Requests for comment/Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. The request was successfully resolved.

---

Previous discussion

Can we start from the beginning? In order for help, from start time to now is the best. Thanks --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@AddisWang, Mys 721tx, PhiLiP, and Techyan:, @守望者爱孟, 鱼头炮, Irc782, and Walter Grassroot:@Wong128hk, 乌拉跨氪, and Zhxy 519:, Please give your own version of events. 請你們提供你們對此事件的時間線。我會盡量充當溝通／翻譯員。--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 17:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement of problem／問題

Wheelwarring happened at Chinese Wikipeida concerning the ban of 守望者爱孟. This has escalated into instability of the whole Chinese Wikipedia. This could be traced back to as early as 2013.

Statement written by 1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Timeline／你認為事件發生的先後次序 (可以用中文寫/Can be written in Chinese)

如果你想發表你對事件發生先後次序的認知而找不到你的名字，您可以按照下列的方式新增小節
If you cannot find your name and you still want to express your opinion, you may add your section through the structure below:
=== Username's Timeline ===
=== 用戶名稱's Timeline ===

AddisWang's Timeline

Mys_721x's Timeline

PhiLiP's Timeline

It takes time to collect evidences and write manuscript about the issues and damages that 守望者爱孟 and his friends brought to Chinese Wikipedia. I won't dare to discuss this on Chinese Wikipedia because from my previous experience, several certain users - whom I can easily named: 金牌雄鹰, Galaxyharrylion, Legolas1024, 蘇州宇文宙武 and 鱼头炮 - will come to make comments that not discussing the topic, but comments that attack the proposer (example: RFC：请社群评判User:霧島聖多次解封User:Galaxyharrylion的行为).

For people who wants to have a quick view the whole picture of the event right now, I recommend visiting this article (archive: http://archive.is/OAhX4) from Wikipediocracy - it briefly described the conflict until August 2016 and it is in English.

--PhiLiP (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Techyan's Timeline

守望者爱孟's Timeline

(User has been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation) -ArdiPras95 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

鱼头炮's Timeline

Irc782's Timeline

Walter Grassroot's Timeline

J.Wong's Timeline

乌拉跨氪's Timeline

Zhxy 519's Timeline

Billytanghh's Timeline

Local Attempts／本地曾經做過的東西

To be filled

Proposal／建議

我拒绝在上方的所谓timeline处留言。我希望提案人最起码做好一些最基本的背景调研，就像之前 Artix Kreiger 和 Ajraddatz 所主张的一样。看这个讨论页面，弄得很整洁，好像真的所有人都能在timeline里面说些什么然后把问题解决一样。我在这就先说说这个讨论以这样的形式开展会有什么问题。

(Translated by PhiLiP with amendment by other user(s)) I refused to make a comment in the so-called "timeline" section. I hope that the proposer should at least did some basic background reaserch as Artix Kreiger and Ajraddatz requested. Let's take a look of this discussion page. It was tidied up and clean. This discussion page appears that everyone can speak something in the timeline section and then solve the problem. Let me first explain what the problems are if this discussion is started out in this style.

首先，这串讨论原来的标题叫 Wheelwaring at Chinese Wikipedia，即在中文维基百科发生的车轮战。从标题来看，这个RFC所应该讨论的内容是在中文维基百科上近日对守望者爱孟这一用户由数名管理员反复封禁和解封所导致的封禁车轮战。但是很明显地，所有人都跑题了。没人去研究车轮战，反倒拉出来了一大堆中文维基的历史遗留问题，然后众人对那些历史遗留问题开始撕上了。后来标题改成了 Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia ——因为先前的讨论已经完全跑题，所以把标题改得更大一点、范围更广一点并无不妥。但是说到最后，我们到底要来讨论什么？Ongoing issues 指的到底是什么？

