." This false claim is supported by no evidence.
      • The only similarity is that I don't take "advices" non-wiser than existing guidelines of WMF projects, after a careful examination.
    • "Some of the pages created by this user were nomiated for deletion because they do not comply with existing naming policy and other reasons."
      • compliance "with existing naming policy":
        • The only nomiated page is zh:电话沟通记录单, and it actually complies with existing naming policy. The nomiater User:Liouxiao didn't respect the local guidelines and their destructive attempts to erase edit history of this page (cleaning of article text and vandalizing the redirect) were reverted and deleted by a local admin, User:Ericliu1912, who I found not led by stalkers, and asked reasonably about this nomiated page.
          • (I found the "email this user" function on his page this afternoon, and had the first chance to inform local admins of this Case. I'm grateful for his contributions and his kindness in coordinating and writing his statements here. Everyone's time shouldn't be wasted if the hounding were stopped earlier.)
          • (He quoted other users' false claims, without verifying them. This shows how successful the Hounding team attempts to mislead users are.)
      • other deletion reasons:
        • Templates. Those are the main part of hounding against me, proposed for unreasonable reasons. My solution is already stated in #My response in the final round.
        • Category redirects. The reason the redirect exists, is that I've put time in organizing all pages in that category, and moved them to better targets. For example, I moved:
          • zh:Category:中华人民共和国民事诉讼案件 (Civil litigation cases of P. R. China)
            from
               zh:Category:中华人民共和国司法案件 (Law cases of P. R. China) & Category:民事案件 (Civil cases, non-existing category)
            to
               zh:Category:中华人民共和国司法案件 (Law cases of P. R. China) & Category:中国内地诉讼案件 (Litigation cases of mainland China) & Category:民事诉讼 (Civil litigation)

          Is my edit improving or destructing?

          • As a final step, to catch accidental linkings, I created the previously only-one*-item category s:zh:Category:民事案件 (Civil cases, now empty; * former subcategory: Civil litigation cases of P. R. China) as a shorthand redirect to Civil litigation cases of P. R. China, hoping other users would expand the hierarchy by replacing the redirect with another level of categories, like

          ↓ Civil litigation cases

          - Civil litigation cases in mainland China

          - Civil litigation cases in Hong Kong

          - Civil litigation cases in Macao

        and before the new structure, I can use the short name with HotCat, which can follow redirected category and automatically use the destination name when saving.

        • This also helps other users find out when another level becomes necessary, e.g. when saving pages, the redirected category's name become italic, that means the page should be put into a more specific category, or they may be moved to wrong categories by bots.

        • The deletion requesters, User:沈澄心 with s:Category:民事诉讼, User:Teetrition with s:Category:法院案件 and s:Category:行政诉讼案件, "ordered" me not to create redirects.
          • They want the redirects deleted.
            • I suspect they might have fallen in love with redlinks in the category line.

        • Other deletion requests against me were added after the block. They were purely w:WP:FOLLOWING and impossible to support User:Midleading's false claims that "When the user becomes active again in 2025 ... Some of the pages created by this user were nomiated for deletion ...".
      • To sum up the above, the "nomiated for deletion" claim by User:Midleading is an evidence of hounding, but not evidence of me misconducting or violating local guidelines.
    • "The user also recreates some of the templates already deleted due to earlier deletion requests." -- It's part of [#WikiHounding_#2:~:text=it%20out).-,Re%2Ddesign%20of%20deleted%20but%20necessary%20templates,-%3A my bold edits to re-design templates], after the necessary were cleared by the deletion of categorization templates by User:Midleading in Jan 2025.
      • I never re-create deleted templates since Mar 2025.
    • “This user was first blocked on Feb 27, 2025. I noticed both User:XsLiDian and User:红渡厨 had used excessive words during this period, so both users were blocked at the same time temporarily.”
      • I didn't receive any notice about the first block.
        • I didn't see or experience any abnormal display or UI change with the first block. (Maybe I wasn't active then?)
          • I even asked on Apr 3, 2025 in a reply to User:Midleading, when I first read about a block on recreating templates that day : “@Midleading Were you replying to the wrong person [i.e. User:红渡厨] ? I should be the one who recreated the templates in this case.[@Midleading 这条回复是否回复错人？本案中重建模版的人应该是我。]”

            • I explained further that I recreated templates following the local guideline: [Do not repost text that was previously deleted after discussion, unless it has been improved based on the reason for deletion.... 除非已经根据删除原因进行改善]
              • User:Midleading replied on Apr 8 claiming that "unless" rule doesn't work for my case. Implying all templates I improved earlier were subject for his speedy-deletion.

