Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive115
Gregory Goble
[edit]| Banned from all articles and discussions relating to cold fusion, broadly construed, for 90 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gregory Goble[edit]
Discussion concerning Gregory Goble[edit]Statement by Gregory Goble[edit]I will post my statement tommorrow, off to the graduation ceremony at USF.--Gregory Goble (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Never will I ever sue or bring legal actions against Wikipedia or any of the Wiki editors. Seriously! Gregory Byron Goble My apologies; time constraints have tardied my response. In consultation while formulating dialog; two or three more days, Thank you so much for your patience. While following a Cold Fusion/LENR seminar I tried to find one person who had a reputation as a crackpot. I couldn't find one among the speakers or the registered attendees; anyone of recognizable importance had impecible reputations as far as I could determine, As I suggested from day one. To improve the article: 1) Wiki needs to view it as science. 2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in the art of this field of physics. A preview of my response. example A this edit suggestion of mine was not a waste of time... Room Temperature It used to read: "Cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), refers to the hypothesis that nuclear fusion might explain the results of a group of experiments conducted at ordinary temperatures (e.g., room temperature)." The majority of LENR experiments require temperatures well above room temperature. It now reads: Cold fusion is a proposed[1] type of nuclear reaction that would occur at relatively low temperatures compared with hot fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504 example B this edit succeeded and then was reverted much later... Removed Sentence from Conferences Section (first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science,[29] (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences. [97] The following is part of my Wiki discourse on this edit. Please follow the rest to see sourced chapters from the book Undead Science. It’s an obscure book. One found at USF (none S.F. library system) one S.F State, none S.F or San Mateo community college. Please read the book to make a responsible response as to whether words may have been taken out of context from an authoritative source. Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon. “Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work. In this manner cold fusion research continues… “ and “The survival of cold fusion {research} signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.” {author} Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. [97] Note that the author is an assistant professor of sociology not physics. To reference part of a sentence from this book may be taking the intent of the author out of context. Conferences (after my edit removal) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since.[29] With the founding[97] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding the term cold fusion and its negative connotations.[73][75][98] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[99] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=474082175 NOW Conferences (many weeks later someone reverted my delete) Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics;[99] thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science.[100] Critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences, with the notable exception of Douglas Morrison,[101] who died in 2001. With the founding[102] in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the reasons are explained in the "ongoing" section).[73][75][103] Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR,[104] but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.[73] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gregory_Goble&oldid=473668504 Clearly Undead science is about cold fusion SCIENCE continuing after a bad start. One chapter is about how it gained this “bad reputation” while the rest is how it survives as science… (increased sophistication of instrumentation and review) hence the title ‘Undead Science” not undead pathological science. To source his book as reasons for the wiki reading public to reason that cold fusion is pathological science or bad science shows poor judgment. The author is not taking such a stance. Wiki influences the public. Care by administrators and editors should be taken to not take authors content out of context if it may cause harm. … a wiki editor or three or four… are using his words to promote a stance harmful to this art; that it is pathological science. --Gregory Goble (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Gregory Goble[edit]Comment by IRWolfie-[edit]User:Gregory_Goble appears to have very severe competence issues that essentially waste the time of other editors. See some recent examples here: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER, Talk:Cold_fusion#The_third_sentence_in_this_article_is_out_of_date_and_erroneous_-_Let.27s_fix_it Talk:Cold_fusion#In_Popular_Culture_-_Cold_Fusion. Most of his comments appear to be borderline incoherent with some going pretty far into the realm of craziness: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#hi. The rambling isn't a new feature: [2]. I suggest there is a very severe issue of WP:INCOMPETENCE rather than negative intent. When he accuses other editors of wikilawyering I'm not even sure he knows what he is saying. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Comment by SteveBaker[edit]His post: Talk:Cold_fusion#POSSIBLE_SLANDER (I think he means "libel") where he accuses us of being defamatory towards cold-fusion researchers because we use the term "pathological science". That post was followed three minutes later by an additional post. (It's easy to miss that addition inside his signature blocks.) It says "I love lawyers". I didn't notice when I made my reply - but now that I see it, this constitutes a clear WP:NLT. His threat is unjustified because we don't say that cold fusion is pathological science - we say that it has a "reputation as pathological science" - for which we have plenty of WP:RS showing mainstream scientists saying exactly that in published journals. Aside from the (many) other issues, I believe we have clear grounds for indef-blocking him under WP:NLT without further delay - which means we can take our time deciding whether some other grounds would justify heavier measures. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Comment by POVbrigand[edit]Many of the contributions that Gregory makes on the talk page are hard to understand for me. Lately I did get the idea that some of his contributions were getting better. He seems to have a problem that cold fusion is disposed of as pseudo science. It is a widely held belief in the real world, so it is absolutely correct to incorporate that view in the wikipedia article. I do not see his latest "slander" comment as a legal threat. I think he is again trying to make the point that it is, in his eyes, unfair that cold fusion is treated the way it is. I think everyone should chill and Gregory should think if he really want to contribute constructively or not. As IRWolfie noted above, Gregory's conduct is not malicious. Involuntary mentorship could be a solution. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Binksternet[edit]Goble's goal for the article is at cross-purposes to how the topic is viewed by mainstream science. He is here to portray cold fusion as respectable science, but most scientists do not respect it. This constant push by Goble is tiring and time-wasting. The problem is slightly compounded by a lack of competency. I don't see his "slander" comment as crossing the NLT line. I would be happy to see Goble restricted from the topic of cold fusion for a period; such a topic ban would effectively ban him from Wikipedia as he apparently has no other interests. Binksternet (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Gregory Goble[edit]
|
Malleus Fatuorum
[edit]| No action taken. NW (Talk) 01:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Malleus Fatuorum[edit]
Per the linked Arbitration discussion, I believe that their contributions to an ongoing RfA have gone beyond discussing the merits of the candidate, and are now "disruptive", as it says in the motion.
I would be grateful if you could see to the matter quickly (i.e. before the RfA ends) so that the discussion for the rest of its duration may return to assessing the candidate and not other, irrelevant matters.
