Requests for comment/Motion of No Confidence in Some Bureaucrat and Administrators of the Chinese Wikipedia, Curbing Collective Bullying, and Foundation Action Requests

The following request for comments is closed. This request is obviously going nowhere and the creator is now globally locked. --MF-W 19:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two years have passed, and I never thought I would return to this place again. This matter begins with a motion of distrust against a Chinese Wikipedia administrator. On August 8th of this year, administrator Mys 721tx imposed a ban on me, which was later deemed "contrary to common sense" after community discussion. The ban was eventually lifted by third-party administrator Tigerzeng.

This is not the first time Mys 721tx has carried out controversial actions; it happened once in 2021 and again at the end of 2022. However, the community generally hoped for their repentance. But evidently, they were unable to do so. Hence, as the party involved, I proposed a motion of distrust and requested the community to dismiss them through a vote of no confidence.

Within one day of my proposal (allowing time for the party involved to respond, but they didn't until the end), it received endorsements from seven individuals, indicating that the motion has been established.

At this point, many members of the Autoconfirmed Users (AC) Telegram group on the Chinese Wikipedia accused my statements of potentially disrupting the voting process and demanded that administrators ban me. However, it was obvious that they did not gain community consensus and, instead, were seen as interfering with the voting process. Personally, I believe they did so because I criticized some users for their inappropriate behavior within the community, which created bias against me.

I later pointed this out on the community noticeboard. In fact, I have mentioned before that I am immune to personal insults. However, they targeted innocent individuals and disrupted the order of the Chinese Wikipedia community, which I cannot ignore. At this point, several users suggested that I seek help from the Wikimedia Foundation. Nonetheless, I still hoped for their repentance. Yet, every opportunity I gave them resulted in further cruelty towards the Chinese Wikipedia community.

At this moment, an instance of their self-inflicted loss of trust within the community unfolded: two administrators(Shizhao and Wong128hk) of this Telegram group (who also serve as bureaucrats of the Chinese Wikipedia, meaning they are responsible for interpreting community consensus when necessary) expressed, below the user's proposal, a temporary suspension of the vote due to procedural issues. These two bureaucrats imposed ambiguous bans on me and prohibited me from speaking on the discussion page.

They believed that this would effectively restrain any pointing out of their atrocities, but it only made them the sole anomalies in our community. I believe that no amount of forgiveness can replace their disruptive actions within our community. Therefore, I hereby request the Wikimedia Foundation to impose Global Bans on individuals such as Shizhao, Wong128hk, Mys 721tx, Ericliu1912, LuciferianThomas, SunAfterRain, ASid, Quinnie.wong(This one even threatened other users with legal action.),Newbamboo, in order to redeem this community. Thanks——WMLO (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


時隔兩年,我沒有想過我居然還會再來這個地方。這件事情,要從對一位中文維基百科管理員的不信任提案開始説起。管理員Mys 721tx在今年8月8日對我執行了一次封禁,此封禁後來經過社群一致討論,被認爲“違反常識”。後來得到第三方管理員Tigerzeng的解除封禁。
這并非Mys 721tx首次執行有爭議的操作,在2021年有一次,2022年底也有一次。社群普遍希望他能悔改。但顯然,他做不到這點。因此,我作爲當事人對其提出不信任動議,請求社群通過罷免投票的方式,將其解職。
他們認爲這樣能很好遏制對他們暴行的指出,但是卻讓他們成爲我們社群唯一的異類。我認爲任何的寬恕,都已經無法取代他們擾亂我們這個社群的行爲。因此我在此請求維基媒體基金會,對Shizhao、Wong128hk、Mys 721tx、Ericliu1912、LuciferianThomas、SunAfterRain、ASid、Quinnie.wong(此君甚至對他人進行法律威脅)、Newbamboo等人施行全域禁止,以救贖這個社群。
謝謝。——WMLO (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