            • User:Midleading didn't reply to me about that first block.
              
      • On Apr 8, 2025, User:Midleading did gave a warning to me on the admins' noticebords.
        • Sadly, I didn't read that admins' page until Apr 18.
          • Luckly, I have strict requirements to my own behaviour, so I didn't violate them, even though I didn't see that reply.
            
    • However, the user continues to exhibit the same behaviour after the block expires.
      • I never recreated deleted templates since Mar 2025.
    • "'This leads to a second time this user was reported to the Administrators' noticeboard.'"
      • There's no direct relationship with my behavior and the said report...
        • User:Teetrition​ trapped me by framing that I love the United States more than my own country: “The openness of public cases does not mean that the court is like a vegetable market - you can come and go as you please - even the United States, which you take as a role model, does not allow this.”[...阁下引以为圭臬的美国...]
          • • I re-stated (much later) that I respect US copyright laws because it's nececcary to keep WMF projects running. [2025-04-17 23:52]
          • I shortened my own requirement to myself that “I don't need to consider HK copyright rules for non-HK documents. As long as a document isn't copyrightable in mainland China, I consider it free on Wikisource, regardless of other regional laws.” [2025-04-17 19:25]
          • User:Teetrition​ caught the last sentence, said “The last sentence of your speech is really disruptive to community order. [阁下本次发言最后一句话实在是扰乱社群建设”]. [2025-04-17 21:21]
            • I was confused and replied: I don't understand why it's disruptive. Could you please explain the logic? [2025-04-18 00:43]
              • User:Teetrition​ didn't explain their reason.
            • User:Teetrition​ reported me to admins' noticeboards on 2025-04-17 21:27
              • User:Teetrition​ implied I don't follow local copyright guidelines in their report.
                • User:Teetrition​ didn't explain why skipping HK laws for mainland China public-___domain documents violates the local copyright guidelines in the report.
              • I explained the context that I only uploaded documents from mainland China. 2025-04-18 02:06
        • User:Midleading trusted the said report and imposed block on my account on 2025-04-18 09:52
          • Even User:Ericliu1912 believed such claim in their response here.
    • "The user continues to refuse to acknowledge Wikisource copyright policies or cooperate with other members."
      • As stated above, I explained mainland China public-___domain documents comply with local copyright policies, regardless of other regional laws in the Project talk, and politely asked the reporting user why that's unacceptable. It's the reporting user who refused to cooperate, not me.
        • Neither User:Midleading nor User:Ericliu1912 explained here why Hong Kong Government Copyright (similar to Crown Copyright) could be imposed on documents authored in mainland China.
      • The other user joined in the reporting, User:沈澄心, accused:
        1. Two articles I forgot to add copyright templates are evidence that I don't co-operate with others. 2025-04-18 01:37
        2. Three aticles I added more-specific copyright templates are evidence that I don't co-operate with others. 2025-04-18 01:37
           • I commented that two of them have different copyright status: they must be public-___domain in the US, possibly in mainland China, but if the most extreme (restrictive) copyright opinion in the community is chosen by consensus, the articles may need to be deleted. Also I didn't create more copyright templates after a warning from User:Midleading. 2025-04-18 02:21
             after the block:
        3. My explain of a plan to move articles from Category:AR cases to Category:AR cases of mainland China in the future Apr 18 03:37, is "Clear refusal to cooperate." [2025-04-18 11:59]
           