Discussion concerning Malleus Fatuorum[edit]Statement by Malleus Fatuorum[edit]
Comments by others about the request concerning Malleus Fatuorum[edit]22 May 2012 Malleus Fatuorum indicates that the wording of the remedy allows him to disrupt RfAs - presumably until he is topic banned at each individual RfA. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Purely for historical accuracy, I should like to point out my comment (not a !vote) in the RfA in question, in which I asked MF to desist from what I saw as disruption. I make no further comment, either to re-affirm or to diminish my comment (which has generated mixed opinions) but point it out only because it has not been noted in this thread, which I was not aware of when I commented in the RfA.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Malleus Fatuorum[edit]
|
Request concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon, Shrigley
[edit]| Referred to arbcom as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. T. Canens (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now at WP:A/R/C. Further action on this thread is suspended pending the disposition of the case request by arbcom. Should the request be accepted, this thread will be closed without action. Should the request be declined, this thread will be reopened. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Request concerning Three editors[edit]
Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Colipon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Shrigley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Provisions being breached[edit]I am bringing this case under WP:ARBFLG. I believe the named editors are unable to contribute to the Falun Gong namespace in a civil, good faith, or neutral manner. Based on their comments, these editors appear to have difficulty distancing themselves from their strongly held personal feelings on the subject, and edit from an exclusively critical perspective (that is, critical of the Falun Gong and defensive of the government of the PRC). In addition, I have found them to be intolerant of other editors and uncivil, with little attempt or effort at assuming good faith. All three regularly breach the following policies: The editors have also violated related principles under WP:ARBFLG, such as Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Point of view editing. Individually they have violated additional policies. Shrigley frequently seems to violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, particularly the clause which forbids “religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities.” (he frequently refers to Falun Gong as a “cult,” to its adherents as “cult members,” etc). Colipon’s record includes regular breaches of WP:FORUM, and a rather serious breach of WP:BLP, in addition to the above. Ohconfucius frequently disregards editing policy concerning WP:EP#Talking and editing by making major rounds of revisions while failing to participate in talk page discussions when asked. In the last 72 hours he violated the WP:3RR while editing on this subject. In full disclosure, this AE is catalyzed by a dispute related to Falun Gong on the page Bo Xilai that I was involved in, along with all three of these editors. I was gratuitously reverted and insulted by Ohconfucius, and found that all three editors were obstructing a good faith process of consensus formation on the talk page. Note that I am not attempting to win a content dispute by bringing this case, and if there are concerns about that I can recuse myself from editing the relevant section of the article. I have bowed out in other cases where I have felt the discussion uncomfortable or unproductive on this topic. Below is a representative but by no means exhaustive or complete list of diffs from the last several months that displays consistently improper and disruptive editing and discussion behavior. I am sorry for the length of this case; it was taking time and I had to limit the evidence. The reason I am filing against all three collectively is that on the Falun Gong topic they edit together, express the same views, and have fostered a kind of team dynamic. OhConfucius[edit]Background: A contentious aspect of former Chinese Party official Bo Xilai’s biography relates to his role in the suppression of Falun Gong. This issue has been disputed a lot, and in March a fragile consensus was reached over the phrasing of this section. Homunculus somehow managed to disrupt the balance on May 15 with this edit [8], which involved adding two references and a short sentence on the outcome of lawsuits that were filed against Bo. Ohconfucius reverted, Homunculus inquired why and restored the content, Colipon deleted the entire paragraph, and thus began an edit war and lengthy talk page exchange that involved the three editors named here, as well as several others. What I observed was that Homunculus initiated much discussion on the talk page, issued proposed wording, and solicited feedback from several other editors who were uninvolved in the dispute. [9][10][11]. These editors and two more also then participated in the talk page discussion, and Homunculus attempted several times to use their suggestions to broker a consensus on particular points. I arrived late to the discussion, and made one edit to the page that was quickly and gratuitously reverted by Ohconfucius. Ohconfucius weighed in once on the talk page discussion before violating 3RR. [[12] Rather than participate constructively, he used the page as a forum to opine that Falun Gong victims of torture are merely engaged in a “propaganda war….in an attempt to gain publicity and cause maximum embarrassment” to the PRC. Other comments he makes here—that the lawsuits Falun Gong filed against Bo were all identical, or that they received never more than “a column inch” in mainstream media, are demonstrably untrue. As the discussion went on without Ohconfucius’ involvement, he proceeded to break 3RR. He did not attempt to explain any of these edits on the talk page:
Since I filed this request, he has continued reverting information with no or inadequate explanation or discussion on the talk page, even after being asked to explain several times
The editor makes little to no attempt to discuss policies or content in a reasonable manner on the talk page. Instead Ohconfucius attempted to, what appears to me as, marginalize the editor presenting the sources for inclusion. [19][20] Background: Shen Yun is an international Chinese dance company whose performers practice Falun Gong and which is usually sponsored by Falun Gong associations where it performs. It plays in prominent opera houses and theaters around the world and at least some of its artists are internationally recognized and accomplished. The company’s performances include acts that depict Falun Gong beliefs and the suppression of the group in China. The Chinese government attempts to delegitimize Shen Yun by describing it as Falun Gong propaganda designed to smear the government’s image, and it tries to shut down its performances through diplomatic and commercial pressure.
Background: This topic relates to an event in which five people set themselves on fire on Tiananmen Square in 2001. The PRC claimed they were Falun Gong practitioners, and said that Falun Gong’s doctrines contain exhortations to violence, and used the event to decisively turn public opinion against the group. Falun Gong sources, as well as several journalists and scholars, argued that the event was staged (no doctrinal support for violence or suicide in Falun Gong, no independent investigation permitted, inconsistencies in the government accounts, several of the victims were not known to practice Falun Gong, etc.) I am aware of three books written by experts on Falun Gong which provide a survey of the event (Noah Porter, Danny Schechter, David Ownby): two of the three authors believe the event was staged by the Chinese government. The third believes it is plausible that it was staged, and if not, the participants were probably “new or unschooled” practitioners. Through his talk page comments, Ohconfucius has made clear that he believes the Chinese government’s account that Falun Gong’s teachings somehow motivated these individuals to protest as such. It’s fine that he holds that opinion—some journalists have posited similar views. However, Ohconfucius seems unable to contemplate other possibilities, and recently wrote on the article’s talk page that editors who disagree on this point are necessarily being “intellectually dishonest.” In 2009, Ohconfucius worked to get this article promoted to FA status. In 2011, several other editors knowledgeable on the subject discussed and implemented further improvements to the page. Among other things, it was found that the page failed to adequately represent several notable and prominent views on the event. A veteran admin oversaw that process, and indicated he found the discussions surrounding those revisions agreeable and constructive. The page was then stable for a long while. In Early 2012, Ohconfucius returned. With no talk page discussion beforehand and minimal discussion throughout, he made over a hundred unilateral changes an apparent attempt to restore his preferred version, promote points of view that aligned with his own, and remove sourced content that reflected poorly on the Chinese government. There are far too many diffs to present (150, maybe, in the span of a couple of days). One can view them by starting from March 30 [27] and moving forward in time. On the talk page, no attempt was made to understand or engage with older discussions that previously addressed the issues he was editing on. User:Zujine posted several questions and pointed out problems with his edits.[28] Ohconfucius didn’t respond. When Zujine made an edit to the page to address these issues, Ohconfucius promptly reverted with the edit summary “don’t make me laugh.”[29] When Ohconfucius finally did comment on the talk page, it was simply stating his belief that other editors had ruined the page.[30] The specific issues were not addressed. Zujine again asked a series of specific questions[31], but Ohc’s next talk page comment was similar to the first, and amounted to insulting the work of all other editors on the page, calling it a Falun Gong “propaganda piece version that shocked my pants off”[32] No attempt to address the specific content issues raised. All the while, Ohc continues editing at a rapid pace. This pattern continues for a long time, with Zujine pointing out problems[33][34][35][36][37] and Ohconfucius either answering them only partially[38][39] or not at all, all while continuing to make significant edits. He reverts multiple edits that were discussed on talk page: [40][41][42] Soon after Ohconfucius started making these changes, the article was selected to be featured on the homepage. That process brought in more scrutiny from outside parties, and resulted in the wholesale reversion of nearly all of Ohconfuciu’s changes. In addition, several previously uninvolved editors raised concerns about some of the images on the page (all of them added by Ohconfucius) that had insufficient fair use rationales or other problems[43][44][45] Ohconfucius removed some, but not the most gruesome among them (they all had the same license, and all came from Chinese state-run media). When those images were removed, Ohconfucius restored them, and condescended to the other editors.[46][47] [48] Deletes sourced paragraph about the censorship of a Falun Gong art exhibit in Tel Aviv. A number of editors who initially created this page favored inclusion of this material. [49] This is a dispute resolution case where User:PCPP had violated his topic ban by deleting material on Falun Gong. I brought this to the attention of AE, and PCPP was blocked for 24 hours for violating his ban. Ohconfucius comes to his defense by stating that the 24-hour block against him—that is, the enforcement of his topic ban— was a bad faith “tactical victory by those who sought to oppose him.” Ohconfucius seems quite literally to believe that this is a battleground. Other[edit]Edit wars (breaking 3RR) to include unsupported claim that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident was a specie of cult suicide: [50][51][52][53][54][55] / claims editors who removed the addition are practicing censorship: [56][57]. Complains about "Falun Gong editors" who "typically have this world view that if you are not 100% pro-Falun Gong, you are against them" (only other user in the dispute was user:Homunculus); it seems to imply that Homunculus is a "Falun Gong editor" who shares those negative characteristics [58] / adds me and another editor to a "List of editors with a pronounced Falun Gong slant" [59]. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable? Colipon[edit]Colipon seems to have a long-standing propensity to view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground or soapbox to promote particular negative views of Falun Gong, and to attempt to deemphasize reports of human rights abuses against the group. Colipon is reasonable in other areas, but appears unwilling or unable to contribute in a calm, constructive, good-faith manner on Falun Gong. I could never hope to dissect all this user’s contributions to these pages, but as evidence of the long-standing nature of this pattern, consider this edit [60] from January 2007, in which Colipon can be seen soliciting help from another editor to conduct and promote original research for the purpose of dealing “a big blow” to Falun Gong’s founder, Li Hongzhi (the editor with whom Colipon was discussing was indefinitely banned for prolific sock-puppetry and outside activism). It goes without saying that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Colipon regularly uses the talk pages to note his general dislike of Falun Gong, to disparage other editors through accusations of bad faith, and to disrupt good faith discussions. When asked to discuss content, not contributors, Colipon recently said he has no intention of doing so (in his words, good faith content discussions are a “waste of time”). Colipon has been warned more than once to cease this kind of behavior (most recently here [61]) Some diffs follow below. Background: Sima Nan is a Chinese government-backed critic of qigong and Falun Gong.