(Translated by PhiLiP) First of all, the original title of this thread of discussion was "Wheelwaring at Chinese Wikipedia", a.k.a. a wheel war happened on Chinese Wikipedia. From the perspectives of the title, this RFC should have discussed the topic of wheel war about the blocking and unblocking operations carried out by several system administrators -- admins -- of 守望者爱孟. However, it is very obvious that everyone went off the topic. No one researched about the wheel war, but a lot of problems that have remained from the past -- "historical remaining problems" -- on Chinese Wikipedia were rediscovered. Then people started arguing on those remaining problems. Then the title was changed to "Ongoing issues at Chinese Wikipedia" - because the previous discussion was completely off the topic - it is fine that the title should be changed to cover a larger and extending topic. However, in the end what we are going to discuss? What do the "Ongoing issues" exactly mean?

举个例子。“历史遗留问题” 可以追溯到2013年甚至更早。我随便列举几点：守望者爱孟第一次封禁案、上海系列条目怎么写、法轮功条目的保护的版本问题、江泽民条目保护的版本问题、上海双周聚会停办风波、一些人对另一些人做出的指控是否合理，有无证据、Wikimedia User Group China 和 Wikimedians in Mainland China 这两个用户组到底怎么回事、最近一次爱孟的封禁案和解封车轮战。如果还要往细拆分，我还能再拆下去。从 Ongoing issues 的字面意思上来看，上面这么多的历史遗留问题都不应该在讨论范围内，毕竟不算“ongoing”——而如果不讨论这些，我们就又回到了改标题之前的状态：也就是众人只会对历史遗留问题纠缠不清。

(Translated by PhiLiP) As an example, the "historical remaining problems" can be traced back to 2013 and even earlier. I'll give a few examples: the first blocking decision on 守望者爱孟, (dispute on) how to write the Shanghai topic articles, (dispute about) which version should be protected for Falun Gong, (dispute about) which version should be protected for Jiang Zemin, the incident of suspension of Shanghai Bi-weekly Meeting, the rationality and evidence of the accusations made by one group of people to another group of people, the reason why there are two user groups - Wikimedia User Group China and Wikimedians in Mainland China, and the recent blocking case of 守望者爱孟 with the following wheel war. I can write more if someone wants more details. Those historical remaining problems should not be included considering the literal meaning of "ongoing issues" - they were not "ongoing". However, if we do not discuss these topics, it will be circling back to the status before changing the title: everything were entangled by the historical remaining problems.

好，那既然如此，把“ongoing”这个词给改成“existing”、我们要去解决这些历史遗留问题，总行了吧？但是我到现在仍然没有看到对哪些问题属于讨论范围内、哪些属于讨论范围外的规定和约束。最后各种细杂小项都被牵扯出来、所有人都跑题了还浑然不觉。所以等讨论开始后，只会越讨论越多、越讨论越跑。上面我随便列举的这么几点，随便挑一个出来讨论，最后的讨论串都能有上万字。我们要讨论哪些？社群的精力够不够讨论这些？哪个先哪个后？哪个主哪个次？这些我相信提案人心里都没有答案。甚至提案人对于社群到底发生了哪些冲突、哪些纠纷，自己都没有特别明确的印象。也不知道这讨论是即兴开的，还是做足了前期准备、背景调查，确定了解了社群实际情况后再开的。搞背景调查要花的时间远远多余打几个等于号来设计这个讨论页面的时间。——对事不对人，我感谢1233的热心，但是这么搞下去是无解的。

(Translated by PhiLiP) Well, in this case what if we changed "ongoing" to "existing" and then to solve the historical remaining problems, is it doable? However, I didn't see any regulation and restriction of what topics should be discussed and what topics shouldn't be discussed. Lots of trivia things got involved and everyone was off the topic and didn't realize. Therefore, if the discussion gets started, it will be growing bigger and off the topic further. Of the topics I just gave, each discussion can grow to ten thousands of words. What we are going to talk? Does the community has the energy to talk those topics? What's the priority? What's the major problem? I believe neither of these questions can not be answered by the proposer. The proposer even doesn't have a clear clue about what exactly conflicts and disputes happened. I don't know if this RFC was improvised, or was prepared and did background research to understand the real situation of the community. Doing background research took a lot of time more than making sections of this page by typing equal signs - I didn't target anyone: I appreciate the enthusiasm of 1233. But there's no solution if this going on.