    • Finally this user is indefinitely blocked on Wikisource. -- by User:Midleading, without acknowledging other admins before hand, which is a must per local guides, when the blocking admin has quarrels with the user to block: “... if it doesn't work, warn the user again, and make a second public request for all other administrators to help. If it still doesn't work, warn the user that they may have to be banned, and make a third public request for all other administrators to help. If it still doesn't work, ban the user as a last resort, but because this move is bound to be controversial, please make sure to make a public request for all other administrators to help for a re-examination. If the situation improves, hide this unavoidable ban from the public, which can restore the user's reputation and avoid the chaos of all other administrators doing nothing. [...无效时，再警告此用户，附带第二次公开善尽要求所有其他管理员协助。再无效时，严重警告此用户可能要不得已封禁，附带第三次公开善尽要求所有其他管理员协助。仍无效时，才能不得已封禁此用户，但因为此举难免有争议，所以请务必附带公开善尽要求所有其他管理员协助，以便再审。若情况好转，就隐藏此等不得已的封禁，避免公众可见，就能回复此用户名誉，也避免所有其他管理员都不作为的乱象。]”
      • I see no attempt by User:Midleading (admin) to:
        1. make a third public request for all other administrators to help or
        2. make a public request for all other administrators to help for a re-examination.

      This is where the local community failed to work according to their own guides to protect power-abuse victims.

      • Shortly before the block, I already tried to communicate with User:Midleading, explaining that I believe that the premise of cooperation is a common-sense basis for communication (i.e. consensus). I have never been the one who refused friendly communication in the first place. I never blame people for things they do, I always try to focus on the problems themselves and respond at the same or higher level of reasonability of the other party. Unless the other party keeps provoking to force me believe they're the problems themselves, then I won't take the bait. [2025-04-18 02:57] (I actually didn't know I "have to be blocked" when saying these)
        

    • "Other administrators apparently acknowledges all these blocks." -- Not until the block was imposed on Apr 18.
      • No admins other than User:Midleading joined discussion of the February report by User:红渡厨.
      • For the April report by User:Teetrition along with User:沈澄心:
        • No admins joined discussion before 2025-04-18 09:51
        • User:Midleading joined discussion on 2025-04-18 09:51
        • User:Midleading imposed the block on me on 2025-04-18 09:52
        • User:Ericliu1912​ asked how to deal with my category contributions on 2025-04-19 08:03
        • User:Zhxy 519​ commented: "Since the disruption is serious (to impose a block), I suggest to delete in mass. If found necessary in the future, they can be restored." 2025-04-19 09:05
      • To summarize "apparently acknowledges":
        1. Other admins are aware of the blocks after they were imposed, when they read admins' noticeboard;
        2. Other admins didn't object the blocks as of now;
        3. Other admins didn't re-examination the blocks as of now.
      • Thus, the local enforcement structures aren't working as expected by local guidelines.
        • Also, other admins were all misled by false claims of User:Midleading, User:Teetrition and User:沈澄心.
          
    • "This user also creates items for every pages and categories on Wikidata..." -- false claim again
      • Not evey page: s:zh:天津市通信管理局办件答复/2024年6月11日 doesn't have an entity on Wikidata;
      • Not evey category: s:zh:Category:北京市通信管理局行政复议答复书 doesn't have an entity on Wikidata;
    • "... some of them does not comply with Wikidata's notability policy ... that were items with only sitelink to Wikimedia Commons and did not meet the Wikidata notability policy 1.4." -- User:Midleading knew exactly that those pages have corresponding categories on Wikisource etc. User:Midleading intentionally chose entities I didn't add sitelinks, to enjoy their fun in w:WP:GAMING the deletion process against newbies. (#wikidata: Phase 2)
    • "d:Q133829236 were also an item without sitelinks and references when it is nominated for deletion by User:0x0a." -- It's an document authored by a government authority in a AR case. It's naturally legit on both Commons and Wikidata. Requesting deletion on false claim ("Unnotable document") is obvious vandalism and w:WP:GAMING.
      
    • "do not create unnotable items" -- false assumption
      • I have been carefully creating new entities to avoid another series of hounding.
      • New entities created by me all comply with the Wikidata Notability policies.
      • User:Midleading insists that court case not reported by news media or external sources (other than the full scans) aren't notable. This is a violation of Wikidata Notability policies and Universal Code of Conduct # 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence: “We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.”
        