Through a series of edits, Colipon uses the talk page as a forum to air his personal views on the topic. The effect is to create an ideological battleground out of the article’s talk page.
[72] : Uses talk page as a forum to complain that Falun Gong article is being abused as a propaganda tool by unnamed “Falun Gong users” who have “perfected” their POV-pushing and are gaming the system. No evidence. Who is he referring to? Compares Falun Gong to scientology (an evocative parallel, though so far one quite beyond the reach of any scholar of the topic). Note that Colipon was here agreeing with two other new or unregistered users who were both banned for disruptive editing (and later sock puppetry). One was summarily banned for making similar talk page comments as Colipon makes here. [73] : More comments on contributors, not content. Here, Colipon is claiming that editors Homunculus and I are intimidating user:AgadaUrbanit (To the contrary, it was AgadaUrbanit who was issuing threats; we were simply asking him to explain his views clearly). Complains that all “rational” editors are gone, implying that editors who continue working on (and improving!) this page are irrational. [74] More unconstructive complaints that amount to using Wikipedia as a forum. Other editors were in the midst of a good faith discussion on how to improve the article. Colipon distracts the discussion by calling it an “ideological war” and suggesting everyone give up. Background: As other editors sought to engage Ohconfucius on significant content changes, Colipon opined periodically to defend Ohconfucius and disparage others without discussing content or policies.
In the ensuing talk page discussion, several other editors—many of whom are not regularly involved in Falun Gong-related topics—tried to constructively identify the material they believed should be included. Several of them suggesting that the material deserved expansion and added weight, and the others agreed that some should remain, some was questionable, etc. As these editors tried to broker a compromise, Colipon weighed in frequently, but it seemed he never moved the discussion forward. Just as agreement would begin to form around certain sentences, Colipon would suddenly revert back to his position that none of the material should be in the article,[83] thus obstructing the process of consensus formation.
Quigley/Shrigley[edit]As far as I’ve seen, all of Shrigley’s edits on this topic reflects a strong POV, and very few of his comments are collegial. Most of his edits to this namespace involve either deleting information about the persecution of Falun Gong, disparaging Falun Gong, defending editors who share his POV (regardless of how plainly disruptive they may be), making religious slurs against Falun Gong, and leveling accusations of bad faith against editors with whom he disagrees. One of my concerns with Shrigley is that he very frequently tries to discredit other editors by claiming they are Falun Gong practitioners (whom he likes to call “cult members”). He does this as a means of ad hominem attack instead of discussing content, as though he believes that it is appropriate to discriminate against particular users because of their religion. To my knowledge, none of the editors regularly involved on these pages at present has ever declared their religious affiliations—Falun Gong or otherwise—on Wikipedia. Aside from that, editors should be evaluated on the quality of their contributions, not their ethnicity, gender, creed, or nationality. On other religion-related pages, it’s my understanding that participation from believers is encouraged. A number of these pages would benefit from the presence of a (responsible) Falun Gong practitioner who can assist in ensuring accurate representations of the doctrine and practices. Users like Shrigley, unfortunately, create a climate that is hostile towards this class of people. As Shrigley’s edits are more disparate than others, I’ve sorted them chronologically. June 22 2011: [87] defends User:PCPP’s edit warring at Expo 2010. At issue is whether the page should contain information about how the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai was directly linked to the abduction, disappearance, or torture of about 100 Falun Gong practitioners (according to reports from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and Amnesty International). Quigley writes that “the misadventures of Falun Gong seem to be a fringe concern, meriting a brief mention on the dedicated controversies article if at all.” This fits a broader pattern of trying to downplay or delete information on human rights abuses by the PRC government. October 24, 2011: [88] Again, Quigley defends edit warring by PCPP, and suggests that other editors are part of a sinister Falun Gong plot. Declared that “for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia.” (I’ve never found a reliable source claim that Falun Gong is funded by U.S. government subsidies. The Chinese government has made this claim as part of its media campaign against the group, however). This amounts to a fairly serious accusation of bad faith (and paid advocacy?) Jan 7 2012: [89] Defends a series of seemingly POV edits by the topic-banned user PCPP at the page Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. Uses pejorative epithets (“cult”) to refer to Falun Gong (in violation of WP:CIVIL). Argues with one of the sources in order to downplay the severity of human rights abuses by the Chinese government. Jan 7 2012: [90] Defends user:PCPP in an arbitration enforcement case (PCPP had violated a topic ban by deleting Falun Gong-related content from the Confucius institute article). Claims that “Falun Gongers” have utilized “unsavory” tactics to covertly insert reference to Falun Gong on Wikipedia, thereby trapping PCPP into breaking his topic ban. The implication here is that the editor who had previously worked on that page, and who supported the inclusion of information on Falun Gong, were all Falun Gong followers acting in bad faith. None of the editors who had supported that material have identified themselves as Falun Gong practitioners (a few of them had never edited on Falun Gong pages as far as I’ve seen) Jan 8, 2012 [91] During a dispute resolution process where editors are supposed to discuss content, Shrigley instead complains that “a bunch of Falun Gong-focused editors” are damaging Wikipedia with their POV pushing. Suggests the blame lies with unnamed “Falun Gong followers”. This amounts to ad hominem attacks, whereby Shrigley is trying to diminish the quality of other editor’s contributions by “outing” them or attacking their presumed religion (whether real or imagined). March 21 - 23 Bo Xilai: [92]: Deletes large amount of well sourced material. Editorializes that lawsuits brought against Bo were “unsuccessful” (not true: the cases resulted in a finding of guilt for torture, and an indictment for genocide). [93] : Repeats same edit as above. [94] : same again. [95] : Much the same as above, but this time editorializes that lawsuits against Bo were “ineffectual.” [96] : On talk page, Shrigley calls the impeccably sourced paragraph about Falun Gong “slanderous,” suggests that editors arguing for its inclusion are “followers of small religiopolitical movements adding large amounts of poorly-sourced protest material to the biographies of provincial Chinese officials.” April 4 2012: [97] Deletes all mention of Falun Gong from the biography of Jiang Zemin (the campaign against the group was a major feature of Jiang’s tenure). [98] : Again deletes sourced information on the suppression of Falun Gong April 5, 2012: [99] – Deletes sourced information on the scope and nature of the persecution of Falun Gong. In an act of historical revisionism, Shrigley confuses the causality of the suppression by describing Falun Gong as a “dissident sect” (implication seems to be that it is suppressed because they’re dissidents. It was the other way around). Scholars also note that Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a ‘sect.’ Not to mention that the term is often used pejoratively. April 4 / 5, 2012: [100] inexplicably deletes Falun Gong from a comprehensive list of religion topic by arguing that it is not a religion but a new religious movement. This is a strange argument to begin with, but also, numerous scholars say simply that Falun Gong is a religion. The Chicago University Press published a book last month called “The Religion of Falun Gong”. This appears to be an attempt to try to delegitimize the group. [101] : Does same again after being reverted April 23, 2012 [102] – deletes list of performers, remarking that someone (me) “managed to sneak this in.” Hardly snuck it in – I started a talk page discussion, and Shrigley did not answer it. [103] : Deletes legitimate content about the Shen Yun company. Editorializes in Wikipedia’s voice that the performance is “antigovernment.” Elevates position of negative reviews. Wrongly identifies the source of accusations of Chinese government interference as coming from Falun Gong sources alone (actual source was the U.S. State Department, which in turn drew on multiple media and NGO reports). Removes defense of Shen Yun from a prominent Hong Kong politician. Deletes sourced content about how a relative of a Shen Yun performer was reportedly kidnapped by Chinese authorities. Adds content that misattributes quotes to a Falun Gong organization. Additional comments by editor filing complaint[edit]Briefly on my background in this topic: I joined Wikipedia and later began editing these pages, among many others, at a time when Falun Gong editors were still around but slowly being banished. I am a person who abjures extreme opinions, and consider myself skeptical towards religion in general, and I carried these perspectives into my work here. I exchanged emails with Ohconfucius and Colipon in that vein early on. None of the editors involved seemed too bad at the time, and I initially found a comfortable role trying to mediate on contentious issues. As my involvement deepened, I read more on Falun Gong, watched the debates, and continued to observe the interactions among editors. Over time I have come to view more dimly the approach of the editors named in this case. As I have read more