Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:14, 4 June 2012 editVanished user lt94ma34le12 (talk | contribs)8,065 edits →Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong← Previous edit Revision as of 19:22, 4 June 2012 edit undoNo More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,461 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dongNext edit →
Line 1,069: Line 1,069:


I'm more sympathetic for GHcool, who seems to have been trying to correct DLDD's edits. He does appear to have violated 1RR, but he might reasonably argue that his edit of 21:56, 30 May 2012 should not trigger 1RR. It shouldn't be possible for someone to change a number without providing a citation and force others into 1RR when they revert. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I'm more sympathetic for GHcool, who seems to have been trying to correct DLDD's edits. He does appear to have violated 1RR, but he might reasonably argue that his edit of 21:56, 30 May 2012 should not trigger 1RR. It shouldn't be possible for someone to change a number without providing a citation and force others into 1RR when they revert. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

;Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy
Here's a list of articles DLDD edited while topic banned - ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (guess by whom), ], ], ] (probably a topic ban violation), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (guess relating to what religion), ], ] and ]. I may have missed a few, but you get the gist. ] (]) 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


==== Statement by Jiujitsuguy ==== ==== Statement by Jiujitsuguy ====

Revision as of 19:22, 4 June 2012

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcuts

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Caucasian Albania article

    Existing remedy replaced with 1RR. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 4 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 Caucasian Albania article

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    Relevant article
    Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I would like to request an amendment to the remedy that was imposed on this article more than a year ago: . I don't mind the first part of the remedy, which places the article on 1RR, but the second part I believe should be canceled. In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The situation in Caucasian Albania was in general similar to what was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the new accounts waged an edit war, and which was placed on a different article level sanction: The edit warring on both articles was started by User:Xebulon and his socks User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, as well as some other sock accounts. At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced WP:OR claims. At the moment I cannot remove even obvious WP:OR statements introduced by the banned user: Note that the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is not supported by any source and contradicts the sources quoted in the article, but I had to roll myself back due to sanctions: This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. I believe what triggered the remedy in question were WP:AE requests by the sock account, who even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Another request was filed on me: , and also on the sock itself: I understand that admins at the time had no proof of sockpuppetry and assuming good faith believed that the editors filing complaints were genuine newcomers (even though some admins noted that the account filing complaint was suspicious), but considering that those accounts turned out later to be socks, I think the remedy needs to be reviewed. Therefore I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis. Many of the established editors have plenty of useful contributions in various areas, and excluding them from editing this article because of the old mistakes in my opinion is not fair. The immediate result of this remedy is that while most of the established users are excluded from editing, the sock accounts get unfair advantage and can freely make any controversial edits to this quite a contentious article in AA area. I believe at the moment it is enough to keep Caucasian Albania on 1RR per day for everyone who wishes to edit it. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

    I think I should have used {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. I can resubmit, if needed. Grandmaster 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

    Sandstein, thanks for providing your input. There are presently no disputes going on that article, so WP:DR is not useful here. I just see no reason why me or any other established editor should not be able to edit this article, if he was sanctioned at some point in time. I think it is wrong that a user is excluded from editing process just because he was placed on a revert restriction 5 years ago. Grandmaster 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

    Also note that this request does not concern only me personally, it pretty much concerns most experienced editors in AA area, because I don't think there are any who were not placed under sanctions at some point in time. With this remedy, they are all banned from editing this article, regardless if they actually did anything wrong there or not. If we compare this remedy with the 500 edit limit recently imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh, the latter does not ban the new accounts from actually editing the article, it only places them on 1RR until they gain a certain number of edits. The sanction on Caucasian Albania indef bans everybody who has been sanctioned from editing the article, without giving them any chance to make any contribution to it. This leaves the article to the new accounts, many of whom as it turned out were the socks of the banned users, and started the edit wars that led to this sanction. I don't think this helps to improve the quality of this article. Grandmaster 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

    The list of socks who edit warred on this article at the time the remedy was imposed: Aram-van (talk · contribs), Xebulon (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Bars77 (talk · contribs), Rjbronn (talk · contribs) (the list may not be complete). The remedy did not address the sock activity in this article. I believe this was because at the time there was no solid proof of sockery. But in the light of what we know now, I think the amendment is necessary. Grandmaster 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

    Responding to this: I find the accusation of Zimmarod to be a violation of WP:AGF. While reverting my edits, he made no attempt at discussion at talk of the article, to ask me any questions he may have had, but chose to take it here to make some bad faith accusations. The reason why I removed the links to online texts is that one of texts is just a chapter from a book, and that book is already listed in the bibliography, and the second one is an article also listed in bibliography. There's no point in listing the same books and articles twice. As for the online texts, they appear to be posted without any permission of the author, and one of the links is dead anyway. I don't think linking to copyvio is allowed. The result of this rv by Zimmarod: 1) repeated listing in bibliography; 2) restoration of a dead link, and a link to an apparent copyvio material. This may not be worthy of responding, but I see that this user is following my edits, and tries to make a big issue out of nothing. Grandmaster 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

    Unarchived, since the request was not formally closed. Grandmaster 08:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

    Please do not edit war over archiving. Edits by the bot could be undone by anyone. The report cannot be archived before it is formally closed. Grandmaster 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

    Can someone please formally close this request? It was here for about 1 month now. Grandmaster 09:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    Notification of involved parties

    Sandstein: , Caucasian Albania:

    Discussion concerning Caucasian Albania article

    Statement by Sandstein

    I do not find this request convincing. If there is indeed problematic editing of this article on the part of others, it is not clear how removing my sanction would prevent or counteract that. The appropriate reaction would instead be to initiate normal dispute resolution proceedings, beginning with user talk page discussions and ending with eventual SPI or AE requests against the editors responsible for any disruption. The request does not show that any dispute resolution has been attempted. Also, on the basis of this request, it is not clear that the article is at all affected by detrimental editing. The request refers to a single edit to the article, uncited but allegedly undone at , which it considers original research. That may or may not be so, but the addition is at any rate not disruptive on its face such that it warrants administrative attention; if it is detrimental it can be amended by editors who are not subject to my sanction, which are all but a handful of Wikipedians. On these grounds, I decline the appeal insofar as it is addressed to me as the administrator who imposed the sanction.

    That said, as I'm not active in arbitration enforcement, I haven't followed this article (or topic area) for a while. Therefore I have no objection to my sanction being changed or amended as any other uninvolved administrator may deem appropriate.  Sandstein  13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article

    I had taken a "sabbatical", so to say, for quite some time and am not very familiar with the changes and activities here since then. But although the applicant might not have been sanctioned for 5 years, as he says, on the English WP, less than 2 years ago he was sanctioned on the Russian WP for being a part of a large group of off-wiki-organised editors' group acting in favour of A side including organised for/anti voting for Admins etc. Though, correct me if I am wrong, Grandmaster.

    Considering the severity of activities, as I would judge it, it might be useful to take this fact into consideration when reading the editor's words of appeal. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

    Aregakn - this is not about Grandmaster, this is about a neverending and unproductive edit restriction that is being applied to a single article. I wonder why such an outrageous editing restriction has been unchallenged for so long. That Grandmaster has been hung by the same noose he has often helped tie around the necks of others may give a quiet satisifaction, but is not a reason to support the noose and those who like pulling on it. Meowy 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    Meowy - I see where you are coming from but no, Aregakn's point is of more merit at the moment. However, if Grandmaster's ability to game the system is finally checked, your idea will have a solid more ground. The noose can be relaxed for others but since it was Gransmaster who caused the sanction in the first place, he and Brandmeister should be kept out of it. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Misplaced Pages (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    Many things can happen since it is discretionary sanctions area. Limiting the ability of edit-warring users to battleground on specific articles while opening the article to other users is a doable thing. Cheers. Zimmarod (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

    I second Grandmaster's opinion. Some time ago I realized that the current restriction is quite harsh, generally because it actually freezes good-faith editing in breach of WP:AGF so that the article is constantly waiting for improvement by uninvolved users only. The current sanction also creates an unfair situation, where any autoconfirmed sock or meat can edit the article freely, while many established users can't. Brandmeister 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