再看看timeline的写法。timeline不失为一个好主意，但是在此案中使用timeline模式弊端中的一方面我在上面已经说了：范围划定不清，你说一我说二，大家的timeline里的内容对不上；再者，就是在理想状态下，每个人都会写出近万字的论述——对，我们先不用讨论，把这些事情给描述清楚，一人没个几千字是搞不定的。是不是所有人都有这时间、都情愿写暂且先不谈，是用中文还是用英文？用英文稍微撕个逼相信大多数参与刚才讨论的人都能进行，但写相当于中文数千字信息量的英文内容，所有人都能轻松搞定？当然提案人说了可以用中文——用中文的话那我们在Meta上讨论的意义何在？会有人把所有的中文论述翻译成英文？要不这样吧，先不用翻译别人可能会写也可能不会写的timeline，先把我的这段论述给翻译成英文，让 Artix Kreiger 和 Ajraddatz 两位看看，如何？最后发现我们绕了一圈走回了原点：提案人承认了“让一群以中文为母语的人用英文讨论更有助于讨论的进行”这一理论，结果最后我们还是要用中文。我们只是把撕逼的地方从中文维基换到了元维基，仅此而已。并且元维基还没繁简转换。在时间不充裕的情况下，所有人都只会各说各话，自己把自己最想说的给说出去，然后莫衷一是、没人讨论真正有意义的内容。最后，只是浪费所有人的时间和键盘的使用寿命罢了。

(Translated by PhiLiP) Let's talking about timeline again. Timeline is a good idea after all. However I already stated the the disadvantage of the timeline: there's no clear range of topics. Everyone talked past each other. Everyone's timeline can not confirm others. Even in ideal circumstance everyone can write down ten thousands words of thesis - that's right, if we don't discuss first and try to make these stories clear - everyone need to write thousands of words. Let's not talk about if everyone has the time and willing to write first - let's talk what language should be used. Chinese or English? I believe that most of the people who participated in the previous discussion can barely make argument in English - but not everyone can write in English and explain the same information that requires thousands of characters in Chinese. Of course, the proposer stated that Chinese is acceptable - but what's the meaning of talking Chinese on the Meta? Does anyone will translate all the Chinese discussion into English? Let's not talk about translate the timeline that someone would or would not like to write first. Could someone translate my thesis into English to be understandable by Artix Kreiger and Ajraddatz? Finally we circled back to the beginning: that proposer admitted the theory that "make a bunch of native Chinese speakers talked in English would help the progress OF discussion" but we circled back to Chinese. We just changed the place of arguing from Chinese Wikipedia to Wikimedia Meta, that's all. Plus there's no automatic conversion between the traditional and simplified Chinese. In the situation that no one has enough time, the only result is everyone talks past each other and only speaks what they mostly want to speak - then no one can decide which is right and no meaningful topic get discussed. At last, everyone just waste their time and the life of their keyboards.

说到最后，中文维基这么多历史遗留问题就不解决了？我没说这个话。只不过凭我自己在中文维基还不那么成熟的经验来看，这个讨论的结果是我们本来就可以在没开始时就预料到的。既然都能预料到了，那就想个靠谱点的办法。说真的，我感觉让基金会拨点grants权当机票钱和误工补贴，把这几个当事人聚到一起打一架都比在注定没有结果的讨论上浪费时间来得好。来元维基上request for comments从一开始就是个荒唐的错误。

(Translated by PhiLiP with amendment by other user(s)) Speaking of the last, shouldn't we resolve so many historical remaining issues of Chinese Wikipedia? I didn't say that. However according to my somehow immature experience on Chinese Wikipedia, we could even predict the result of this discussion when it just started. We should find a solid way to solve this since it can be predicted. Honestly, I think the result would be better than wasting time like this, if the Foundation can provide travelling grants for those people who were involved and let them have a physical fight (by WQL: He is, obviously, joking, meaning that it is useless to talk there.) It is an absurd mistake from the beginning that started this request for comments on Wikimedia Meta.