academic literature on this topic, it has become apparent that the views these editors hold in general fall quite far outside of the spectrum of mainstream academic opinion. These editors do not recognize this, of course, and they tend to reject the authority of experts on the topic. They seem to believe that they alone are neutral and unbiased when it comes to Falun Gong. In the last six months or so, I’ve found trying to edit these pages in the context of their entrenched antagonism against Falun Gong increasingly difficult. I have been repeatedly personally insulted, had my motivations questioned regularly, and have to deal with constant WP:FORUM-ing and personal remarks. To illustrate the problem further, Ohconfucius writes on his user page, “I am not interested in partisan bickering of whether Falun Gong was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party or whether ‘Falun Gong is a Cult’.” But these are not the debate. Scholars on Falun Gong uniformly dismiss the idea that it is a cult (in the pejorative sense, which is how Ohconfucius intended it). And there is no question among reliable sources that Falun Gong is persecuted—and severely at that. The literature on this topic is replete with references to “brutal persecution” on a scale that is “unrivaled” in recent decades. The Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong is described in serious literature as being the largest mass mobilization since the Cultural Revolution, one that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of extrajudicial imprisonments, and state-sanctioned torture. Books dedicated to this topic are published in academic presses. And yet in various places, Ohconfucius has expressed doubt that Falun Gong practitioners are mistreated or tortured in custody. He and the other editors here insist—without support from reliable sources—that the persecution is merely alleged, and that Falun Gong practitioners claim torture simply as a means of gaining publicity. It is very difficult to have sophisticated conversations or reach consensus with editors who don’t accept the essential facts. There is a spectrum of scholarly opinions on Falun Gong, and that’s healthy and productive. Ideally, our goal on Wikipedia should be to reflect the range of views present in the highest quality scholarly literature available—ideas that transcend sensational tropes and ideological battles. It is also fine to have editors with personal opinions outside this range. We all have personal biases that color our views, and I would defend any editor’s right to hold views outside the mainstream. This is not about suppressing particular viewpoints. The key is that editors should strive to be self-aware in terms of their points of view. All should be able to work in good faith with editors who hold divergent views, should adhere to relevant content policies and editing procedures, and should refrain from accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, incivility, or from using Wikipedia as a forum or platform for advocacy. Users Colipon, Shrigley and Ohconfucius unfortunately have shown themselves unable to do this in this namespace, and they simply do not contribute constructively here. Their appearance on talk pages invariably turns otherwise normal exchanges into entrenched ideological battlegrounds where consensus is all but impossible. They regularly disregard normal editing processes, ignore requests to discuss changes, issue thinly veiled personal attacks, make paranoiac accusations about Falun Gong plots, and use talk pages as forums to complain about Falun Gong or other editors. A final note about these pages in general: as a whole, the collection of Falun Gong-related articles appears to be in fairly good shape, they are relatively stable, and the trajectory is towards constant improvement. These pages are watched by many interested parties—some of whom are very knowledgeable on the subject—and overt attempts at disruption are therefore normally dealt with easily. Where substantive changes are made, they are generally proposed and discussed in a fairly normal way on talk pages. These editors are, in my opinion, the most persistent threat to the further positive development of these articles. They do not contribute constructively, and the project would not suffer as a result of them being topic banned. Indeed, they were largely inactive on these pages for a long period of time, and the pages did not go to hell—to the contrary, they progressed substantially. Their return to active editing has merely heralded the return of regular edit wars and polarizing ideological battles. Although the evidence I’ve presented here is only partial, I believe it is sufficient to show a pattern of disruptive editing. Note that this is not intended as an indictment of these users as a whole, merely of their involvement in this namespace.
Shrigley:[104] Colipon: [105] Ohconfucius: [106] (Acknowledgement:[107] (deleted soon after)) Update[edit]On today's recriminations: I have done my best to stay away from ad hominem or polemical discourse and won't engage in it now. The key is the behavorial evidence presented, not the other distractions or meta-discussion. Other items:
It is apparent that the editing and attitudes of Colipon and Ohconfucius has been profoundly shaped by their past experiences with actual Falun Gong practitioner editors. They have both indicated that these experiences have soured them to no longer being interested in good faith discussion and work on the articles. This AE complaint isn't a meta-issue about the Falun Gong namespace or the tangled history of editing in it, though. It is about the violation of Wikipedia editing and behavioral principles, as documented in the diffs above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Update as of May 26[edit]Response to Ferox Seneca and Jayen466: Please note that the complaint relates specifically to the Falun Gong namespace and the violation of ARBFLG editing and behavioral injunctions, as documented in the diffs provided. I am sympathetic with the statement that these are generally reasonable editors. This is not a judgement of the work of these editors on other topics, nor would any remedial action affect their work on other topics. Response to Enric Naval: I am sorry that you have gained such an unfortunate impression of me. I do not really recall many (if any?) editing interactions on these or other pages, let alone negative ones that would inspire such a remark, so I am not sure where this comes from. I'm not sure if you looked at the diffs above. One point, though: right now, this is about the behavior of the three editors in this namespace as documented in the diffs. If you think there is a cause for administrative action against myself or anyone else, I can only suggest that you gather whatever behavioral evidence you believe is present and bring it to the attention of admins in a separate AE action. I do not envy the people who have to pick through this and identify what is actionable and should be sanctioned and what is not. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ohconfucius posted a content disagreement from a year ago. I was not involved. It seems to be an attempt to explain or justify the problematic and disruptive behavior documented above. Ohconfucius shows that while he was not editing the page, other editors made changes to content that he did not agree with. I did not spend long looking over the page, but it appears that those edits were accompanied by robust talk page discussion. In the diff Ohc provided where Homunculus replaced a RS with a primary source, the change was apparently explained here: [109]. Agree or disagree - that is a content issue, and reasonable people can disagree about most of these things. An administrator who was overseeing that discussion and those changes wrote at the time: “I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done.” If Ohconfucius disagreed with those changes, he should have gone to the talk page to present his concerns. He didn't. Then, a year later, he came back and made over 100 edits without discussion (I was around for that part). He also insulted and edit sparred with other editors. He was asked not to. This is in contrast to the attempt by other editors to engage him in discussion, obvious by looking at the talk page. It is also in contrast to the standard practice that I have seen by Homunculus (and myself, usually, though I have not done serious editing on this namespace for a while), where before making potentially controversial changes on a page, one announces one's reasoning and intentions on the talk page, and invites discussion. Ohconfucius spurned discussion and attacked other editors as having a hidden agenda, political goals, and later as "Falun Gong meatpuppets." People have been banned for similar behavior. To John Carter: This filing includes all disruptive behavior by Ohc, Colipon, and Quigley. The 3RR filing was for a specific instance of edit warring. It went "stale" because no admin acted on it promptly. I would also rather not be doing this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Discussion concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley[edit]Statement by Colipon[edit]
For example, he accuses me of not engaging in content discussions, when I have done this at great length here and here. Both he and TSTF were major participants at these discussions, I don't understand how they could have conveniently forgotten about this when they egregiously engage in my character assassination on this page. My jadedness about Falun Gong can be understood in the context of how little exhaustive lengths of 'content discussions' can achieve when one side is so bent on colouring everything with their POV, and I would advise any uninvolved admins to read those discussions to get a feel of it themselves. Most of my 'forum'-like comments took place after the obstructive nature of so-called content discussions were made clear. Homunculus also does not mention that prior to his re-insertion of Falun Gong content on the Bo Xilai page, we had worked together closely for several months as the Bo scandal unfolded, during which we had very friendly exchanges [117] [118] [119] [120]. We were lead authors on that controversial page, took it to GA, and worked in a cooperative, friendly manner. These facts make his statement seem very disingenuous. Colipon+(Talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]