您們可以當吳王夫差,無奈我和社群不是伍子胥。我本來還以爲彈劾的只有一個嚴嵩,天意卻讓我面對整個嚴黨。既然我説的任何的話、任何的原諒、任何的勸解,只能換得爾等對社群之殘忍。那麽我想您們不用回答了,去跟你們的天王老子説吧。——WMLO (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a side note to @Fumikas Sagisavas, who has reported other possible inappropriate issues with Mys 721tx to the Foundation.——WMLO (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@維基百科最忠誠的反對者: Per the RFC policy, please notify the related parties on their talk page. (p.s. as they are blocked locally at this moment, it should be appropriate for them to post a notice on the Stewards' Noticeboard requesting assistance too.) —— Eric LiuTalk 18:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ericliu1912:You don't have to be afraid to be so neutral as to tell the Foundation the truth about your group's nasty comments and slanders about myself, and still have them think you are honest. And please do me a favour, after all, I'm still banned :) WMLO (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? —— Eric LiuTalk 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ericliu1912:需要我説現代漢語麽?您不必如此害怕而假裝中立,若是如實告訴基金會爾等在Tg群對我本人的誹謗、污衊以及對無辜者的中傷,至少還讓基金會認爲爾等有懺悔之意。另,關於通知,還請代勞。畢竟我現在可還是被封禁的“游戲維基規則”者呢 :) WMLO (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case that you aren't familiar with the polices, I'll just quote it for you: "If the RFC concerns one party or a few parties, the initiator of the RFC must notify them on their talk page, either on the wiki in question or on Meta. If the RFC concerns the conduct of several users on the same wiki, or the conduct of an entire community of a Wikimedia wiki, the initiator of the RFC must post a neutrally-worded notice linking to the RFC on a prominent page on that wiki, such as the village pump (links). If the initiator is unable to do so because they are blocked on that wiki, they must post a notice on the stewards' noticeboard requesting assistance."
And is this a global ban request? If so, than the RfC certainly does not meet the requirement defined by the Global bans policy which stated that any user involved in the issue needs to be permanently blocked on over two wikis to be actually applicable for a global ban, thus shall be speedily closed. —— Eric LiuTalk 18:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an Office actions request, then the RfC is obviously not the space for that either. Please follow the instructions of the Office actions policy. —— Eric LiuTalk 18:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judging solely from the initiator's statement, the parties associated with the issue seem not to satisfy the criteria of the Global ban section of the Office Action policy. --魔琴 (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it was obvious that something needed to be done. I just want to ask the Foundation to act, what they do is not my concern.——WMLO (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@維基百科最忠誠的反對者 For requesting an office action, please contact Wikipedia foundation directly. They are so lazy and don't want to have any glance on here.
For requesting a community global ban, please notify the defendant of your accusations.
@Wong128hk you blocked @維基百科最忠誠的反對者 for outing, if yes, can you specify what happened? Not to me, but to foundation or stewards if it is necessary.
For cross wiki trolling, outing and defamation @維基百科最忠誠的反對者, you are close to a global ban or foundation action against yourself. Please be careful. Lemonaka (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka:Please mind your own business and don't get involved in Chinese Wikipedia. As for why he wants to block me, I have already discussed that with you. It's just that you are as biased against me as the rest of those who don't know any better. Again, mind your own business.I have done thirty-seven days of wrongful imprisonment under the abuse of Mys 721tx. If I can see their judgement now, I can afford to wait half a year, not to mention 37 days.——WMLO (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't get back to you.——WMLO (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
我用中文跟大家説一下,此君跟上面那群不明事理者一個樣。在我一而再再而三地跟他解釋下,仍然覺得我是個擾亂者。并且在英文維基百科上給我濫發三級警告,就因爲我跟他談論了這個案子。甚至還揚言“我不想再牽扯進你們的混亂局面了~請你走開,不然視作騷擾~”現在又如何了?我還是用中文跟他説一遍,@Lemonaka管好你自己。——WMLO (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote to you the dialogue between him and me to explain my argument:
...You should repost the bureaucrat's statements defending Mys 721tx. They banned me with unclear reasons and inexplicably intended to suspend RFDA. Even a fool knows what they're up to. If I can be banned by Mys 721tx for a month, I can certainly endure a decision even more absurd than this. History shows that the community will inevitably stand on my side. May Lord forgive them, amen.""
"...Can you take a moment to think about whose personal information I've uncovered? If it's that group(Tg), even their own rules say that users can be quoted. If it's the age of the administrator, his entry or memorial page existed in the Chinese wikipedia until last year.
Even if I mentioned it unintentionally, that doesn't constitute a direct ban on my talk page. And even if J.Wong wanted to make it so serious, why didn't he block my comment? I am disappointed in your position on me, but you are right about one thing. I have never doubted that there is so much malice in my community. "——WMLO (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I also very much hope that these few people can give a reasonable explanation to the Honourable Foundation and the Community of Chinese Wikipedia. But I have only one thing to say to them: the lies you write in ink cannot cover up the facts written in blood.——WMLO (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
另外告知一下過往的君子,如果您們看到我這留言,務必將Shizhao和J.Wong兩個人的管理員與行政員權限,直接通知監管員予以緊急除權。考慮到現在已發表意見的近半數行政員都在助紂爲虐,請各位為保護社群忽略所有的規則,不用通知行政員,直接去提請緊急除權(儘管我認爲沒有必要,但如果想,可以先在社群開個討論)。對於Ericliu1912,請各位考慮進行新的一輪RFAD,盡然劉醬這麽支持Mys 721tx的觀念覺得輕辱用戶沒有關係,甚至協助擾亂社群的話,那麽就順應天意地把他們兩個一并送走吧。——WMLO (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
説真的,能到現今這部田地,都是爾等作的。你們剛開始認爲我的解任理據很薄弱,甚至是胡來,結果我一天内就湊齊了7張票;你們認爲我在拉票,結果社群普遍對此予以否決;你們認爲用那可笑的理由,把我連同討論頁一并封禁,就能遏制住我的發聲,進而再以行政員的身份,以“解讀共識”之權擾亂社群投票,結果現在你們的罪惡正光明正大地在衆人面前展示。我給過你們無數次機會,結果你們的高傲、偏見親自把您們送入了墳墓。我希望你們通過這次事件,先學會一點,就算被直白地批評了,不要先入爲主地認爲你對他錯,更不要和一堆同樣不明白這點的人混在一起。——WMLO (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
另警告一下未來的管理員(@SCP-2000, HTinC23, 卡達, and 薏仁將:),倘若爾等再學這些人,把用戶視如豬狗,就是今天的結果。此外進任何群組前,建議你們把《女巫道德》看上一遍。這是爲了你們,也是爲了社群。——WMLO (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from LuciferianThomas