    I concur with both Aregakn and Sandstein. When I took a look at the Caucasian Albania article's talk pages and why there was an article-wide sanction, it turned out that the sanction was placed by Sandstein to prevent Grandmaster and "old" accounts associated with him (his associate Brandmeister) to continue edit war, in which the Grandmaster-Brandmeister duo were bombarding their opponents with racist comments about the origin of sources used in the article. Exactly the same picture today in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, where Grandmaster is currently in a suspended stage of edit war. As hinted by Aregakn, the Grandmaster is a suspicious edit warring account that cultivated a farm of meatpuppets in ruwiki. Brandmaster was his meatpuppet, and it is unsurprising that he was meatpuppetting for Grandmaster everywhere Grandmaster is launching an edit war. Actually the talk pages show that Brandmeister was actually topic banned as a result of his racism for battlegrounding in Caucasian Albania. Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania are both prime examples. I see this request as a cynical effort to re-open the can of worms in the Caucasian Albania article and extend the still simmering dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh to other related topics. This appeal is a good opportunity to cast a more somber look at Grandmaster as a meatpuppeteer and edit war abuser and restrict his and his meatpuppeting farm's ability to game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

    Take a look at this: while this discussion continues, Grandmaster is deleting links to online texts by reputable academics where his interpretation of Caucasian Albania is criticized. Is this vandalism? Again, I doubt Grandmaster filed this request in good faith. Zimmarod (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

    Requests filed in bad faith cannot be considered regardless of their merit and substance. See my talk above. Zimmarod (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry that I have little time to contribute nowadays. Catoclass, you are right about how permanent should article bans be, I guess. But if we are speaking of the appeal we consider who and why appeals it, right? These are the words of Grandmaster: "...I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis." But he is or at least was one of the masterminds of a group of more than 20 "experienced editors", as one might call, conducting an organised edit-warring, voting in mediations, admin "elections" etc. This is/was an organised propaganda group and this was not 5 years ago, as claimed. I mean, what would justify allowing this kind of activity to be continued, or can the little time of less than 2 years say "no, this most probably won't happen"? If I am wrong, please somebody correct me about this event(s).
    Considering this I would not say that all the "experienced editors" should be lifted the sanctions from. This brings me to an offer of a considerate "compromise change" in the sanction. I think there can be drawn a line-of-severity and maybe all that were sanctioned may appeal for an individual approach. Aregakn (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


    Passage moved from "A compromise might work better" section as it did not discuss the suggested compromise version. Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

    And who is that majority? Those who started the edit war are all banned now as socks of the banned user. Xebulon (talk · contribs) and his army of socks, some of whom might still be around under new monikers. Grandmaster 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    Aregakn search for a compromise shall be appreciated by the community. I took another look at the article's talk pages, and it is pretty clear that the restriction was placed on the article because of misdeeds by established accounts, not Xebulon and other new accounts who argued their case against Grandmaster. The rule was triggered by editwarring by Grandmaster and especially his ruwiki meat Brandmeister, as a result of which Brandmeister was banned from AA for a year. Now, this request is like someone coming to a policemen asking "sorry, can you open the bank so that I can rob it again please." Furthermore, as we speak Grandmaster is disfiguring articles which do not support his point of view on Caucasian Albania. Under s false pretense he removed a well-functioning link to an article in Victor Schnirelmann just yesterday while arguing that the link is dead. The link was not dead, see for yourself . When his manipulation was detected and counteracted, he went on claiming that the article is supposedly a violation of copyright. Yeah ... When Grandmaster removed the link, he never bothered to argue about copy rights infringements, right? And, there are many other links in that article which also can be - according to Grandmaster's logic - copyright violations. Right? But somehow Grandmaster removed the link where Victor Schnirelmann chastises Grandmaster's fellow Azerbaijani historians for falsifications. In theoretical sense, the request to open up the article may have its logic and justifications but this request should be re-filed by someone who was not engaged in editwarring in that article and is not editwarring now. In such case, a discussion and Aregakn's compromise may have more meaning. This particular request should be denied since requests filed in bad faith - with a thinly veiled intention to re-launch an edit war in this case - cannot be considered. Grandmaster is currently editwarring in a related article on Nagorno-Karabakh and pulling all kinds of bad faith tricks to evade an honest consensus building, and actually repeating old arguments he was editwarring with on talk pages in Caucasian Albania. Zimmarod (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    You have already been told that if you believe I did something wrong at the article about Shnirelmann, you should file a separate AE request on me. Do it, and the admins will pass their judgment. I already explained everything above, even though I did not have to. And yes, you restored a dead link: , and a copyvio link: , in addition to duplicate listings in bibliography. I'm not going to discuss this any further, if you have a case, file a complaint. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    Grandmaster, I did not see in your explanation that you request a lift only because of all others were socks but that you and other "experienced editors" in the subject are banned too. Don't know the whole story but if there was a ban for all then probably there should have been a reason not to ban only others. I still stay at my point of view considering also the misleading thread that you were not banned in the subject in any way for 5 years, when you were a mastermind of an organised propaganda group quite recently.
    I would say this could even become a remedy for AA2 and be extended in other articles, when thought proper, with a possibility of editors to appeal their ban, as I said here, but not for each article rather than the ban as a whole. Aregakn (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    It is all true. I have no history of any blocks or bans in en:wiki for 5 years. Whatever happens in other language wikis or wiki projects is not actionable here, and vice versa, especially considering that we are talking about something that took place in ru:wiki 2 years ago, and I'm not under any restriction or sanction there as well for a long time. I see that you trying to focus this entire request on my persona, but once again, it is not a restriction imposed just on me, I'm just one of the many editors affected by it. Obviously, such blanket restrictions affect almost every established editor in AA area, and it is not correct. I don't mind if the admins look at my behavior and consider placing me on a sanction, if you have an evidence of my misconduct in this project, but it should be a subject to a separate request. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    Btw, Aregakn, you yourself are not allowed to edit Caucasian Albania because of the sanction logged here: Do you think it is fair? Or you can live with it as long as I'm not allowed to edit it as well? As for Zimmarod (talk · contribs), it is one of those accounts which were registered around the same time in November 2011, and tried to reinstate the edits of the banned user Xebulon in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is worth noting that Xebulon was also involved in edit warring in Caucasian Albania, and it was his sock that filed requests which led to this sanction. I think decisions favoring sock activity (inadvertently, of course) should not be upheld. One way around this remedy is creating a sock account that would have no history of any sanctions, and one can see from the history of the article that Xebulon edited this article without any problem after the sanction was imposed, using sock accounts like Gorzaim (talk · contribs) and Bars77 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 10:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    Grand, my ban was, in short, do not say "possible vandalism" for 1 month and yes, all it was for, was for telling "possible vandalism". It was a general ban but somehow put under AA2. I did appeal but as the time was due before the Admins could come to a consensus they declined the appeal only because of that. Me asking that it is the fact of being banned that I appeal did not go through because of the ban having passed. Now we have a case that we can see it has results even if the time passed and it was needed to be considered. But we have what we have.
    I did say there is a level of severity and I do not accept you playing on my ban as a card for unbanning yourself, as that it your only goal as I can easily draw from your above sentence.
    And you are gaming the system talking of Wiki.RU and twisting the meaning of your own words "I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions." when telling that you meant you but not you on other Wikis. Aregakn (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    It does not matter what your sanction was. According to this remedy, you are not allowed to edit the article in question if you have ever been placed on any sanction, logged at AA2 page. Therefore the remedy applies as much to you, as it applies to me. And no, I'm not trying to unban just myself, because I was not banned personally, I want to unban all the established editors, including yourself, who were placed on sanctions at some point in time, because I believe it is not fair to ban people from the article for the things they did years ago, without consideration to the severity of their violations. And yes, once again, I was last placed on a sanction in en:wiki 5 years ago, because I was a party to the first arbitration case, and back then almost everyone who was a party to that case was placed on a 1 year revert restriction. But that restriction expired years ago, and I see no reason why I should not be allowed to edit an article, while sock accounts have no problems editing it. I see that you are trying to focus this whole issue on my persona, but I repeat once again, this is a remedy that concerns many people, yourself included, and regardless of whether I'm a good or evil person, I believe it is unfair to have this sort of a permanent restriction, which punishes people for prior severe and minor sanctions alike, regardless of the timing, while nothing is done to prevent abuses by the newly created accounts, many of which turned out to be socks of the banned users, and which were active on the same article all this time. I think it's time to reconsider it. Grandmaster 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