As the filer has brought up the AN3 case he brought against me, which I have demonstrated was rather contrived, I suggest that the complaint may be politically motivated to stop me from stepping up the opposition to 'Falun Gongsters'. He already issued this thinly veiled threat warning me not to continue editing in Falun Gong space on 30 March 2012. Notice how in both cases, I was transgressed in mainspace by Homunculus (and Zujine), and by TSTF in userspace. Add this complaint, it seems rather obvious to me that the two of them are acting in tandem. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
As soon as I learnt that it was up for TFA, for I saw the nomination, I got working on it immediately and frantically. I suppose that I could have nominated it for FAR instead, but I thought it could be cleaned up. I shepherded the article through FA with the help of asdfg12345, Jayen466 and SilkTork. Once that was done, I had set out to improve the other Falun Gong articles but soon felt frustrated by the endless wikilawyering and insistence on cherrypicking of sources – they would repeatedly insist that certain sources that they called "high quality scholarly sources", generally favourable to Falun Gong, to be used. Bytheir apparent definition, such sources include Porter, Ownby, Schechter, Gutman, Amnesty International (I have no problem with the former two, but please note that the latter three do not enjoy the same status as serious research – Schechter is a journalist who is staunchly pro-Falun Gong, and Gutman works for Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a political lobbyist). They also fond of quoting from Divid Kilgour, a Canadian parliamentarian who has made a name for himself for "exposing" alleged atrocities committed against Falun Gong practitioners, and will often use his website for information. Of course, they will also quote from various websites affiliated with Falun Gong. As I will demonstrate below, they would also systematically seek to remove critical mentions of Falun Gong, and seek to marginalise those sources (even those that can be defined as truly scholarly) that indicated scepticism of the movement. I had already grown disillusioned by the constant attacks, abuse and tendentiousness from some parties whom I had identified as Falun Gong SPAs and who are all now effectively banned from the project for advocacy and POV-pushing. I stopped editing Falun Gong articles towards the end of December 2009, and took the articles off my watchlist in approximately after the 'self-immolation' article incurred a bout of attacks from an obvious Falun Gong sockpuppet. I performed a number of reverts and then stopped editing. The filer of this AE noted that "several other editors knowledgeable on the subject discussed and implemented further improvements" to the article since I walked away. An analysis of the edits to the article shows that the list of illustrious names includes, in decreasing order of number of edits, PCPP (no edits after 29 January 2011), AnnaInDC, Homunculus, Zujine, Asdfg12345, Ohconfucius, Jayen466, SilkTork, Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos. As we all know, Asdfg12345, Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos were given indefinite topic bans as Falun Gong SPAs in 10 November 2011, whilst PCPP was given a topic ban for edit-warring. Here, SilkTork and Jayen only made formatting changes. Until PCPP was topic banned, there was a degree of counterweight to the thrust of Falun Gong editors, but his "effectiveness" was always limited because he was heavily outnumbered. Since then, the article has enjoyed a ratchet effect of pro-Falun Gong edits. Here follows an analysis of the edit count to the article since PCPP's topic ban.
As soon as PCPP was "out of the way" four days later, Homunculus seized the opportunity of ratcheting the POV in favour of Falun Gong thus: In the first of three edits, he performed a radical shift in the article's balance. This is a rearranged version of version 417037166 by Homunculus of 05:55 (UTC), 4 March 2011 The complexity of the edit as well as the one referred to below, and the existence of material undescribed changes such as deletions of adequately sourced text unfavourable to Falun Gong make for a highy opaque edit; it could be contended that the edit summary is misleading. Observe how the NPOV balance has been radically shifted compared with the previous version:
In a later edit, the last one in the above table, Homunculus further radically shifted the balance of the article. this is a rearranged version of version 436986484 by Homunculus of 04:37 (UTC), 30 June 2011. Observe how the NPOV balance has been radically shifted compared with the previous version
In preparing the article for the TFA, I performed approximately 100 edits. In order to limit controversy and to provide for a highly transparent audit trail, my edits were accompanied by appropriately detailed edit summaries, in marked contrast to what has been seen hitherto. Using a previous 'good' version as a reference, I made changes to restore some deleted material and address the obvious NPOV failings of the version extant. How an article on such a polemic topic managed to become a Featured Article has to be somewhat unique case in the annals of Wikipedia, and I believe I have a right to be proud of this achievement. In my eagerness to have the article cleaned up in time for TFA, I only paid cursory attention to their moans on the talk page, knowing that to do so would only bog me down with further lawyering – I ploughed on believing that, after all, the version of an article that has reached FA status has to be somewhat defendable, especially from those determined to undermine its equilibrium for their own agendas. However, an eleventh hour struggle by another suspected Falun Gong meatpuppet somewhat frustrated my effort, and the version that appeared on the front page was, for me, an embarrassment. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Copied from user talk page per request. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Statement by Shrigley[edit]Describing Falun Gong is notoriously tricky; on our best articles we simply provide a wikilink, but this "pass the buck" approach does not work everywhere. Various reliable sources, from the popular press to scholarly monographs, have described Falun Gong as a "spiritual movement", "sect", "new religious movement", and indeed, a "cult". Writers' preference for one of the terms may indicate their level of sympathy for the group, but my usage on articles has run the gamut—except that I studiously avoid using "cult" in article-space, and only distantly mention the classification controversy on talk pages. For reasons of practicality and courtesy, I usually don't change the positive existing classifications of Falun Gong on their articles. By contrast, whenever User:TheSoundAndTheFury and User:Homunculus edit articles, they impose emotionally evocative language (such as "torture", "persecution", and "abuse") as the only way of describing events. Their edits do not necessarily comport with the language of human rights groups: On Gao Zhisheng, Homunculus misleadingly implies that a prominent dissident-lawyer was punished only for one Falun Gong letter, whereas the cited Human Rights Watch report describes years of "corruption, land seizures, police abuse" and recently, "religious and Falun Gong" advocacy. In the same edit, Homunculus describes as "torture" what HRW would only call "assault" and "beat[ing]". Could this distortion come from intense personal beliefs about the subject? Ask Homunculus, who will gladly tell you about how the ban against Falun Gong is exactly like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Speaking of offensive comparisons, pointing out that certain editors are "Falun Gong-focused" is not the same as attacking some user's religion. Very few of my edits (and those of my fellow accused editors; contrast the accusers) relate to Falun Gong. Unfortunately, Falun Gong, like many small activist groups, has a tendency to disruptively insert itself into the larger articles; here on Chinese politics. The former Chinese president Jiang Zemin and the prominent politician Bo Xilai are important, hated figures to Falun Gong devotees, but the overwhelming majority of articles and books written about these men don't mention Falun Gong. The politicians' articles are generally stable until the arrival of the Falun Gong SPAs with little sense of perspective and balance, and so come the unnecessary edit wars and pages of discussion about how much Falun Gong material is appropriate. In addition to fighting tooth and nail to keep and expand Falun Gong coverage on all conceivable China-related articles, not an insignificant portion of TheSoundAndTheFury's editing involves the radical trimming and removal of Falun Gong-critical material. It's pretty clear that TheSoundAndTheFury's false outrage about a "hostile climate" towards editor-practitioners reflects a battleground mentality, where you're either a defender of the faith or a "paid Communist Party agent". Even after I personally assuaged his concerns about discourse, and he promised not to escalate matters, he springs a surprise AE case upon what appears to be a disjointed list of editors with whom he has had content disputes in the past. There is less consensus in the "serious literature" on Falun Gong than the filer asserts. In fact, one of the obfuscatory tactics of TheSoundAndTheFury and Homunculus is to argue that on "complex theological issue[s] on which there is no scholarly consensus", we should exclusively use their preferred sources—usually anthropologists who have embedded themselves within Falun Gong communities and developed a rapport with the group and their aims. The duo's claim to be the sole purveyors of "seriously" sourced material totally breaks down when they've shown themselves to use blogs, Falun Gong advocacy websites, and partisan think tanks as sources wherever they aid the anti-PRC and pro-Falun Gong cause. It is difficult to engage constructively