--Techyan（Talk） 20:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In any event, a forum with external oversight and free of meat-puppetry will be preferable than the alternative. In you own word, ("但是很明显地，所有人都跑题了") you have deemed all the comments irrelevant. Those comments, on the contrary, provide the context to the wheel war, including the extent of the problem (diff), examples of 守望者爱孟's uncivil behaviors that leads to his block (diff), 霧島聖's history of abuse (diff), and even attempts to spread accusations without evidence (diff, diff). If you do not wish to present your case or to discuss, then so be it. But do not dissuade others who wish to because you felt the discussion is too cumbersome.-Mys_721tx (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

我只希望双方能还中文维基百科一片净土。要吵请在站外吵。——星耀晨曦 (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously say, I would suggest to simply account-ban both side of the argument. This problem has been going on since 2013, and I only know one thing that zh-Wiki doesn't need: more of this argument. --Lnnocentius (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Reasons why the discussion should not be moved back to Chinese Wikipedia / 为什么此讨论不应该被移回中文维基百科

I'm writing this from my phone so I'll keep this short. I think I can explain the necessity why we should discuss this on Meta but not ZhWiki currently. In brief, Meta provides a neutral environment with 3rd-party stewards overlooking to prevent personal attack and uncivilized behaviors, which were happened repeatedly on Chinese Wikipedia when the certain people were involved in the discussion even the topic of the discussion is not directly relevant to this one. For example, a few days ago, Aimeng (守望者爱孟) publicly claimed that he will send Antigng - an admin of Chinese Wikipedia whom blocked Aimeng a few days ago because of several cases of violating the guidelines of Assuming Good Faith - a picture of "human waste" (人类排泄物）. Aimeng received a warning after he posted the content and deleted the warning himself. This incident eventually led to his current block and the wheel war among the admins. I believe that the stewards will agree: the long existing personal attack and uncivilized behaviors will make other participants depressed or even loosing their temper. It will endanger the approchment of community consensus - especially when someone gained the power of doing such things without being prevented - which is exactly what happening on Chinese Wikipedia. --PhiLiP (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this page watched by anyone other than people I already know from zh-wiki? If so, please let me know you're there so I am willing to invest some time to provide my perspectives here. Otherwise there's really no point to it and I'll pass this one. Bluedeck 07:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As a user who had observed the issue for years I had to say:

Why shouldn't we focus on the core issue that starts the whole issue? I mean, the whole controversy is just evolved from 守望者爱孟 accusing AddisWang for corruption. Though they made such claims on Chinese Wikipedia for years, they never brought this issue onto Meta. I think solving this issue should resolve a lot of accusation that are flying around Chinese WP. So here comes the question: Is it possible to prove or disprove whether a user had been corrupt by discussion and evidences on Meta?

作为一个暗中观察几年的人实在忍不住了说几句。

能不能就讨论这个问题的根源？这么多烂事就是由于守望者爱孟指控AddisWang贪污而起的。他们都在中文维基上扯几年了，就是不去元维基告一告。我觉得解决了这个问题，那些天天说管理员贪污滥权的指控就能了结了吧。那么问题来了：在元维基上，通过讨论举证，能否证明或反证一个用户曾经贪污？--Lxt1988 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

^The above person was created a few hours ago. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