A single emotional opening statement by a raging user wouldn't help the global community know of the entirety of events, so keeping it clean and direct here for everyone reading to understand why User:維基百科最忠誠的反對者 (Wikipedia's Most Loyal Opponent, to be referred as WMLO below) got into so much trouble:

  1. Gaming the banning policy and blaming the blocking administrator thereafter

    As with other banning policies on Wikimedia projects, Chinese Wikipedia's banning policy is a strict ban from any form of editing in the area of a ban. WMLO has an active interaction ban (en) with User:MINQI to this date (see the ban log on zhwiki).

    This all started with User:Mys_721tx initially blocked both WMLO and MINQI for a violation of the IBAN (ANM report, log, log), and when questioned, cited that WMLO and MINQI had previous had conflicts (whilst not directly against each other) on a topic's discussion and yet both has continued to interact in that area (see ANM report); and additionally that the two violated the IBAN by reporting each other on ANM, where reporting for the opposing party's behaviour is not appealing for one's own ban, and also do not satisfy "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of their own ban" (提报对方行为不属于对自身禁制的申诉,亦不是阐明禁制范围的请求。).

    The following is the ban policy revision to this date of writing, which hasn't seen further changes from the start of this series of events (included here due to differences with the English version, for the global community's reference).

    Ban policy collapsed for brevity
    Original in Chinese:


    1. 回退非常顯而易見的嚴重破壞(如頁面被替換為不當內容)或違反生者傳記方針的內容;
    2. 作必要且符合社群規範的爭議解決,即提出對禁制本身的合理疑慮。此包括:
      • 要求闡明禁制範圍;及
      • 提出禁制申訴。


    Translation in English:

    These edits will be exempted from ban violations:

    1. Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons.
    2. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, i.e. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself. This includes:
      • asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban; and
      • appealing the ban.