with a user who considers me a "threat" to the development of these articles, and who further makes false conjectures about my political views. However, I'm leaving the door open to future collaboration. I have managed conflicts with Ohconfucius and Colipon over this area because we all have shown respect for the diversity of views and sensitivities around this topic. Because of our wide editing scope, we also have a perspective that some editors who imagine themselves to be our adversaries may lack. Not every removal is a "persecution"; not every attribution is "discrediting"; not every criticism is "disparagement". We must balance the sensitivities of Falun Gong practitioners with those of our policies about biographies of living persons and due weight; to do this, we need both practitioners and non-practitioners as editors. Shrigley (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley[edit]Statement by potentially involved John Carter[edit]I have previously been involved a bit more actively in the Falun Gong related content, so I believe some might consider me perhaps biased, hence my disclaimer in my section title. I have not at this point reviewed the entirety of the complaint above. Having said that, I believe I can make a few statements which might be useful. One, it is worth noting that Ohconfucius was the individual primarily responsible for the Tianenmen square self-immolation article achieving FA in the first place. There was extensive discussion, as per the talk page history, prior to the nomination and during the FA approval process. Several of the points made above were addressed at the time, although I am not sure that the filer of this complaint has reviewed them. However, I believe that at least a few of the complaints above are basically content complaints about matters which had received substantial discussion at that time, and I have no particular reason to believe that there has been any new information on the subject since then. Also, I note that, having reviewed myself all the material on Shen Yun available on the databanks I have access to, I saw at that time that the majority of the reviews of the performances by individuals who were not perhaps FG supporters were generally at least a bit negative. I should clarify. Several individuals who were indicated as being tied to FG spoke very highly of Shen Yun. New Tang Dynasty TV, which has ties to FG, produced several interviews with individuals who spoke highly of it. And, of course, the material in newspapers before the show is often based on press releases, rather than direct knowledge, and favorable. After performances, however, I found that for the most part, almost overwhelmingly in fact, the reviews from arts columnists, who are generally considered most knowledgable on the subject, were not particularly positive, and often moderately to very negative. I believe our policies and guidelines make it clear that it is the latter type of review we should give most prominence to. Some of the other comments which the filer finds unacceptable are also pretty clearly purely content related, not behavior related. Also, some of the behavior criticized, like Colipon's saying some groups were linked to Falun Gong, are extremely strongly implied in some of the independent reliable sources, if not explicitly stated, and I would see such minor errors as being just that. We are not bound on talk pages to necessarily cite a source for a fact which has been discussed at some length before, particularly not when the discussion becomes inflamed, which seems to have happened fairly regularly here, and at least sometimes, as per the above, more or less directly due to TSTF. The filer seems to be a comparatively new editor who may not have been active when almost all the obvious Western practitioners of FG were banned from the content some time ago. It should be noted that, at the time, Ohconfucius and I think others supported at least one of those editors, HappyInGeneral, not be banned, but SilkTork who made the decision disagreed. I say this to indicate that Ohconfucius is not necessarily driven by POV, as he wouldn't have agreed with me on this if he was. The specific comments I have reviewed to date made by that editor are very strongly reminiscent of the complaints made by those now banned POV pushers. I do not necessarily see any of the subjects of this complaint being necessarily free from bias of any sort. I don't think anyone necessarily qualifies as such, particularly after one has reviewed a lot of material and had a lot of interaction with editors who have been, rather often in this case, misbehaving very badly, as Dilip and Olaf did rather habitually. I do however think that, based on my quick review, that I personally think that the case is a rather weak one, and that there might potentially be perhaps at least as serious a complaint for POV pushing against the filer as against the individuals whom he has filed a complaint against. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Ferox Seneca[edit]I do not edit articles directly related to FG, but the three users who the filer has identified are possibly the most research-oriented, content-focused, collaborative editors that I have worked with on articles related to modern Chinese history. There might be a case that the identified editors should be more careful about how they express their personal opinions in some situations; but, based on the precedent of their long-term editing style and the quality of their work, I believe it would be a mistake to take these claims against them at face value without considering the context of each individual claim. Many of the claims against them seem related to content disputes, and might be better addressed by arbitrating each individual case of content dispute.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Statement by Enric Naval[edit](I have edited Falun Gong articles once in a while). This is like the wolf raising a complaint against the sheep. Meanwhile, civil POV pushers User:TheSoundAndTheFury, User:Homunculus and User:Zujine keep twisting the Falun Gong articles, and scaring away neutral editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes[edit]This is "too long, did not read". But there is obviously a conflict. After looking at the articles in question, one can see obvious edit warring [121][122]. Looking at any particular revert, one can see removal of relevant and reliably sourced information (2nd paragraph) or here. After looking at article talk pages [123][124], it is not at all obvious why this information must be removed. This is not the first time when the same people appear on AE. It always takes two or more to tango. Several people on another side of the dispute were recently topic-banned, but it did not help. And it does not really matter if they practice Yoga, Falun Gong, or communist ideology.My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
@John Carter [125]. Yes, edit warring in yet another article [126] shows a serious conflict. Unfortunately, in this example OhConfucius fought against @T. Canens. Yes, I agree: sending this to Arbcom is probably the only option. They should also look at the previous AE case about the same. This is all related.My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Statement by Jayen466[edit]I helped Ohconfucius get the Tiananmen Square incident article to FA, and he did a tremendous job. I've also in the past helped out with mentoring User:Dilip rajeev, a Falun Gong editor who clashed with Ohconfucius and others and at the time was threatened with sanctions. Ohconfucius is well aware of that. Even so, Ohconfucius has from time to time asked me on my talk page to look in on contentious questions (including, recently, the Bo Xilai article) and give an outside opinion, knowing full well that I may not necessarily see things the same way as he. That's the mark of a good-faith, above-board editor. I would therefore oppose sanctions against Ohconfucius, as I believe he edits with the best interests of the project in mind. (I am not familiar enough with any of the other editors' editing in this topic area to comment.) --JN466 19:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Statement by Homunculus[edit]Disclaimer: what follows is almost certainly TLTR, but I would like to share it. Bottom line: I just encourage admins to just look at the talk pages and the behavioral evidence presented. So far only one person — User:My very best wishes — appears to have done that (this is the only user who is truly uninvolved). I didn’t want to get involved in this case for a few reasons. I don’t like the idea of coming here and throwing accusations at people, and would prefer to be collegial if possible. But since my name has been mentioned several times, I should respond.
The admins here have their work cut out for them. I hope I haven’t made things more confusing. Homunculus (duihua) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley[edit]
|
TrevelyanL85A2
[edit]| No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]
NA
Remedy was clearly an unambiguously violated.
Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]Statement by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]Comment by Collect[edit]ArbCom should nip "dramah" in the bud. The post was made on an Arbitrator's UT page. The post was not specifically about R&I, but there was clearly conflict on that page between several users. [148] does, indeed, show Mathsci stating rv edit per WP:BAN - please consult a member of arbcom in case of doubt - thanks. If a person told to post on a page is then told
There is a clear "failure to communicate. And then this AE request is made by an editor who was not a party on the UT page discussion at 10:24. I believe in coincidences. Give them both an official ArbCom trout. Collect (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]
|
Gaius Octavius Princeps
[edit]| Blocked for 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gaius Octavius Princeps[edit]
Discussion concerning Gaius Octavius Princeps[edit]Statement by Gaius Octavius Princeps[edit]The information that is being removed in the rebel atrocity section is referenced and clear. My reverts are to stop this referenced material being removed without any reason.