    Just take a look at the showcase of bad faith by Grandmaster in the discussion on the Nagorno-Karabakh ]. Grandmaster tries to avoid an honest discussion about the appropriateness of academic sources, as he replies with irrelevant arguments and tries to back up his position with fake evidence. And now compare this with the discussion of on the talk pages of Caucasian Albania. The same arguments that smell of racism, the same attempts to exclude analysis from the very top academics, the same repetitive patterns and gaming as per WP:GAME. Zimmarod (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

    WP rule say it very clearly that AE requests cannot be filed in bad faith by those who game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


    End of passage Aregakn (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

    A compromise might work better

    Catoclass is right that no sanctions should continue for ever but a possible outcome of fully lifting it should also be considered. As the sanction is on everybody, both, for those conducting a big mess or with single minor dids, I would suggest individual approach and appeals for lifting the sanction as well as a possibility of bringing it back on an editor. Aregakn (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

    In that case, the sanction should be applied to an individual. But this particular sanction was a blanket one, and it was not directed at anyone personally. If you believe that someone should be placed on a personal restriction, you must file a separate report on that person. Grandmaster 16:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    Too time and effort-consuming would it be. Due to the reason that it was so mass/outrageous that all were banned then it is easier to appeal for unban of each that thinks they are constructive, rather than the opposite you suggest. This is nothing different but in reverse to save time and efforts.
    What you say works assuming that there is a minority of disruptive editors (as it usually is) but not when it is a majority. Aregakn (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)



    I would even add that this method can also work good as a remedy of the whole AA2 and used on articles where thought appropriate and taken off when appropriate. Aregakn (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Caucasian Albania article

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    I am sympathetic to this request. Though the original sanction may have had some positive effects at the time of its imposition, I see no reason to extend it indefinitely. More importantly, I think there is an issue of natural justice here; someone who has made a mistake in the past that was at the time considered worthy of only a limited sanction, should surely not be permanently penalized because of that mistake. Also, the sanction penalizes the most minor offenders in the same way as the most severe, which again seems an inappropriate outcome. Additionally, when one considers that even those subject to an indefinite ban are entitled to appeal after six months or a year, it seems incongruous to have a sanction for which there is, effectively, no appeal. And why single out this one article for such special treatment? Finally, while I note that Sandstein suggests that other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been attempted to resolve any outstanding issues with the article, it isn't clear to me how any user disqualified from editing the article or its talk page could initiate such a process. In any case, after more than a year under this sanction, I think it's probably time to try relaxing the existing sanction to the usual 1RR for contentious topics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    Zimmarod, this case is not about Grandmaster or his alleged misconduct, it's about whether a particular sanction on a particular article should be repealed or not. If you think you have a case against Grandmaster, you should start a separate case about that, because it's a separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    Could another uninvolved admin comment on this case please? Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    In my view sanctions like the one at issue here are best used as a stopgap measure to prevent ongoing or imminent disruption, but are unlikely to be effective when applied indefinitely. I agree that a trial 1RR is a good way forward. T. Canens (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

    Request concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon, Shrigley

    Referred to arbcom as Misplaced Pages: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

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested

    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)

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBFLG#Principles
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Provisions being breached

    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 Misplaced Pages:ARBFLG#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and Misplaced Pages: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

    Bo Xilai

    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 , 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. . 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. 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:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert: (Note the edit summary – this seemed completely gratuitous, not to mention uncivil)
    • 4th revert:

    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

    • (deleted content because of what Ohconfucius believes it implies?)
    • (delete content. Reason is vague.) (I have recused myself from the discussion given that I filed this.)

    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.

    Shen Yun Performing Arts

    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.

    •  : Deletes all information on performers, citing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (The list of performers here employed the same format and criteria as is used on other pages about dance and ballet companies, and is not a violation of that policy). The deletion wasn’t discussed on the talk page.
    •  : Deletes information on performers again, calling it “rubbish.” Still no discussion.
    •  : Adds a collection of references to exclusively negative reviews into the article introduction.
    •  : Highlights more negative reviews in the reception
    •  : Deletes sourced and relevant information about the content and nature of the performances. Was this because none of it was negative?
    •  : Makes unsourced and incorrect statement in the introduction that depictions of Falun Gong in the performances have received only negative reviews from critics.

    Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

    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 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. 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.” When Ohconfucius finally did comment on the talk page, it was simply stating his belief that other editors had ruined the page. The specific issues were not addressed. Zujine again asked a series of specific questions, 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” 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 and Ohconfucius either answering them only partially or not at all, all while continuing to make significant edits. He reverts multiple edits that were discussed on talk page:

    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 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.

    Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes

    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.

    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 wars (breaking 3RR) to include unsupported claim that the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident was a specie of cult suicide: / claims editors who removed the addition are practicing censorship: .

    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 / adds me and another editor to a "List of editors with a pronounced Falun Gong slant" . Does this make anyone else uncomfortable?

    Colipon

    Colipon seems to have a long-standing propensity to view Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages.

    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 )

    Some diffs follow below.

    Sima Nan

    Background: Sima Nan is a Chinese government-backed critic of qigong and Falun Gong.

    • Restores deleted material to the page that had been effectively shown to violate WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:RS in several previous talk page discussions. Material represents an exceptional, possibly libelous claim about Falun Gong’s founder, Li Hongzhi. Sima Nan himself acknowledged that this allegation against Li was based on anonymous rumors he heard in the early 1990s, and the information is irreconcilable with public positions and statements by Li Hongzhi. I believe Colipon knew this, and restored the material regardless.
    • Attempts to justify inclusion of material by saying, essentially, that Misplaced Pages can repeat potentially libelous material, as long as it is sourced to someone else.

    Talk:Shen Yun Performing Arts

    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.

    •  : “Shen Yun is not an artistic performance. It is a propaganda organ of Falun Gong”
    •  : “The reason for Shen Yun’s existence is propaganda.”
    • ) “Shen Yun is not a bona fide arts troupe.”
    •  : Argues repeatedly (and contrary to evidence) that Shen Yun “tries to mislead people into thinking that it has nothing to do with Falun Gong.”
    • Attempts to source above allegation to the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Toronto Star. Later he gives up (and to his credit apologizes) when it is pointed out that none of these sources make that claim.
    • When another editor (me, actually) explains a series of changes, Colipon simply calls me a member of a tag-team.

    Talk:Falun Gong

     : 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.

     : 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.

    More unconstructive complaints that amount to using Misplaced Pages 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.

    Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

    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.

    • Defends Ohconfucius, who was in the process of making dozens of controversial edits while implicitly refusing to partake in talk page discussion.
    •  : More use of talk page as a forum to complain about other editors. No discussion of content; just disparaging other editors discussing things.
    •  : After being asked to discuss content, not contributors, Colipon makes clear that he has no intention of doing so. Calls content discussion a “waste of time.”
    •  : More of same. In response to an editor pointing out a content issue, Colipon laments what he calls POV-pushing, suggests other editors are acting in bad faith. No attempt to discuss content or policies.
    • Laments that the page has been “totally destroyed” since 2009. No specifics. Nothing actionable. Just an insinuation that everyone who has worked on the page, with the exception of Ohconfucius, has destroyed it.
    • In response to an editor who raised a concern about Ohconfucius’s misrepresentation of a source and original synthesis, Colipon accuses editor of bad faith, compares them to “banned Falun Gong SPA's”, accuses them of POV-pushing and wikilawyering.

    Bo Xilai

    • — deletes a paragraph about Bo’s involvement in the anti-Falun Gong campaign. Paragraph was four lines long, exceptionally well sourced to major newspaper, and most of it carefully agreed upon in a previous discussion (in fact, Colipon himself proposed some of this wording). Edit summary says only that it was ‘undue weight.’
    • — Justifies deletion on talk page with a variety of spurious explanations—eg. the material on Falun Gong shouldn’t be on the page because dissident Jiang Weiping doesn’t talk very much about it. Although there had never been any consensus to remove this material, Colipon treats the deletion as a fait accompli, and states that editors who would try to restore this information are being tendentious. (He apparently soon realized this was an untenable position, and restored one sentence).

    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, thus obstructing the process of consensus formation.