    Do note that the Chinese clauses are phrased differently, on text only explicitly allowing for requesting for clarification and ban appeals. This is a leftover restriction (permalink) from before my rewriting of the ban policy to correct long-existing machine-translated language (way before the incident), and I had not added the other English terms (especially the part for asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user) to this section. This has a basis of a past local discussion rejecting the idea of allowing users to report each other in an IBAN.

    Whilst further community discussion later had new consensus to add asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user to the clause, consensus was never reached that Mys_721tx's blocking was inappropriate (discussion on VPO, archived Aug 2023, titled "有關對用戶WMLO的封鎖的合理性問題" regarding the legitimacy of the block against WMLO; discussion on VPP, active, titled "修订WP:BANEX" modify WP:BANEX). Some users (including me) have stated that Mys_721tx's action was coherent to the version of the ban policy to date of blocking, which did not explicitly allow for such reporting; while some other members of the community (including WMLO) claimed that it is "against common sense" to block according to the policy's explicit terms, and that "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" should be broadly interpreted, and User:Cangjie6 outright called Mys_721tx's actions as "anti-intellectual" (反智).

    Administrator User:Tigerzeng reasonably unblocked WMLO on the basis that the community has reached near consensus to include such clause in the ban policy.

    Unblock rationale collapsed for brevity

    Original in Chinese:


    Translation in English:

    1. It can be concluded that MINQI has indeed reverted WMLO's edits and no one has opposed to this.

    2. The arguing point of whether reporting the other user constitutes a violation of the IBAN. This appears to be a missed out point when constructing such policy, and according to the VP discussion, there seems to be preliminary consensus to allow such behaviour, with [some users'] opinions on details. Due to this, the block is lifted.

    It has been made very clear to WMLO that it was a policy problem and not an administrator abuse, yet WMLO (and some of their supporters) clearly didn't bother.

    Additionally, WMLO outright ignored the IBAN after being unblocked, repeatedly mentioning and even pinging MINQI when trying to make points against Mys_721tx. Details are listed in a VP post I made against WMLO themself.

  2. Uncivil and outing behaviour against administrators and double standards on civility

    This part can be described in short. WMLO accused me of being uncivil when I critized that a blocked user was "ignorant to the [cited] rules of Wikipedia" in April this year, and created an essay on harsh comments (mostly targeted at me), its nutshell wrote, "please use a calm tone to point out someone's mistakes" (請盡量以冷靜口吻指出對方的錯誤。), then in a discussion in July WMLO outright called ZHWIKI sysop User:Ericliu1912 "disgusting" (噁心, wikt:噁心). WMLO initially admitted that they were describing perception of [Ericliu1912]'s "inappropriate behaviour" (形容別人不當行爲的觀感 back in July, but later tried to counter-claim in their recent report against Ericliu1912 in ANM that they were meaning that they "felt sick" (or "were disgusted") of such behaviour and the phrase was not used to make personal attacks.

    In this week's chaos, WMLO repeated threatened, attacked or harassed (with messages and pings) literally every single user that they did not agree with, including myself, Mys_721tx, Ericliu1912, ASid (making fun of their failed RfA), SunAfterRain, etc., justifying themself by accusing us of group bullying through a public Telegram group, while we were only discussing their rogue behaviour and requesting for consequences against them (WMLO), without a single personal attack against them, and none of us even asked others to leave comments to sway the community. The chat history is public and can be reviewed by any user if needed. Additionally following the very recent block of WMLO on ZHWIKI, they further attacked and made threats against the blocking administrator User:Shizhao, and also gamed on outing Shizhao's personal information (and made ad hominem comments against them), all of which is very well preserved in WMLO's talk page on ZHWIKI.