User:Ponox removed more User: Hohenloh was the editor who then removed this material and then reverted 3 times back his edit:
User: Ponox again removed it also:
saying that "The victims were not stripped at Wexford Bridge". This is contradicted by the source. and now user: 2 lines of K/One night in hackney steps in to revert without discussion.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Gaius Octavius Princeps[edit]Result concerning Gaius Octavius Princeps[edit]
|
Homunculus
[edit]| No action taken; please submit this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
ArbCom are about to open Falun Gong 2: please submit this as evidence there. Moreschi (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Request concerning Homunculus[edit]
For the past six years, Falun Gong activists have dominated Wikipedia's Falun Gong topicspace. The are here to advocate for their cause and usually nothing else. In the current batch of Falun Gong editors, Homunculus is the best representation of activist editing. The evidence is below. Until today, I have refrained from mentioning "Falun Gong users" directly by name. They usually jump on any such commentary as a violation of WP:NPA and try to intimidate me by alluding to sanctions on those grounds (this did not stop them from creating an AE against me anyway). They usually self-identify, so it is also redundant. I was busy last week resolving issues at WT:ITNR, and re-writing the article on the Cultural Revolution, when an AE case was suddenly flung at myself and my colleagues Ohconfucius and Shrigley out of the blue. No warning, no signs. Boom. Bad faith of the highest order. I could not tolerate this, and needed to confront this matter head on. Their egregious conduct had hit the final straw, and I need no more convincing of their hidden agenda. They levied tenuous charges against three otherwise unrelated, experienced users with long-standing clean editing records and no past sanctions. The three editors they want to evict from "their" home turf have little in common except showing resistance towards their collusive editing behavior. Moreover, since H and TSTF's appearance on Wiki, the editors they accuse have rarely made edits to Falun Gong content. This makes their accusations look hollow. I now halt my regrettable self-censorship and will proceed in broad daylight. Both Homunculus and TheSound joined Wikipedia around March 2010. The date is highly suspect, since it occurred shortly after a spate of topic bans levied at the previous Falun Gong activists. Within a short time of creating the accounts, these users demonstrated mastery of Wikipedia policies. I suspected that they were meatpuppets or sockpuppets, a belief that is now shared by Ohconfucius. Here, for example, theSound calls concerns voiced by SPA Olaf Stephanos "quite reasonable", while here Homunculus staunchly defends Olaf's contributions. In my naivete, I glossed over these comments, and assumed good faith. In addition, because I tried to distance myself from Falun Gong since early 2010, I did not pursue the case further.
The edit history of Homunculus (talk · contribs) makes it apparent that he is only interested in editing materials that advance Falun Gong's cause, and demonstrated ownership over almost all pages related to Falun Gong since the previous cabal was banned. I will not attempt to 'out' this user because I respect his privacy, and in any case feel that his real-life identity or beliefs are irrelevant given the weight of evidence against him. Between Homunculus and TheSound, the former is more problematic, since he has contributed more substantive written material to articles; the latter rarely makes major edits, serves mostly to reinforce him, reverting on his behalf, and sing to his tune when called upon on the talk page. In addition, a third user, Zujine (talk · contribs), also editorializes frequently in Falun Gong's favour. I will not discuss Zujine here, or group him together with H and TSTF without evidence. Overwhelming evidence suggests that Homunculus is a single-purpose account dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy. From his banned predecessors, users Asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos, HappyInGeneral, and Dilip Rajeev, user Homunculus has improved upon their model of proselytism on Wikipedia. Because he sticks obsessively to the letter of civility guidelines, he may look prima facie as a good-faith editor. Knowing the downfall of his comrades, Homunlucus is civil in discussions, has an in-depth understanding of Wikipedia policies, and is meticulous about sourcing. He knows what will get him sanctioned and carefully works around it. He drafts his most significant contributions offline, so many of his blatant POV-edits are hidden behind misleading edit summaries and diffs are impossible to read transparently. To refute his being an SPA, he will say that he edits more than just Falun Gong. But a careful reading of his contributions makes it clear that when he is not editing Falun Gong, he engages in content that disparages the Chinese state, the Communist Party, or sings praise for groups that carry a grievance against the regime. Homunculus uses emotional terminology reminiscent of Falun Gong's own literature; he throws tangential and emotive accusations at any skeptical users; he editorializes in favour of Falun Gong in every subject area he touches, and perhaps most irritating, he injects Falun Gong content into articles that are otherwise unrelated to Falun Gong (such as Expo 2010, "anthroprogenic by death toll", Bo Xilai etc). The subjects that Homunculus edits mirror exactly those most heavily promoted by the Falun Gong newspaper the Epoch Times. While his edits do not revolve around a single topic, they unambiguously serve a single purpose: To advance Falun Gong's world view vis-a-vis that of the Chinese state. Homunculus represents par excellence the dualistic world view of Falun Gong practitioners, where the struggle and belief system revolves around not only the advocacy of Falun Gong's causes but also (more importantly) a struggle against the Chinese party-state and anyone they consider the regime's associates. Beneath his unwavering adherence to civility, H is, in my view, a much greater threat to this encyclopedia than his predecessors, as his editing patterns (lack of transparency, civil filibustering, abstinence from edit-warring, forays into non-Falun Gong space) are much more opaque, and difficult to procedurally sanction. (In this context, H and TSTF are best described as following the letter of policies while running roughshod over its intent; On the other hand, Ohconfucius, myself, and Shrigley are following the intent of the policies but may have violated certain procedural details (WP:3RR, WP:BATTLE, and WP:NPA). Note their dogmatic insistence that we focus on the procedural aspects of the above case, and this becomes ever more clear.) I write this while fully acknowledging that Falun Gong is a victimized group that has been unjustly suppressed by the Chinese government and Communist Party. Human rights violations against FLG practitioners are well documented and should be condemned, strongly. But the legitimacy of Falun Gong's humanitarian cause does not mean that this encyclopedia should serve as a beachfront for its political and religious proselytism. Since I gutted FLG pages from my watchlist in early 2010, I've noticed a gradual advance of Falun Gong advocacy outside of the Falun Gong namespace, into topical areas that only tangentially dealt with Chinese governance. This advocacy drive was begun by User Asdfg at "Propaganda in the People's Republic of China" in March 2010, as part of his forays into "non-FLG" articles while subject to his topic ban. Asdfg was banned for good in the 'boomerang' case spearheaded by User Zujine against User PCPP. That page should have provided ample warning to both TSTF and Homunculus to not engage in any more wiki-litigation as it tends to harm them more than their perceived opponents, but alas, it was not to be. Once Asdfg was banned, Homunculus emerged at the helm of the Falun Gong cabal.
Do not be fooled by Falun Gong advocates' insistence on "reliable sources". David Ownby, foremost expert on Falun Gong, writes that in recent years Falun Gong devotees have begun borrowing on academic works as a front to legitimize their cause, and that approach is in full swing on Wikipedia. The sources are cherry-picked, only sources presenting Falun Gong favourably are deemed kosher for presentation. In dismissing otherwise reliable sources that criticize (or simply skeptical of) Falun Gong, H's tactics resemble that of earlier Falun Gong SPAs, the most emblematic of which is the insistence that 'some sources are more equal than others': manifested on talk pages as 'some people are "not experts" in a specialized field.' For example, Homunculus writes about academics Ashcraft and Gallagher, who made a mention of Falun Gong's apocalyptic nature: The inconsistent application of H's insistence on "high-quality sources" is laid bare when he makes clear that he favours sources sympathetic to Falun Gong. This style of source-fishing was pioneered by none other than SPA Olaf Stephanos. H filibustered Ashcraft and Gallagher during a skeptical inquiry by user AgadaUrbanit, but has voiced his support for Gutmann after a concern over its validity was raised by Users Inspector and Sean Hoyland. H writes: I was amazed, juxtapositioning both conversations: apparently in H's eyes, Ashcraft & Gallagher's peer-reviewed academic paper is much more problematic than a polemic written by someone at the partisan American think tank Foundation of the Defense of Democracies. The endemic Wikilawyering aside, User Homunculus responds in identical ways to any user who hints at skepticism of Falun Gong. For example, in November 2011, User Sean Hoyland wanted an evocative photo to be qualified with the caption that it is an image produced by Falun Gong organizations (with the implication that it may not be neutral). Homunculus responded: Diffs of this user's problematic edits, although always shrouded in his misleading edit summaries and opaque revisions, are not difficult to locate, and indeed, the extent to which this user has corroded balance on this encyclopedia is deeply troubling. Here is just a sample:
Perhaps the most damning evidence against this user comes from an esoteric topic with which few people uninvolved with Falun Gong have an understanding. The vendetta of Falun Gong against New York City Comptroller John Liu, who it asserts is part of the Communist Party's sinister overseas "United Front" aimed at usurping power in Western governments. After significant revisions by Homunculus, the article has effectively become an attack page, with serious undue weight given to Liu's legal travails and otherwise unsavoury aspects of Liu's life. Despite its sourcing to RS, I reckon that its heavily biased tone and unabashed undue weight can qualify as a WP:BLP violation.