    • — Colipon says that a sentence describing the reason for rejection of lawsuits is "obvious and sophisticated weasel wording." (The content was straightforward and well sourced.) He did not explain how the suggest wording were weasel words. He said that the phrasing is inconsistent with the sources (it was not, as anyone can check the sources and see). And he argued that because the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, and New York Times allot only “passing mention” to Falun Gong’s charges against Bo, they are not notable. This appears to be an arbitrary standard. There are dozens of reliable sources that have mentioned the suits, including a very long piece by the Center for Investigative Reporting.
    • Colipon believes that some of the Falun Gong lawsuits were dismissed because they were "frivolous." He presented this opinion as a fact on the talk page, even though no reliable sources endorse this position. The reliable sources do say that some cases were dismissed on technicalities such as jurisdiction, diplomatic immunity, and so on. Colipon rejects these as the causes for dismissal. I wonder whether it is simply because the reliable sources do not confirm to his opinions. Creating arbitrary standards for content inclusion and making untrue assertions on the talk page presented as fact makes consensus-building difficult.

    Quigley/Shrigley

    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 Misplaced Pages. 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: 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: 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 Misplaced Pages.” (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: 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: 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

    : 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).

     : Repeats same edit as above.

     : same again.

     : Much the same as above, but this time editorializes that lawsuits against Bo were “ineffectual.”

     : 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:

    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).

     : Again deletes sourced information on the suppression of Falun Gong

    April 5, 2012:

    – 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:

    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.

     : Does same again after being reverted

    April 23, 2012

    – 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.

     : Deletes legitimate content about the Shen Yun company. Editorializes in Misplaced Pages’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

    Briefly on my background in this topic: I joined Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Shrigley: Colipon: Ohconfucius: (Acknowledgement: (deleted soon after))

    Update

    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:

    • On T-Square immolation: the behaviorial problem was Ohconfucius making ~100 edits, refactoring the page while declining to answer questions and concerns on the talk page. Along with failing to discuss, he reverted changes that were discussed on talk, sometimes with edit summaries like “don’t make me laugh.” (Yes, the nature of his edits is a content issue). He and Colipon insulted other editors and when told to focus on content, not contributors, Colipon said that would be a “waste of time.”
    • On Shen Yun Performing Arts: the problem is not that Colipon pointed out the troupe is “linked to Falun Gong”; that connection was already clear in the article. The problem was repeatedly using the talk page as a forum to say that Shen Yun is “not an artistic performance” and is solely a propaganda organ. Foruming and soapboxing like this makes editing and discussion difficult.
    • I'm sorry that Colipon feels "extremely intimidated" by all this. I would not resort to these mechanisms unless I felt there was no recourse. (Admins should check the diffs that Colipon’s claims to show intimidation against him or others. I don't see it.)
    • Ohconfucius has broken 3RR twice in the last week.
    • On actual intimidation: Consider the creation of bad-editor lists, the portrayal of myself and Homunculus as "Falun Gongsters," Falun Gong meatpuppets and other terms, the taunting, the supposed "outing," etc.

    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 Misplaced Pages 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

    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)

    In response to Ohconfucius's recent post

    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: . 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

    Statement by Colipon

    • I acknowledge this AE from User TheSoundandtheFury. I did a preliminary reading, and believe the case is fairly weak. I will let the administrator pore over this file, and also invite other editors to comment. Colipon+(Talk) 23:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Within the 'evidence' presented against me, Bo Xilai and Sima Nan are very clearly content disputes. That Shen Yun is propaganda is clearly stated in RS, , , though you will note that such criticism has since been obfuscated and weaseled away. In any case, this is still just a content dispute. Colipon+(Talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Shen Yun: What TheSound conveniently fails to mention are the edits I have made on that article. My only foray into it are seen here and here. In the latter case, I actually edit much in favour of Shen Yun. I realized that any slight tipping of the balance against what is considered acceptable by Falun Gong-focused users would result in filibustering, became disillusioned, and left.
      • To highlight the extreme heightened sensitivities on even peripheral Falun Gong pages such as Shen Yun, you can see an edit by Shrigley was reverted a mere 40 minutes (!) later by TheSound.
    • Distancing myself from Falun Gong: Since about two years ago, I removed all but a few Falun Gong pages from my watchlist and stopped editing them altogether. So it is telling that much of the evidence presented against me is based on articles that ordinarily has very little to do with Falun Gong, and on talk page diffs. Colipon+(Talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Above 'Shen Yun' edits constitute the only edits I have made at any Falun Gong article in the last year. One would think that an "anti-Falun Gong editor" would feel somwhat more committed.
    • I find it ironic that some of the diffs listed by TheSound speak well to the poisoned ambiance of the articles, to the point that it reduces the need for me to put up a lengthy defense here. The admin may well treat them as a good 'primer' on Falun Gong-related articles and the POV-pushing that routinely takes place there. Colipon+(Talk) 14:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Bo Xilai: I have been involved at the Bo Xilai article since 2007. My editing interest there revolves around Bo Xilai, not Falun Gong. I did not expect Falun Gong to emerge as a point of contention.
      • User Homunculus and myself took the article to GA after months of extensive discussions, editing, and consensus building. Knowing Bo is a controversial figure, we carefully balanced the article for neutral presentation.
      • Prior to the scandal this year, Falun Gong was mentioned on the talk page only once: when banned Falun Gong User ASDFG posted this comment.

        User Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and I hashed out a compromise over Falun Gong on March 26, which still evidently was not good enough for theSound. We revisited Falun Gong only after Homunculus disrupted the consensus version on May 15 - stating that because the article was now longer, undue weight was no longer a problem. My point was that no RS elaborates on the significance of Falun Gong to the man's life, even if they make passing mention of it. Homunculus, responding to this in tandem with TSTF, produced only one substantive piece elaborating on significance: the same document previously mentioned by ASDFG.

    • Pro-PRC vs Pro-Falun Gong. This is a false dichotomy; Homunculus also acknowledges this. But to be clear: I've identified very few pro-Communist Party editors on Misplaced Pages, and their views are always dismissed by the community anyway. There may be some Chinese nationalists (mostly Chinese living in the West) with strong POVs, but they don't stick around for long and have little 'dedication' to any specific cause. In response to John Carter's statement, to the best of my knowledge, Sam Luo and Tomanada, banned 'anti-FLG' users, were actually gay activists from San Francisco who have no affiliation with the CCP. After their ban, and with the exception of the sanctions on user PCPP, the problematic editing in this space came entirely from Falun Gong adherents and supporters.
    • I feel intimidated and harrassed: Despite their civil facade, I feel extremely intimidated by Falun Gong-focused users. My contributions to article and talk space are always scrutinized to the teeth with argumentative and obstructive paeans (Most tellingly, here: ), and that the sharks were circling to capture each and every diff that they can collect for use in wiki-litigation such as this very AE filing. TheSound, for example, goes all the way back to 2007 to hunt for a user talk page diff. In my ten years of editing, I have never felt this way with any other subject area I have edited, including on other controversial articles.
      • Regrettably I have gone great lengths to engage in self-censorship to get them off my back, which has occasionally impeded my ability to contribute in a fair way, and discouraging me from touching any controversy in which they are involved. It feels like being suffocated because I can no longer approach any China-related controversy with boldness, lest they mischaracterize my intentions at an AE case.
      • Their intimidating actions can be seen recently in their interactions with a previously non-involved user, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs): Here TSTF reverts tags even though disputes are being hashed out on the talk page; following this any and all of the user's concerns that hint at skepticism of the Falun Gong narrative is promptly shut down: , and also on the user's talk page.
      • To me, there is not a doubt in my mind that this AE request is a continuation of that intimidation.



    Response to Homunculus's latest addition
    The diffs that he posted bring nothing new to the table. They were the same diffs posted by TSTF. Moreover, many of his claims are simply inaccurate.