我也看了很多年了，一笔一笔地查阅相关的讨论，没发现爱孟说过阿迪王或者其他的谁在贪污，“阿迪王贪污”这个说法，我倒是听菲姑今年有讲过。只是的问题是，中国大陆用户都不满阿迪王那个组织不在中国大陆活动，他们还认为：所谓“中国用户组”现在实际上在干扰现在的中国大陆维基人的活动。但这些仅仅限于中文维基的争议，跑元维基来说什么？现在这样跑元维基闹，只是让元维基的人觉得中文维基管理员没能力、没信誉，自己社区解决不了自己的问题，丢中文维基社区（整个社群）的颜面，仅此而已。(Translation by PhiLiP, edited by Mys_721tx) "I have observed [this] for years too. After investigating the relevant discussions one by one, [I] have not found [守望者]爱孟 saying that 阿迪王 (by PhiLiP: a Chinese homophonic sobriquet used by certain people when they were referening AddisWang. 阿迪王 or Adivon was also the name of a Chinese copycat of Adidas) or someone else was corrupt. I only heard PhiLiP spoken of '阿迪王 was corrupt' this year. However, the problem that is users from Mainland China are all dissatisfied with that organization of 阿迪王 not hosting activities in mainland China. They also believed that the so called "Wikimedia User Group China" is actually interfering the activities of Wikimedians in mainland China. These controversies were only limited in Chinese Wikipedia and why [would you] mentioned it on Meta-Wiki? Making a scene like this on Meta-Wiki can only make the people on Meta-Wiki feel that the admins of Chinese Wikipedia lack the capability, or reputation[. Their] own community cannot solve [their] own problems. [You] simply humiliated the Chinese Wikipedia (the whole community), that's all." 183.49.86.215 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion (January to February 2017) in zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他/存档/2017年2月#2017年中国大陆维基活动注意事项（关于某不合法组织） (in Chinese) for the original comments posted by zh:User:PhiLiP (signed as 菲菇). --Mewaqua (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

“没发现爱孟说过阿迪王或者其他的谁在贪污”。[1][2][3]--Lxt1988 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The following comments are made by 守望者爱孟's associates.

1. 追迹未来: "管理员范是否利用维基敛财包庇犯罪组织进行宣传抹黑，在QQ群已经多次讨论过了，这里明确提出质疑，还请范自己说清楚。"

   (translation by PhiLiP, edited by Mys_721tx) "It has been discussed several times on the QQ group that whether or not admin 范 took advantages of Wikipedia for accumulating wealth by sheltering criminal organizations that spread negative propaganda, [I] hereby call this into question clearly and demand 范 explain himself."

2. 追迹未来: "维基QQ群已经被封禁的元老守望者爱孟声称有范敛财的证据，我也是有些怀疑，范也正面回应了我，我只是表示质疑，但你们却说是人身攻击要求封禁我，但我现在知道了，不管管理员们收没收钱，都在江泽民、发轮功。器官条目乱来，允许他们加入主观演绎来源的内容，我和苏州不熟，我只知道他是老维基人。"

   (Translated by Mys_721tx) "The senior [editor 守望者]爱孟, who has been blocked, claims to possess evidence of 范 making money [off Wikipedia] on the Wiki[pedian] QQ group..."

3. Galaxyharrylion: "希望各位滥权的、敛财的、助纣为虐的，好好体会这句话。"

   (translation by PhiLiP: I hope everyone who was misconducted, who accumulated wealth (from Wikipedia) and who held the candle to the devil can take something from this sentence.)

4. Galaxyharrylion: "当时报复'天天'，毫无理据地开罢免，结果被我揭露某些中国大陆管理员利用维基敛财的事；之后，社群依据事实，对广雅范提起罢免案后（争议性未通过46:46），就立刻被我揭露广雅范滥用傀儡的事；本月某个受奖提名投票进行期间，又被我揭穿乌拉使用伪造的P图，进行造谣攻击的把戏。"

   (Translated by Mys_721tx) "At that time [they] took revenge on [DreamLiner], initiated a groundless recall [of DreamLiner], however the matter that some mainland Chinese administrators are making money off Wiki[pedia] was exposed by me..."