        
        
• User:红渡厨：
  • Message dated Apr 19:
    • "不想搭理这种人" （I don't want to deal with this kind of person.） is obviously their consistant style of impolite and non-civic language to insult others, violating Universal Code of Conduct 3.1 – Harassment.
      • The local community failed in preventing User:红渡厨 from insulting other users from long long ago to Feb 2025. E.g.
        • “I consider User:Longway22 okay now, they finally speak ordinary language. If you can keep this behaviour, I would like to chat with you occationally.”我觉得Longway22阁下现在就挺好的，终于会讲几句正常话了，你要是能一直保持这样我倒也愿意跟你聊两句。 (2024-02-07 03:33)
        • “You're change the discussion subject - Oh, no, you're pretending to be blind. I said that the documents involved in the case may be forged, but you twisted my words into "based on the nature of government secrets"; then twisted the discussion of compliance of copyright policy into behaviour of censorship that violates the Wikipedia policy. Considering your consistent style, I refuse to apply the WP:GOODFAITH policy on you, and consider that naked malice, and this behavior has seriously disrupted the normal discussion of the community.”偷换概念，不对，是明着装瞎。我说案涉文件可能伪造，硬要把我的话歪曲成“以政府机密性质作为依据”；硬要把依据版权方针所规定的提出版权讨论，歪曲成违反维基方针的审查。考虑到阁下一贯作风，我拒绝对阁下援引假定善意的政策，认为这就是赤裸裸的恶意，该行为已严重的扰乱社群正常讨论。 (2024-02-10 16:06)
        • Nonsense. 胡说八道。 (2024-10-05 11:46)
    • The Universal Code of Conduct asks every Wikimedian to [Looking out for fellow contributors] ... and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct.
      • I thanked a victim of User:红渡厨 on Feb 25, 2025. I became the main target of this #On-going WikiHounding.
        
        
        
• User:Ericliu1912：
  • dated Apr 19:
    • The claims quoted by User:Ericliu1912
      • "the filer does not intend to comply with existing copyright norms" (沈澄心: 不按要求添加版权标记 NOT OBEYING OUR ORDER TO ADD COPYRIGHT BANNER)
      • "shows rather low interest in co-operating with the community" (沈澄心: 明显的拒绝合作。 Clear refusal to cooperate.)
      • "was warned for multiple times for refusing to comply with local policy" (Midleading: "经过反复多次警告仍旧拒绝执行维基文库方针")
      • even go as far as to ridicule others as "yes-man" ("複讀機") or "extremist" ("極端主義者") (Midleading: "宣称所有提醒此用户注意现有方针的行为为“复读机”和“极端主义者”")

    were all based on second-handed information provided by User:Midleading' and User:沈澄心.

    • More specifically,
      • "yes-man" (my phrase: 复读机) is a garble of "repeating", an approach to "gaslighting".
      • "extremist" (my phrase: 极端主义者) was in the context of "copyright debate", meaning the most extreme opinion (beyond common sense) that public-___domain works of mainland China are considered copyrightable by some local users.
        • My original sentence was: “...I consider the first two groups are free content (but extremists may strongly oppose it, so it is difficult to predict the community consensus), however, copyright law of China only listed a few wide categories that aren't copyrightable, and this subset (Notice from the police / court) isn't explicitly listed as wide category. My tolerance of the US public ___domain concept over Chinese documents is the exactly reason why User:Teetrition reported me here.”[前两组我自认为属于自由内容（但极端主义者会强烈反对，因此也难以预判社群共识），但内地法律并未明文规定它们不受著作权法保护。我这种包容态度正是Teetrition提报我的直接原因。]

        As you can see, I'm refering the most extreme opinions on copyright, not terrorists.