    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 . 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)

    Response to T Caenens suggestion about Arbcom
    • I strongly support this, because it will finally bring about the necessary level of attention to the sorry state of the Falun Gong family of articles to the highest level of Misplaced Pages's bureaucratic hierarchy, something that I have been calling for years. While Arbcom takes up this case they can hopefully come up with some permanent remedies to the serious abuses in the Falun Gong namespace, which have a history dating back to 2006. ARBFLG evidently has not solved any substantive problems on those pages, and merely serves to add up the bytes of wiki-litigation without targeting the root of the problem: the editors. Each involved editor, including myself, should be scrutinized, sanctioned and restricted where appropriate. A no-tolerance policy is due. Delivering a strong message is key. Colipon+(Talk) 05:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Ohconfucius

    • Whilst it's true the complaint is voluminous, a better course of action may be to remove material that relates to pure content dispute, and edits outside the scope of the Arbcom ruling. It should clearly focus on advocacy, POV-pushing, and to a lesser extent COI editing which is what the case has always been about. --Ohconfucius 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Having struggled past the initial wall of text, I would invite the presiding admin to carefully examine in particular:
      1. weasely-phrased constructions above such as "several journalists and scholars, argued that the event was staged",
      2. ditto "several other editors knowledgeable on the subject".
      3. ditto "more scrutiny from outside parties, and resulted in the wholesale reversion of nearly all of Ohconfuciu’s changes"

        --Ohconfucius 08:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

    Cult suicide – Edit warring, allegations of stalking and tag team

    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 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

      • Addendum to the above point: Note that neither Homunculus nor TSTF have, before yesterday, made a single edit at Cult suicide (searches for Homunculus; TSTF), for which I was reported for 3RR. Before yesterday, they have not made a single edit to its talk page (searches for Homunculus; TSTF) either. That one or other or both should have this on their watchlists is peculiar because it is seemingly so far from their areas of interest of Chinese human rights, but not so if you consider the sensitivity of Falun Gong to the "cult" label. So for Homunculus to rush to revert me one hour later is yet another strong pointer to their affiliation to Falun Gong. --Ohconfucius 11:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • In reply to a point that was mentioned in this post by TSTF: yes, I deeply dislike its propaganda and their "down your throat" politics, but I still wish the PRC would legalise Falun Gong. Personal feelings about them apart, I have proven I can walk away from the topic, I have walked away, and I will in the future walk away. But I will not do so at a time of the choosing of any Falun Gong meatpuppet or similar. The only caveat is that, like any editor who has toiled to take an article to GA and then FA, there is the inevitable personal attachment to the article. Ironic thing is that I now find it embarrassing to have such a Featured Article to my credit and wish it could be delisted. That would give me closure for me if I walked away for good. --Ohconfucius 09:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    (You're wondering why Cult suicide was on my watchlist? It wasn't until yesterday. I've been keeping an eye on your contributions since filing this case.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    I make around 300 edits a day. It's amazing that you would find anything in there amongst them all. ;-) Or you care very deeply that I don't make any objectionable edits about the Dafa. Anyway, why don't you just come out of the closet? --Ohconfucius 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    This is getting very McCarthyist. I think the presiding admins will look rather dimly upon these new insinuations. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    As Colipon mentioned above regarding the tactics ordinary users now face and newfound aggression of Falun Gongers –for even Dilip rajeev was never so reactive. Firstly being reverted by Homunculus at an obscure article within approximately 60 minutes, your preparedness to comb through my 300+ edits the moment you wake up, and the rapidity of your response in reverting me, to your filing at AN3 twenty minutes from your revert scares the shit out of me, because it means you are breathing down my neck. --Ohconfucius 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    And now could you kindly go back to your own section, please. --Ohconfucius 15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's not just me TSTF is aggressive to. He seems to take exception to certain material being inserted without his approval, and reacts very quickly then too by removing it repeatedly. Here, whilst supposedly "explaining" his rationale, he disparages the efforts of an IP editor by suggesting that said IP took material from facts.org.cn, a site of the Chinese Center for Cultic Studies (viewed by Falun Gongsters as propaganda). Note that although there was the unexplained removal of one paragraph, the material inserted was relevant and properly sourced. One piece in particular was of a tenor very unfavourable to Falun Gong; another piece was potentially embarrassing for the organisers to be shown to be giving away free tickets in an attempt to influence local decision-makers. Homunculus argued was "not sufficiently notable, per WP:N and WP:DUE". --Ohconfucius 18:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • @My very best wishes: By consensus, do you mean Homunculus opposed me? No editor other than a Falun Gong meatpuppet had previously opposed having a Falun Gong section in the Cult suicide article. It was only when another editor section had posted a suggestion that it belonged did I realise that it had been removed some months previously. Also, I already mentioned above that the action by TSTF is highly curious; I believe he has failed to demonstrate that he was not acting in tandem with Homunculus: he had sprung a trap on me after Homunculus had set it, long after I had stopped editing that article. Not satisfied that I wasn't sanctioned – not that AN3 is a place for sanctioning people – TSTF resurrected unarchived his request. It was simply a bad block, and Bwilkins strangely acted on it. --Ohconfucius 00:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


    Editing at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

    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.

    Username Edit count
    Homunculus (talk · contribs) 4
    122.176.209.225 (talk · contribs) 3
    Aronlee90 (talk · contribs) 3
    SilkTork (talk · contribs) 3
    124.183.76.34 (talk · contribs) 2
    Jayen466 (talk · contribs) 2
    Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) 1
    Zujine (talk · contribs) 1
    Other editors with 1 edit each 15
    Grand total of edits from 30/1/2011 to 26/3/2012 34

    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:

    1. "Liu's neighbours" was changed to "neighbors and those acquainted with Liu", although none of the latter were mentioned in the source
    2. Mention in Time that 'four of the self-immolators were seen in flames, with their hands held "in a classic Falun Gong meditation pose", drawing a complaint from the Falun Gong movement' was cleanly excised
    3. Removed Sisci's comment that "the sect first tried to deny the episode and then argued that it was staged by the government "
    4. Removed Time's criticism that the movement had been caught off-guard, and its leadership's damage control proved to be inadequate
    5. added quote that: "there are desperate people in China (and elsewhere) who will do anything for money"
    6. attributed quote which according to reliable source said " "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations we are going to resort to violence", swapped in unsourced or possibly primarysourced material.
    7. removed NY Times' mention that "one of the self-immolators was able to "fluidly perform" Falun Gong's signature slow-motion exercises in front of Western media."
    8. excised all mention of Jensen and Weston's criticism of the Falun Gong in their scholarly work.

    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

    1. Neutral media caption lengthened and biased in favour of hypothesis
    2. advanced a hypothesis that the self-immolation participants were paid actors, without attribution and without sourcing
    3. upwards ratchet in weight given to the False Fire analysis
    4. excised unfavourable mention by Hong Kong NGO Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy and Xinhua News Agency report.
    5. Downplayed "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" to the degree that there's only one mention of it, and excised view of Østergaard

    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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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

    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". 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 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

    Statement by potentially involved John Carter

    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)

    I further want to express my profound regrets that Ohconfucius now regrets having expended as much work on the Tianenmen square article as he did. Based on his comments, it seems to me that this is at least in part due to what he says as unacceptable behavior from others. If Sound is, as some of the evidence presented above indicates, operating from a clear POV himself, then he should also adhere to WP:POV, and not so quickly accuse and insult others. I very much hope that whoever decides this discussion reviews all the information presented from Sound and the others, as I believe it is all, including that apparently critical of Sound himself, relevant to this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    Response to Homonculus: A few points come to mind. First, I am very grateful to have any academics who work with the field involved. Thank you for being willing to put up with some of the unfortunate behavior which, for better or worse, are unavoidable in this sort of situation. A few other responses come to mind.
    One, it should be noted that the first appearance of Falun Gong before the ArbCom , before I first appeared, involved in the banning of several editors who were actively taking the side of the PRC. So, in this instance, people from both sides have been banned, and the obvious supporters of the PRC have been banned longer. Of course, it is possible that they have found replacements, but the same could be said about FG supporters as well. I am not accusing anyone on either side here myself, by the way.
    Two, it should also be noted that the Falun Gong practitioners most scholars have had the most contact with are Westerners. It is understandably hard for Western scholars to make real contact with practitioners within China, for various obvious reasons, and even harder for them to be certain that there may not have been some degree of "selection" of people to contact. A book I am currently reading on Richard Feynman going to Tuva makes similar points to those. That being said, it is hard for them to be sure that what they are presented is completely accurate.
    Lastly, I believe we in the West, possibly including academics, have an innate bias toward Western freedoms. To an extent, that includes myself. However, that bias itself, understandable and unavoidable as it is, is also probably problematic as per WP:POV. Also, and I very sincerely hope you do not think this is specifically addressed at you, because I do not myself at this point know your identity, I have to acknowledge that at least some academics have produced populist, even sensationalist, material to get their name out there. I even remember a statement by Bart Ehrman, in I think Newsweek, saying something to the effect that today academics produce sensationalist works initially, for that reason, at least in part for the accompanying media coverage. I myself do not know how widespread that is, but it seems to be a reality to some degree.
    I cannot myself directly address some of the points you make. But I have seen several editors keeping in userspace material for potential ANI or other complaints, sometimes for good reasons. And, yes, people are often a bit less "politically correct" in userspace.
    Of all the things I could say here, the one thing I think most important is that I myself see an almost obsessive interest in a few main articles related to FG, and much less interest in developing some subarticles. Jan Becker is an Australian Olympic medalist and FG practitioner, but I see no article on her. Several other figures and events are notable as well. There is also good basis to believe that there could be several articles on FG in the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, and other areas. If there were more of an effort to work on these subarticles, and find the relevant sources, I think some of the contentiousness related to the major articles might fade a little. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Update - It seems that User:Ohconfucius has recently been blocked at the request of TheSoundAndTheFury at WP:AN3 and subsequently had the block overturned on the grounds that it was a stale request. Considering that the editor who filed the request had already filed the request here, I think that there may possibly be a concern over excessive litiginous and possibly forum-shopping on the part of TSATF? John Carter (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Statement by Ferox Seneca