5. Galaxyharrylion: "广雅范滥用傀儡；乌拉跨氪使用伪造截图攻击他人；还有最早部分大陆管理员被发现利用维基敛财，等等，这些引发今年互煮的主要话题，而且都是动摇维基百科五大支柱的原则性问题，都没解决，现在雾岛圣只是解封合理性存在争议，但并不构成滥权。"

   (Translated by Mys_721tx) "[Matters] such as 广雅范 abusing sock puppets[,] 乌拉跨氪 attacking others by fake screenshots[,] and some mainland administrators being found to accumulate wealth off Wiki[pedia ...] have not been solved [...]"

6. Galaxyharrylion: "原有的用户组虽然根本不能代表大陆维基，但却一直打着'中国维基'的幌子往自己兜里装银子，另外，也是长期破坏大陆维基和维基条目的主要力量。"

   (Translated by Mys_721tx) "Although the original User Group does not represent Wikipedia[ns] in mainland [China], it continues to put money into its own pocket under the guise of 'Wiki[media] China', additionally, [the User Group] has been the main force of sabotaging mainland Wiki[media movement] and [Chinese] Wikipedia articles for a long time."

-Mys_721tx (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

唯一一个是守望者爱孟的相关内容：原话是“请AddisWang解释清楚‘他人质疑’你贪污。。。”，至少，我们不加脑补，是爱孟请AddisWang回应别人的质疑，不是爱孟自己认定AddisWang贪污。恶意推定爱孟也是不公平的。183.49.86.215 07:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Alas 守望者爱孟 did not specify who "they" are other than the fact that they suspects AddisWang embezzling funds. Accusing others without evidence is ignorant at best and libelous at worst. Whether 守望者爱孟 was operating under good faith is open to question.-Mys_721tx (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

反正有人嫌自己在中文维基丢脸丢得不够，现在要绑架整个中文社区到元维基丢脸，没人愿意赔笑。(Translation by PhiLiP: Anyway someone felt that he hasn't shamed himself enough on Chinese Wikipedia. Now he kidnapped the whole Chinese community to Wikimedia Meta to be shamed. No one wants to accompany his amusement.) 183.49.86.215 07:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

苗子举例的“乌拉P图”“广雅范滥用傀儡”，这都是已经发生的事情，但也没必要拿到元维基来煮。183.49.86.215 07:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here supported my argument that Chinese Wikipedia is too poisoned by people who likes you to be a neutral place for conversation. For admin's information: zh:User:Antigng/深圳IP. In brief, this IP address belongs to the long-term vandalism IP ranges which have been blocked for 1 year in Chinese Wikipedia. He just did the exactly the same thing on the Meta. --PhiLiP (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

“乌拉P图”这件事是真的么？--Shizhao (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

by posting this discussion on meta, what do you want? to end rivalry in zhwiki? --DS-fax 07:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The rivalry must stop now. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just dropping by and leave my two cents, since PhiLiP's so-called "whole picture" article mentioned my name and called me a "pro-communist editor" (which I am not -- I am strongly anti-FLG though), and therefore there is a need to clear things up. The linked article was poorly written and biased (partly due to the author's lack of vocabulary), not to mention that it suspiciously focused much on drawing sympathy towards the user Hanteng, who was only marginally related to the topic. Honesty I expect better from a long-time serving zh-wiki bureaucrat than using such a one-sided article. Guess people DO change over time :) --Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 06:07I, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@PhiLiP: A bit more clarification, I do not have anything against you or any other users here. But I do suggest you reconsider the usage to that article (which I assume is not written by you) as "evidence". That piece is more like a one-sided rant trying to make the other party look bad to Wikipediocracy users ("I will try my best to be neutral", lol). I found it funny that the author thought people on Wikipediocracy would actually care about some random drama from Chinese Wikipedia. Well, whatever, I already quit zh-wiki.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving on

It seems that WMFOffice has banned User:守望者爱孟 from editing any WMF project. I believe it is time to move on with our lives. We can stop 丢脸. Please, we can resume our normal lives in peace and harmony and contribute positively to wikis. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 04:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References