  3. Canvassing, campaigning and inappropriate activities for an ongoing RfDA

    WMLO decided that posting a message in the opposing section asking people to not vote oppose would be a good idea, and even sent it even more times (as removed here and here). While this is borderline canvassing (as some people do disagree), they clearly have campaigning behaviour for an ongoing RfDA, which clearly would affect the results and legitimacy of the voting. Their comment on Wednesday at 13:57 (UTC) also shows a clear attitude to game the RfDA that he "totally agrees for" removal of comments to support the legitimacy of the RfDA, which multiple users including me, User:Quinnie.wong and User:Mafalda4144 already expressed clear objections for the uncivil and gaming behaviour on the RfDA.

  4. More of gaming the system and inappropriate behaviour

    What led to their current block by Shizhao would be them trying to edit an archived ANM discussion. The community almost never allows editing a past discussion, and thus leading to their block.

    Also some other behaviour by WMLO: I'm not sure if they seem to believe that no one is going to take them responsible for their inappropriate behaviour across the week, and they have repeatedly "agreed to have themself blocked" if "the community agrees that [some] behaviour is undesired", as shown here and twice here. Then they proceeded to basically yell at the administrator blocking them for their inappropriate behaviour.

At last my personal comments. It is very clear that WMLO is basically only trying to eliminate every single person who they do not agree with, and fails to recognise their own misbehaviour. Most of their recent actions are POINTy, breaking various policies just to meet their target of removing administrators and users that they do not agree with. AND I'm not going to make "threats" on what the final consequence of the above behaviour would be. LuciferianThomas 00:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I must note WMLO's uncivil behaviour against User:Lemonaka above, telling them to "mind your own business". Further proof that they aren't here to "request for comments", they are here to "have others listen to them and do whatever they request". Their comment of But it was obvious that something needed to be done. I just want to ask the Foundation to act, what they do is not my concern in response to someone else telling them that our activity do not constitute for an Office Action also clearly show their "regardlessness" of actual happenings just to make their point. LuciferianThomas 00:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that in the motion of no confidence against me, WMLO insisted on splitting a relevant discussion on the IBAN block (zh:Special:Diff/78967771) after ASid asked if they understand the purpose of the IBAN imposed (zh:Special:Diff/78955074, zh:Special:Diff/78956073). ASid did not get a straight answer and was mocked by WMLO for ASid's failed RFA last year (zh:Special:Diff/78956967/78957202). WMLO further claimed the lack of communication (zh:Special:Diff/79006059/79006151) in order to push through the de-admin vote after showing a clear understanding the two discussions are of the same topic (zh:Special:Diff/78959382/78959555). Mys_721tx (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.It's not a secret that this user(WMLO) often incites political confrontation on Chinese Wikipedia.In September 2021, he tried to "completely eliminate" the wiki user group (WMC) in Chinese Mainland. After the action, many editors expressed understanding that the matter could have ended. But he and the organization behind him plunged the entire Chinese Wikipedia into a political struggle.

2.Many people can prove that during the more than 30 days he was banned for violating rules, it was the best time for Chinese Wikipedia.After he was unsealed by a Taiwanese administrator, he did not realize his mistake and instead attempted to "eliminate" the banned mainland administrator.Even though Shizhao, who has been an administrator on Chinese Wikipedia for 20 years, banned him, he did not realize his mistake and instead attempted to "kill" Shizhao. This is my evaluation of an editor who views Wikipedia as a political battlefield.Assifbus (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. And the administrator you were referring to is not Taiwanese, AFAIK. --魔琴 (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't understand the part where WMLO outed Shizhao. On WMLO's talk page, recently, there have been no redacts on WMLO's comments, as far as I can tell. If you're talking about the part where he mentioned Shizhao's surname, I don't think it is personal information that should not be shared on wiki. In fact, there are 147 results (138 if zh-Hant) on Shizhao's real full name on zhwiki if you search for it. @LuciferianThomas and Shizhao:

As for the RfC, the parties associated seem not to meet the criteria of global banning from either the community or the Office. And since the initiator is now globally locked, if there are still no more supporters who would like to adjust the request, this RfC should be closed. --魔琴 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Age, not name. Also after inquiring with the blocking administrator Wong128hk, the block reason they added should be "gaming the OUTING policy" and not "gaming, outing", as in "attempting to use personal information to attack Shizhao". LuciferianThomas 05:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Happy editing. --魔琴 (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]