    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

    (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

    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 . 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 , 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 . Yes, edit warring in yet another article shows a serious conflict. Unfortunately, in this example OhConfucius fought against WP:Consensus two other editors, which led to his 3RR violation, and was blocked by an uninvolved administrator . My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    @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

    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

    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.  

    • I am not a Falun Gong member, and everything I have ever written here is of my own volition. But some of the discourse here about “Falun Gongsters,” “Falun Gong meatpuppets,” and "Falun Gong POV-pushers" is deeply troubling. Anyone should feel comfortable and welcome participating, so long as they adhere to wikipedia policies and are able to work in good faith with people who hold different views. No one should feel harassed on account of their religious or other group identity on this encyclopedia.  No one should be taunted to disclose their ethnic, political, religious, sexual, or other affiliations, as Ohconfucius has done here with the “come out of the closet” comment.  And no one should use another user's religion (or presumed religion) as grounds for ad hominem attacks in lieu of discussing content—something that users Shrigley, Colipon, and Ohconfucius have done regularly.
    • I filed an 3RR violation ANI against Ohconfucius about a week ago. He had deleted sourced information about Bo Xilai’s genocide indictment four times in 24 hours with minimal discussion, even though it was material that several editors on talk page said they favored for inclusion. I filed a case only after he declined a suggestion to self-revert. He retaliated by trying to “out” me,  adding me to his list of “Falun Gong editors” that he maintains on a polemic subpage, and telling other editors that dispute resolution would be of no use with me (actually, I would welcome it) because I am proselytizing Falun Gong editor who can’t be reasoned with, and so on.  Whatever one thinks of Ohconfucius’ contributions elsewhere on this encyclopedia, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior, and there is no benefit for the project. TSTF has been subject to similar ad hominem attacks as retaliation for filing this AE (and a second 3RR case). Actual Falun Gong editors have been banned for much less.
    • In full disclosure: my real life sometimes overlaps with my editing interests on Falun Gong and other issues.  I work as a research analyst focused on China, and I sometimes publish in scholarly journals and newspapers on issues related Falun Gong, or on topics pertaining to human rights, access to justice, state-society relations, and so on. (I’ve resolved not to cite myself on wikipedia).  I have done more research on this in the last year and a half or so. A number of the scholars and the journalists whose names appear as reliable sources on Falun Gong and other contemporary China-related pages are people I know in real life. I also know (and like) both Falun Gong practitioners and Chinese government officials in real life.  My experiences bias me in certain ways, but my philosophy on these pages is just to be civil, edit based on the best reliable sources, and try to focus on the content in a holistic way.
    • I’ve come to know several Falun Gong practitioners,  including some who have been imprisoned and tortured (as well as their lawyers). While I don’t personally approve of all their PR methods or espouse the same views,  I respect and even admire them, and respect their right to dignity and expression.  This is an impression I share with even the most skeptical scholars who have done fieldwork on Falun Gong.  For that reason,  when I’ve seen editors here (and a few others not listed here) use talk pages to refer to them as “cult members,”  suggest that reports of mass arbitrary imprisonment and torture is a “fringe concern,”  suggest that allegations of torture are “based on cream cheese” or entertain as a serious possibility the notion that Falun Gong adherents in China are not mistreated....well,  I find this unsettling at a personal level, and it certainly doesn’t make for very elevated discourse.
    • I don’t let personal disagreements stop me from trying to collaborate with these editors, or prevent me from having civil discussions on the content. By contrast, these editors have repeatedly made clear that they are not interested in assuming good faith or in collaborative content discussions in this namespace. The diffs and talk page discussions make that clear.
    • A couple people have tossed around talk of POV-pushing. Every editor has biases (editors who claim otherwise should be treated with caution). The question is about behavior.
    • We need to be wary of argument to moderation, or the middle ground fallacy.  That is, when confronted with two extremes of opinions, the truth is not necessarily in the middle. Arguments to moderation are problematic because, in order to shift the middle ground,  one “side” need simply to adopt a more extreme position. I recently found an old AfD in which Ohconfucius stated that scholars on Falun Gong are either neutral or are “apologists.” In this discussion,  Shrigley similarly insinuates that scholars who have done fieldwork on Falun Gong are irrevocably biased in Falun Gong’s favor.  But these are the best sources available. The fact that these editors believe Falun Gong may not be persecuted, that its practitioners might not be mistreated, that they reject the corpus of scholarly literature as biased, and so on—this means that they move the “middle ground” to an extreme, and editors who attempt to moderate their edits may end up looking “pro-Falun Gong” (this is all the more since Falun Gong editors were banned, removing one extreme of the spectrum).
    • In addition to my edits that might be construed as favorable to Falun Gong, I also make editors that could be considered unfavorable, or that soften criticisms of the Communist Party. I think the same can safely be said of TSTF. But the great majority of edits and content debates that I get into in these pages do not involve any ideological affiliation. Sometimes these debates get a little heated, but not because those involved are pro- or anti-Falun Gong.
    • By contrast, the editors named seem to turn just about everything into a polarized dichotomy.  They wade into otherwise normal conversations for no discernible purpose other than to declare them ideological battlefields.  They impute political motives to editors involved in non-political discussions of the most appropriate reliable sources.  They seem to care little about the development of these articles unless it involves criticisms of Falun Gong or deletions of information pertaining to the suppression.
    • Regarding the Tiananmen Square self-immolation page, if Ohconfucius believed that the page had been transformed into a “propaganda piece” and was no longer deserving of FA status, the appropriate recourse would have been to try to, first, understand why revisions were made (they were discussed, after all). Secondly, try to engage with the editors who made those revisions, or go to the talk page to point out the content problems he perceived. Third, file to get the page reassessed—not with the goal of having it delisted, but with the goal of working constructively to ensure that it retains that listing. He didn't do any of these things. I think the talk page makes a lot of this clear.