        • Extreme opinions exists before I said this sentence:

        • Kcx36: s:zh:第八批湖北省文物保护单位简介：Not suitable to use {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. This article is only available for download as an article from "Hubei Culture and Tourism" (WeChat account), and is not part of the announcement, or published in the form of a government announcement. I consider it's provided to the public as some publicity material, which can be compared to the concept of "application material" of Civil Ruling （2014）民申字第1418号 by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, where the application material were formed during a filing process. It has no universal-binding-force nature of administrative documents, so it doesn't belong to the "administrative documents" described by Rule 5.1 of Copyright Law of PRC. I believe the article inapplicable for {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. 不适用{{PD-PRC-exempt}}。本文仅在“湖北文旅”公众号文章中提供下载，并没有作为湖北省人民政府关于公布第八批湖北省文物保护单位的通知的一部分，或以政府通知的形式印发。我认为其只是作为一种宣传资料向公众提供，可类比zh:中华人民共和国最高人民法院（2014）民申字第1418号民事裁定书中的本案申报书是涉县排赛在申报国家级非物质文化遗产过程中形成的申报材料，不具有行政文件的普遍约束力，不属于著作权法第五条第（一）项规定的“行政性文件”，判断为不适用{{PD-PRC-exempt}}。 (https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:%E7%89%88%E6%AC%8A%E8%A8%8E%E8%AB%96/%E5%AD%98%E6%AA%94/2024%E5%B9%B4#c-Kcx36-20240329092800-3%E6%9C%88 2024-03-29])
        • 红渡厨: “If the copyright [in mainland China] isn't explictly clear, we should stick with the principle of benefiting the author>, and delete them.”[对于无法讲清楚是否侵权的内容，应按照有利于作者的原则，删之。] (2024-01-18)
      • I believe some police press releases fall into such "non-administrative" nature quoted above, and whether to move them to Multilingual Wikisource can be discussed further locally.

Suggested solutions - (XsLiDian)

• I hope the Committee would warn User:Midleading that hounding (#3.1.6) and psychological manipulation (#3.2.3) aren't constructive behaviours.
  • I hope the Committee would suggest User:Midleading to read WP:RKEEP for situation of page moves. I believe its concept is good to the long-term development of WMF projects.
    
    

• I hope the Committee would agree with me that improving is better than deletion.
  
  

• I hope my blocking situation could be reviewed by other admins of Chinese Wikisource, if the local enforcement structures still work.
  • I hope the Committee would note User:Ericliu1912 (admin of Chinese Wikisource) that when users are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct, especially when it happens in a cross-wiki way, any Wikimedian is responsible for ensuring that the Wikimedia projects are productive, pleasant and safe spaces, and contribute to the Wikimedia mission. (#2.2) If the local project fails to do so, Wikimedia Foundation has the right to investigate and make decisions.
    
    

• I'm more than willing to take any suggestion, critique and punishment from the Committee, so I myself could behave better following project guidelines and WMF goals.
  
  

• I hope the Committee would agree with me that any document presented in AR and court archives are non-trivial documentary sources.
  • I hope the Committee would give User:红渡厨 a suggestion similar to: public-___domain texts don't need to be requested for deletion again and again individually. Documents of the same nature (with the same title) could be discussed as a whole.
  • I hope the Committee would note User:红渡厨 the deletion of category redirects doesn't help prevention of accidental linking and categorization.
    
    

• I hope the Committee would warn User:沈澄心 hampering the creation (and/or maintenance) of content (#3.3) isn't constructive.
  • I hope the Committee would note User:沈澄心 the deletion of a whole hierarchy tree of government documents from Wikidata may be disruptive.
     

• Note that I don't have the access to notice the other parties locally on Chinese Wikisource, because of the mentioned block.

Midleading

Previous attempts at a solution - Midleading

The behavior problem with this user was first seen in 2024 when a user kindly discussed with this user about the article naming. However this user replied with outright refusion and used impolite words "verbal abuse hobbist"("口水仗爱好者"). The related discussions in 2024 can be found on the user talk page as well as deletion discussion archive. In general the non-cooperation of the user was quite apparent at that time and the user claims almost everybody who participated in the discussion as member of a "gang" that tried to vandalize Wikisource("此段落的提出，单纯是提出者的破坏性合并行为被我撤销后，立刻执行小圈子惯例，对异己死缠烂打之表现。"). The user stopped being active after a few days, so there's no need to apply a block.