The most egregious piece of Homunculus' advocacy work is "Falun Gong outside of Mainland China", with a level of depth that has surpassed even the most sophisticated Falun Gong devotees in the past. Note how careful he is with his edit summaries: "Reorganization, new content per talk page" that is prima facie in the spirit of WP:BRD. User Ohconfucius protested for him to be more transparent with substantial edits. A large revision was migrated from offline in one fell-swoop, heavily obscuring the paper trail. Nonetheless, the POV balance was very evidently pro-Falun Gong after his edits. For example:
It has been a decade since controversy surfaced on these articles, and half a decade since ARBFLG. It is clear that despite exhausting every form of conflict resolution possible in the depths of Wiki-bureaucracy, Falun Gong activists are still trampling the spirit of Wiki policy left and right, and when anyone tries to stop them, they are met with gaming the system tactics, litigation resembling the real-world kind, intimidation, harrassment etc which all effectively amounts to discouraging new and existing participants from staying involved. Evidently, this is no longer a public relations battle between the Chinese Communist government and Falun Gong, as this case is often naively and mistakenly construed. Since 2007, no user has, to my knowledge, ever complained that the pages were biased in favour of the CCP. In fact, the talk pages are full of suggestions that the pages are heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong. These complaints come from IP users, new accounts, but also a large number of experienced editors. [154] From user Unique and Ubiquitous, [155] From user JSW663, [156] From user Hmm..., most recently, reasoned skepticism of the page's content emanated from user AgadaUrbanit and Sean Hoyland. None of these users edit Falun Gong regularly, but evidently they all see serious problems with the page's contents. Other experienced users who have voiced concerns about Falun Gong POV-pushing in the past include Users Mrund, Per Edman, Edward130603, Enric Naval, Simonm223, Antilived, and needless to say, myself, Users Ohconfucius and Shrigley. Many of these editors, including myself, were intimidated to stay away from the articles altogether. The Falun Gong cabal can discredit me, but they cannot discredit the diverse opinions from the community. Falun Gong's war is against all of its critics, even those that agree with its human rights mission but disagree with some minor details. Tellingly, in the environment of extreme sensitivities to criticism, even comments from blocked IP users must be scrubbed and discredited. Homunculus also frequently removes material critical of him and tying him to Falun Gong on his own talk page. I could not stress more how clear it has become that this is no longer a two-sided war that simply needs mediation, but a one-sided, protracted campaign by Falun Gong practitioners, sympathizers and supporters to extend their public relations campaign from the pages of the Epoch Times to Wikipedia. The determination of religious zealots harden by the day, and if Homunculus and TheSound are banned, more re-incarnations will surface within due time. The sinister proliferation of propaganda will continue unabated in ever more circumspect and less transparent ways, which makes me rightfully question the effectiveness of ARBFLG itself. Without solid determination to stamp out advocacy and with continued preference to band-aid solutions, Falun Gong POV-pushing will continue indefinitely. Alas, that is perhaps digressing into a more systemic issue with Wikipedia in general.
I stress, while I am skeptical of Falun Gong, I do not harbour ill feelings towards practitioners or the overarching doctrine. My primary concern is over Falun Gong's activism on Wikipedia, not Falun Gong itself. Their actions are counter to the mission of this encyclopedia. So long as these Falun Gong advocates remain, I will continue my self-imposed exile from editing the Falun Gong namespace. The great irony of TSTF's case against me, is that, since I edit Falun Gong articles so rarely, a topic ban would really amount to no ban at all. All it would achieve is censoring my critical remarks on the talk page directed at the state of Falun Gong advocacy in general. This case should also make my comments at the Falun Gong talk page seem much more reasonable, now that they are not standalone diffs. Going forward, I want to reserve my right to speak freely, point out advocacy where I see it, and work for the interests of this encyclopedia. If admins are unconvinced, I leave room for sanctions to be placed on myself to their full discretion. This case is directed against User Homunculus, for whom an indefinite topic ban, widely construed, is appropriate. In the past a six-month topic ban was considered sufficient, but the repeated patterns of problematic behavior indicates that it was not enough. We need to have the courage to say no when the situation demands it, as it is evident that our own good faith and that of presiding administrators are being abused by the Falun Gong cabal at the encyclopedia's expense. Homunculus is worse than the previous Falun Gong editors because he also edits a great deal of articles related to Chinese governance, so further restrictions on those topical areas may also be in order. TSTF, H's loyal sidekick, should also be sanctioned accordingly. However, from my assessment from TSTF's edit patterns, since this user rarely makes substantive content-related edits, acts only in a capacity to back up his comrades, H's ban from the topic space should be enough to discourage TSTF from further participation. As for Users Ohconfucius and Shrigley, I hope to continue our working relationship in a wide range of namespaces. Their cases should be discussed and decided on an individual basis, but I firmly believe that their interests are strictly in line with our Five pillars and the mission of this encyclopedia, and should be strongly 'exonerated' from any sanctions, charges, to signal Wikipedia's iron will to crack down on Falun Gong ligitation in wiki form. Anything less would invite more meatpuppets, socks, and other unsavoury characters back in their ever more sophisticated re-incarnations, which will needlessly perpetuate the existing problems (perhaps another ArbCom case in five years?). Since Falun Gong was never their primary interest, the records of Ohconfucius and Shrigley speak for themselves, so I do not feel much of a need to defend them further. I am open to continued cooperation with User Homunculus on topics unrelated to Chinese politics and Falun Gong if he chooses to stick around, though I can understand that he will no longer want to work with me in any capacity after this case. Colipon+(Talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Homunculus[edit]Statement by Homunculus[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Homunculus[edit]Ohconfucius[edit]Since the above case against me and two others was opened, I've been revisiting some of the edits of Homunculus. I had noted previously that he held himself out as being rather insistent about meticulous sourcing. So this one I found, in January of this year at Falun Gong outside China, came as a surprise. The article was edited by Homunculus since January 2010 with relatively little interference or input from other editors:
The changes seem to fly completely in the face of what he espouses in others' sourcing. Anyone who describes himself as "a researcher" would almost certainly know to avoid such spectacular sloppiness and dubious sourcing, and such action leads me to question his assertion to the effect and to his credentials. Whilst he may argue that these were lapses, the fast solidifying picture is that Homunculus' editing bears a remarkable resemblance to political positions in Epoch Times. When it comes to scrutinising the quality of sources, he's doesn't quite apply the same standards of rigour to material that may be critical of the Dafa, and happy to pass off Falun Gong-written articles as independent articles. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Homunculus[edit]
ArbCom are very likely to be opening a Falun Gong 2 case in the next few days. I strongly suggest that you submit this as evidence there. Moreschi (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). "The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective". The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665–683
- ^ The gospel truth: Falun Gong, Sunday Star Times, March 2, 2008
- ^ a b Morais, Richard C."China's Fight With Falun Gong", Forbes, 9 February 2006. Retrieved 7 July 2006.