    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)

    As I said, I don’t like the idea of coming here and hurling accusations, but I did want to just call attention to a couple things. With due respect to Blade (and TSTF), I think the length of the original filing may have obscured some things.
    Regarding Colipon—who I have no problem with in other namespaces—the battleground mentality he displays on these pages is, I think, quite serious. Virtually every one of his comments and edits related to Falun Gong displays this mentality. On a regular basis, he actually goes to talk page discussions for no other purpose than to declare them battlegrounds (literally) and make accusations of bad faith against editors who are trying to discuss content(diffs:) This is a user who has declared unapologetically that he will not assume good faith or discuss content.. I think the diffs presented earlier demonstrate as well that the user's frequent, divisive use of talk pages as forums, the obstruction of consensus-formation, the misrepresentation of facts and of reliable sources on talk pages, the ad hominem accusations that opponents in content discussions are “Falun Gong users” and so on.
    In the case of Ohconfucius, his actions in the last two weeks alone seem sanctionable. He violated 3RR twice (first time: - done while ignoring talk page discussion. Second time: ). He then harassed opponents, tried to "out" them, added them to his "Falun Gong editor" list, called them meatpuppets (in this very AE), and taunted them to "come out of the closet." And this is just in the last couple weeks. As to Shrigley, same: user frequently employs ad hominem attacks against opponents, accusing people of being Falun Gong practitioners instead of discussing the merits of content.
    Sorry, these are pretty unpleasant things to write about people, and I don't like doing this. This whole process—the "you're wrong—no, you're wrong"—is pretty unsavory. Whatever the outcome, I hope that the editors who've weighed in here can work together (on these pages or elsewhere) in good faith. Homunculus (duihua) 17:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

    TrevelyanL85A2

    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

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hipocrite (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review#TrevelyanL85A2:_remedies
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 09:40, 29 May 2012 an edit discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on ... user talk pages, and participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

    NA

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Remedy was clearly an unambiguously violated.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2

    Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

    Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2

    Comment by Collect

    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. 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

    TrevelyanL85A2 inserted himself in a thread here where he was not being discussed and has made the above inflammatory statements about the area of his topic ban. Someone could easily report him now at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    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

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

    Gaius Octavius Princeps

    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

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    2 lines of K303 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 02:53, 29 May 2012 Revert #1
    2. 13:39, 29 May 2012 Revert #1 within 24 hours of the first
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 09:50, 29 May 2012 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    1RR warning was removed 1 minutes prior to breaching 1RR saying "balls". The POV pushing in the edit is quite evident when there are references to "sourced, referenced edit" in the edit summary while removing a sourced, referenced lower figure. 2 lines of K303 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Gaius Octavius Princeps

    Statement by Gaius Octavius Princeps

    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: 2 lines of K/One night in hackney is ignoring the talk page of the article now so I will simply repeat it here: "The references given cover what is stated. Pg 274 of Lydon states, after telling of rebels burning houses and committing atrocities that: "locals rounded up as prisoners, to be used in front of the rebels as protection against the shot of the army". On the same page is stated "70 prisoners stripped naked, tied to bridge, piked and thrown in river".
    Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


    Anon: 78.158.102.244 first removed part of the section:

    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:

    • en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Irish_Rebellion_of_1798&oldid=494540534

    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

    Result concerning Gaius Octavius Princeps

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

    Homunculus

    No action taken; please submit this to Misplaced Pages: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

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Colipon+(Talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Homunculus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBFLG#Principles (all of them have been violated)
    Topic ban, widely construed, with discretionary sanctions on all China-related articles.
    Background

    For the past six years, Falun Gong activists have dominated Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

    Homunculus is an SPA

    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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

    "Sourcing"

    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 Misplaced Pages. 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: These researchers do not have an expertise in Falun Gong or Eastern religions specifically; the focus of their research is on Western religions.. Compare to Asdfg's comment prior to his ban: The other people I am aware of who deride Falun Gong are not sinologists or other relevant experts, but are downright doubtful, such as Patsy Rahn, a failed soap actress.

    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: Gutmann is a reliable source on Falun Gong. He has published a well reviewed book on contemporary China in a mainstream press, has testified before U.S. and European parliament

    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: It is intellectually lazy to suggest that there is an equivalence between FG and CCP narratives; what matters is truth, not false balance. When it comes to this photo, the suggestion that we need to qualify it as part of FG propaganda implies that there is reason to doubt whether the photo is real. In other words, you're essentially suggesting that there is strong reason to believe that Falun Gong (or AI, in this case) is doctoring photos—a claim that no reliable sources have made, and that we shouldn't unduly imply. Note how he subtly shifts the burden of proof back to the skeptic. He says this is avoiding argument to moderation, I say it is naked advocacy.

    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:

    • Lengthy editorializing by at Lei Feng, inserting polemical anti-Communist Party rhetoric.
    • Gratuitous insertion of Falun Gong content on the article of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, public enemy #1 for Falun Gong. All of H's contributions to that page relate to Falun Gong.
    • At List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll, reinforces User Asdfg's edits through insertion of 'quality sources', for which he was warned by admin Timotheus Canens for violating WP:BLPSE.
    • and edit-warring against me at Sima Nan - his only edits there dealt with Falun Gong. (I did not engage after the second revert.)
    • Highlights implication that Gao Zhisheng was detained and tortured simply for writing letters to the Chinese leadership about "sexual abuse against Falun Gong adherents", whereas he had obviously done many other things against the Chinese state. The claims of torture were not qualified by the fact that Gao made them himself.
    • Self-righteous rant against User Enric Naval, invoking the Holocaust in typical Falun-Gong fashion. H writes: Why is one a genocidal act and not another? I don't suppose you would argue that Jews whose hair was used in the manufacture of pillows were not victims of a genocide? In the same rant, he again litigates in favour of Gutmann in the face of Enric's skepticism.
    • A description of "persecution of Falun Gong" in CPC campaign pages hits all of the POV traits of a Falun Gong advocate: high estimate of "70 million practitioners", "propaganda, extra-judicial imprisonment, and coercive 'reeducation'", "tortured to death". Note that the NYT source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/world/asia/28china.html) said that 2000 practitioners died, not that 2000 died of torture. Misrepresentations of sources in this way is part of the Falun Gong M.O.
    • Numerous instances of edit warring at Tiananmen Square Self-immolation: The dedication to altering the balance of this article prior to its TFA was astounding.
    • At Shen Yun Performing Arts, diluting criticism, remove criticism from a Buffalo newspaper, diluting criticism from Toronto Star, restoring advertising section, Removal of criticism from Buffalo removal of criticism from Atlanta Journal Constitution.
      • The attached lawyering for these appalling edits is seen here.
      • It should be stated that this dispute involves several parties listed under this AE, all parties' conduct should be examined, but the scrubbing of criticism on the part of Homunculus is totally consistent with his behavior elsewhere, no matter how "well-sourced".
      • More alarming is the speed at which this reverting takes place: rarely was a revision that had any critical content of Shen Yun lasted for more than 30 minutes!
      • More often than not, an 'outside' editor makes a large edit, and it is scrubbed clean by Homunculus or TheSound within several minutes, without any attempts at discussion. Other experienced editors can corroborate these types of experiences.
    "Terrorism in the PRC"
    • Lengthy editorializing at "Terrorism in the PRC"
      • Adds content: In a general sense, terrorism can be understood to refer to the use of unlawful violence, force, or threat against civilian populations for the purpose of invoking fear, with of objective of advancing a political, social, or ideological objective.
      • Editorializes about Tibet's absence of terrorism, of course, in the voice of a cherry-picked RS, However, Tibetans seldom resort to acts of terrorism. Ogden credits this, in part, to the swift and brutal response from authorities against manifestations of political violence or opposition in Tibet.
      • Addition of entire section called "State terrorism" and "Chinese cultural context", with the basic message that the real terrorist in China is the party-state! For example, H writes, In political criminality took the form as violence against the emperor, and was viewed as harmful insofar as it induced fear and caused “chaos.”. and Wong argues that the dynamics of imperial China form the basis for contemporary Chinese understandings of terrorism. It is not hard to read between the lines.
      • Perhaps most telling, the extremely weaselly phrase Although contemporary definitions of terrorism most often apply to the actions of sub-state actors, both the historical interpretation of the term as well as some contemporary scholarship allow for actions of the state to be classified as terrorism. and Following the Communist Party takeover of China in 1949, several political campaigns under Mao Zedong were labelled as forms of state terror. Both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were framed in sensationalist fashion as state-directed terrorism in a manner mildly reminiscent of the "Nine Commentaries".
    John Liu

    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.