When the user becomes active again in 2025, the same behaviour continues. Some of the pages created by this user were nomiated for deletion because they do not comply with existing naming policy and other reasons. These deletion discussions are not yet archived and can be seen at s:zh:Wikisource:删除讨论. The user also recreates some of the templates already deleted due to earlier deletion requests. User:红渡厨 reported this behaviour as well as many non-civic language use by the user to the Administrators' noticeboard. This user was first blocked on Feb 27, 2025. I noticed both User:XsLiDian and User:红渡厨 had used excessive words during this period, so both users were blocked at the same time temporarily. I had not blocked this user from appealing these deletion requests in hope of this user could cooperate while a temporary block is being applied.

However, the user continues to exhibit the same behaviour after the block expires. This leads to a second time this user was reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. The user continues to refuse to acknowledge Wikisource copyright policies or cooperate with other members. Finally this user is indefinitely blocked on Wikisource.

Other administrators apparently acknowledges all these blocks. The discussions on how to clean up the mess left by this user goes on with all existing community members and administrators, including two other administrators User:Zhxy 519 and User:Ericliu1912.

This user also creates items for every pages and categories on Wikidata, and some of them does not comply with Wikidata's notability policy. For example, d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2025/03/14#Q129821097 and d:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2025/04/02#Bulk_deletion_request_of_items_created_by_User:XsLiDian that were items with only sitelink to Wikimedia Commons and did not meet the Wikidata notability policy 1.4. d:Q133829236 were also an item without sitelinks and references when it is nominated for deletion by User:0x0a.

I posted the message of the user is being blocked on the Administrators' noticeboard immediately when the user is blocked. This is equivalent to notifying all administrators. There are many administrators, there is no need to send a message to the talk page of each one. Midleading (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Midleading

This case does not involve some "underground gang" as this user persistently claims. The user also created a "checkuser request" on Wikidata listing all users who warned about the user but forgot to list it properly. These claims should stop immediately.

I suggest the user should recognize the policy of Chinese Wikisource and behave friendly with other community members. After that the user can appeal the block at the user talk page. On Wikidata, please read the notability policy and do not create unnotable items. Add all related references and sitelinks at the time of item creation so that the notabity of the item is clearly established.

The U4C can close this case by a warning to the user or further steps if necessary. Midleading (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

红渡厨

Previous attempts at a solution - 红渡厨

Suggested solutions - 红渡厨

This user replied in the user talk page that he/she "doesn't understand English well, doesn't want to interact with this user, and it isn't necessary to do so"("感谢您的提醒，我英文不怎么样，再加上我也不想搭理这种人，觉得没什么理会的必要，我就不在那边回复了。"). Midleading (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

沈澄心

Previous attempts at a solution - 沈澄心

XsLiDian insists on refusing co-operate with the community:

• On Wikidata, XsLiDian has been asked twice not to create category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons from March 2025 to April 2025. The user replied “Your malicious misinterpretation of the Commons category guidelines [(‘...category that does not follow language policy on Commons to use English’)] is simply one of the behaviours of your attempt to damage the Wikimedia communities. You aren't welcome on any of my talk pages. ” to Misleading.
• On Commons, XsLiDian has been told twice that category names should generally be in English from September 2024 to February 2025.
• On Chinese Wikisource, XsLiDian has been ask multiple times (s:zh:User talk:XsLiDian and s:zh:Wikisource:請求管理員幫助 (2552383)) to use copyright tags from April 2024 to April 2025.

All these warnings have been ignored by XsLiDian.

The user also fails to assume good faith:

• s:User talk:XsLiDian#c-XsLiDian-20240417154900-氧烷-20240416221300, in reply to a suggestion of uploading scanned copies of government documents (您既然说您有要录入的政府公文的扫描件，我建议您把它公开给这里其它参与录入的人看，这样方便大家看到公文原貌): “The proposal of this paragraph is simply a manifestation of the small circle's practice of pestering dissidents immediately after the destructive merger behavior of the proposer was revoked by me. My plan to upload the original manuscript has been interrupted by him. You ignored the fact that the provocative behavior occurred 29 minutes after the page was created less than a day ago, and the fact that the person who did not edit the page on that day quickly joined the debate with false statements 77 minutes after the page was created. You attributed the dispute to the contributor's failure to upload the original manuscript. I am afraid that it is not out of the mutual assistance of volunteers, and it is also suspected of spamming.” (此段落的提出，单纯是提出者的破坏性合并行为被我撤销后，立刻执行小圈子惯例，对异己死缠烂打之表现。我上传原稿的计划已被其打断。阁下在页面创建不满一整日之际，无视挑衅行为发生在页面创建后第29分钟、当日无编辑行为者于页面创建后第77分钟迅速以不实陈述加入论战之事实，将争端归责于贡献者未上传原稿，恐非出于志愿者的互助之心，亦有洗版帮战之嫌。)
• s:Wikisource:請求管理員幫助#c-XsLiDian-20250225145700-User:红渡厨_虚构方针，打压异己: “In April 2024, 红渡厨 and several of their “friends” came to my user [talk] page in a very short period of time to carry out cyberbullying.” (2024年4月，红渡厨 及其多位“好友”在极短的时间内来我 用户页 实施网络欺凌)
• s:Wikisource:請求管理員幫助#c-XsLiDian-20250403093800-Midleading-20250228145200: “Participants such as User:银色雪莉, who is well-versed in "secret language", had no editing record on that day. They suddenly joined the discussion (and accused me of "original naming") when they had no overlapping editing interests with me. If it was not the behavior of a small circle, then I can only say that it was a coincidence given by God.” (其参与者如“黑话”造诣丰富的 User:银色雪莉 ，当日并无编辑记录，在与我没有编辑兴趣交集的情况下突然加入讨论（并指控我“原创命名”），如果不是小圈子行为，那我只能说是天赐的巧合了。)
• s:Wikisource:删除讨论#c-XsLiDian-20250417164300-Teetrition-20250417132100: “Since you are so excited about such a simple second thought experiment, I will kindly assume that you have not been deceived by the DPP's brainwashing for long and there is still room for salvation.” (阁下对如此浅显的第二项思想实验如此激动，我善意推定阁下并未被民进党洗脑包迷惑多时，仍有挽救空间。)
• d:Wikidata:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Midleading: “I believe User:Midleading and other WikiHounding enthusiast [note: 6 users in total] have prepared quite well to hide their IPs from User:0x0a, which is the exact reason they could speak at no cost. I hope this request constitutes a formal and rules-based warning to those fact-erasers, that Wikimedia projects aren't good places to play The Ministry of Truth games.”

Suggested solutions - 沈澄心

Eric Liu has explained why this case should be rejected, and I have nothing more to say. --dringsim 06:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Ericliu1912)

Providing some context: Per this discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard, the filer does not intend to follow existing copyright norms ("仍然不按要求添加版權標記", "使用不存在或已刪除的模板"), shows rather low interest in co-operating with the community ("明顯的拒絕合作"), and was warned multiple times ("經過反覆多次警告") for refusing to comply with local Wikisource policy ("拒絕執行維基文庫方針"), even go as far as to ridicule others as "yes-man" ("複讀機") or "extremist" ("極端主義者").

Accordingly, I found the filer's "hounding" claim quite unreasonable, and recommend the Committee reject the case outright. That being said, I do suggest the filer go through local block appeal procedure first before bothering the Committee (and try to communicate with others), as their user talk page and email were both not blocked, and there's no sign of the local community failing to respond properly (as oppose to this case). —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 09:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

1. Reminders and discussions made with civility and good faith is not hounding. I'd recommend the filer to take some time to reflect whether everyone else around them is specifically targeting them because everyone else is operating on bad faith, or that everyone else just trying to communicate to them for them to adjust some of their behavior. If pressed further I might support a warning to XsLiDian to not assume bad faith in discussions but I'm currently not seeing a need. Decline. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't see these repeated justifiable requests for changing behaviour by several users as harassment, and this can be further discussed locally. --Ghilt (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Ghilt. The user can appeal locally but I'd like also to suggest to take a step back from controversial content and from a way of contributing that often meets with disagreement from other users, this seems to me a really stressful and exhausting way to volunteer on Wikimedia projects. --Civvì (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Civvi and Ghilt. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with Civvi and Ghilt. Luke081515 20:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per above --Superpes15 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. per above --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 12:49, 3 May 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.

• Acknowledging that this request has been seen by the U4C. Parties have been notified locally. --Civvì (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The case can't get accepted by the U4C since the majority of it's members declined it. Hence closing this case as declined. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 19:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]