    "FLG outside of China"

    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:

    • Addition of praise for Falun Gong's founder: As the practice began proliferating outside China, Li was the recipient of a measure of recognition in the United States and elsewhere in the western world. In August of 1994, the city of Houston named Li as an honorary citizen and goodwill ambassador for his “unselfish public service for the benefit and welfare of mankind.” In May of 1999, Li was welcomed to Toronto with greetings from the mayor and the provincial governor general, and in the two months that followed also received recognition from the cities of Chicago and San Jose.
    • Addition of "western condemnations" of Chinese suppression of Falun Gong: Western governments and human rights organizations have expressed condemnation for the suppression in China and sympathized with Falun Gong's plight.
    • Extensive quote-mining from US House Resolution condemning China: In 2010, House Resolution 605 described Falun Gong as a set of “spiritual, religious, and moral teachings for daily life, meditation, and exercise, based upon the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance,” called for "an immediate end to the campaign to persecute, intimidate, imprison, and torture Falun Gong practitioners," condemned the Chinese authorities' efforts to distribute "false propaganda" about the practice worldwide, and expressed sympathy to persecuted Falun Gong practitioners and their families.
    • Extensive quote-mining from UN Special Rapporteur, using evocative, emotional terminology to its maximum extent: United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Extrajudicial executions, Violence against Women and Freedom of Religion or Belief have issued numerous reports condemning the persecution of Falun Gong in China, and relayed hundreds of cases of concern to Chinese authorities. In 2003, for instance, The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings wrote that reports from China “describe harrowing scenes in which detainees, many of whom are followers of the Falun Gong movement, die as a result of severe ill-treatment, neglect or medical attention. The cruelty and brutality of these alleged acts of torture defy description.”
    • Despite his insistence on "high-quality sources", he evidently does not use the same standard of scrutiny when presenting information critical of the Chinese state, sourcing the following passage from a National Post blog whose contents are no longer available: In North America, Chinese agents have reportedly visited newspaper offices to "extol the virtues of Communist China and the evils of Falun Gong."
    • Full removal of Maria Chang's criticism of Falun Gong: Maria H. Chang of the University of Nevada, says these organisations seem to be " front organisations to influence public opinion via a concerted information-PR-propaganda campaign" She argues that for the organization to survive, Falun Gong has to create organisations that are publicly unaffiliated with it, such as the Epoch Times. Chang states that such strategies are counterproductive in democratic societies, and that "being secretive and deceptive will just play into the image they're a kooky group with something to hide."
    • Full removal of criticism of Falun Gong that links it to controversies: Together these organizations also promote Falun Gong activities, including the Chinese New Year Spectacular, performed by the Falun Gong-affiliated Shen Yun Performing Arts troupe.
    • Deletion of all mention of Falun Gong advocacy websites: with websites such as clearwisdom.net, faluninfo.net, mingui, pureinsight etc., which they use not only to spread Li's teachings, but also to publicise the plight of practitioners with graphic testimonials.
    • The removal of all mentions of Heather Kavan, a scholar who is mildly critical of Falun Gong's PR methods, including the following phrases:
      • Kavan says it comes from a public relations firm for Falun Gong managed by Gail Rachlin, who is considered part of Li’s inner circle.
      • Kavan also compared Falun Gong practitioners' media strategies with those of the Chinese Communist Party: common traits include intolerance of criticism, issuing blanket denials when accused, exaggerating and sensationalizing claims, and deflecting blame by charging the other of the same offence.
      • Kavan, on the other hand, says "Li sets the terms of the debate by directing members to get sympathy by telling listeners about the persecution, with the hidden intention of later turning them into converts (Li cited in Rahn, 2005; see also Li, 2002, 2003a).
    • Under the guise of 're-organization', Removal of all material (indeed, any mention) of Falun Gong's censorship controversy. Falun Gong practitioners were criticised by Harbinder Singh Sewak, publisher of the Asian Pacific Post, for their censorship when the Epoch Press stopped the printing of its January 8, 2009 edition allegedly because of a negative review of the Divine Performing Arts
    • Removal of a passing mention of Tung Chee-hwa's opinions on Falun Gong, even though this is already written with the caveat that it may have been the result of political pressure from China: Then Chief Executive of Hong Kong Tung Chee-hwa declared on June 14, 2001 that Falun Gong was "undoubtedly an evil cult"
    • Removal of discussions on the financial status of Falun Gong practitioners, sourced to David Ownby, which even H says is the "highest-quality" source on Falun Gong: While significant numbers of Falun Gong practitioners are doing far better financially than the average North American, many also reported being considerably poorer than the national averages. About half of the survey respondents in the three cities reported earning less, or significantly less than the national average.
    • Negative coverage of Falun Gong is presented in the voice of Ethan Gutmann, discussed above as a partisan source heavily favouring Falun Gong. Ethan Gutmann, a journalist reporting on China since the early 1990s, has attempted to explain the apparent dearth of public sympathy for Falun Gong as stemming, in part, from the group's shortcomings in public relations. He also downplays any of Ownby's skeptical remarks about the group, focusing instead on the scholar's view that it is Chinese propaganda that is to blame for the group's lack of PR success: David Ownby observes that sympathy for Falun Gong is further undermined by the impact of the "cult" label applied to to the practice by the Chinese authorities
    • With selective source-fishing in full swing, one notes the different treatment he gives to Ownby's quotes that are critical of Falun Gong vs. those that are favourable. He removes the Ownby quote: Professor David Ownby noted that The Epoch Times was established by practitioners who "have become somewhat paranoid... believ that they were ill-treated by journalists... all tend to adopt the same attitude as the Chinese Government".
    • Homunculus states in his explanation for the edits that he tries to look at the 'bigger picture' and avoid anecdotes. This apparently did not stop him from cherry-picking an example of Chinese government's evil campaign of censorship: Governments and private enterprises have also come under pressure from China to censor media organizations operated by Falun Gong practitioners. In 2008, for instance, French satellite provider Eutelsat suspended its Asian broadcasts of New Tang Dynasty Television in response to pressure from China’s State Administration of Radio, Film and Television.
    • For the purposes of full disclosure, and so we can avoid the walls of text that will inevitably come as part of H's statement of defense, I will link Homunculus's original explanation of his changes: here and here on the talk page. Of particular concern is his claim that "Nearly all the references from the previous page were preserved," which evidently does not stand against scrutiny: since nearly every single reference critical of Falun Gong miraculously disappeared from the page.
    • To be honest, I was extremely disgusted reviewing this page - the extent to which it has been populated with Falun Gong advocacy in every corner, misleading edit summaries, the circumspect nature of the changes, and the insincere civil facade that comes with every edit.
    Falun Gong namespace will continue to be problematic

    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. From user Unique and Ubiquitous, From user JSW663, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages in general.

    Closing remarks

    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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Homunculus

    Statement by Homunculus

    Comments by others about the request concerning Homunculus

    Ohconfucius

    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:

    In one edit, he completely removed a bunch of details about a failed Falun Gong complaint against Canadian broadcasters amongst other negative stuff. In this edit, he incorporates two dubious sources to support assertions in the article. Very dubious, in fact, in view of the use of one 'Lifestyle section' article almost certainly written by a practitioner or by some professional outfit employed by someone intimately involved with the movement – it fails to identify the credentials of the author, is professionally written in a sufficient circumspect style so as to avoid proselytism of any semblance of actually being a promotional piece. The biggest red light is at the bottom of the article: "For more information on Falun Dafa in Argentina, email falundafa@argentina.com". The allegation the citation is meant to cite is that "Police were reportedly ordered not to intervene." I have not read of any such assertions anywhere else. This makes it a Falun Gong allegation being sourced to look like it was factual and objective reporting from a reliable source.
    The other one is an article written and published by David Kilgour, and probably amounts to a primary source – from the above, we already know that Kilgour is one of Falun Gong practitioners' pet 'independent lobbyist' sources.

    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 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Homunculus

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

    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)

    Yep, and we should close this. If admins found the previous monster thread too much to act on, then this one certainly awaits the same fate. Let the arbitrary committee deal with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    "Let the arbitrary committee deal with it." LOL. --Ohconfucius 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    Dalai lama ding dong

    Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

    Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21:49, 30 May 2012 Adjusted from 95% to 91%, not contained in any of the cited sources.
    2. 00:08, 31 May 2012 Altered language prompting this talk page disagreement
    3. 17:58, 31 May 2012 Amended to 91%, which misrepresented a source (see @Tom Harrison), and amended language which was disputed here
    4. 01:48, 1 June 2012 Altered language
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. Immediately after this ban ended, DLDL again violated 1rr.

    @Tom Harrison

    DLDD has tried to minimize the significance of the Camp David negotiations by different means. The source that he introduced in this edit states that Barak finally acquiesced "to the mid-90s range" which was subsequently improved upon and "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank". Instead this source was solely used to expand the lower limit to 91%, something which only constituted an initial proposal but was later increased: "Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general “bases for negotiations” before launching into more rigorous negotiations. According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank"

    Additionally the selective use of the phrase "bases for negotiation" and the original research insertion of "via the U.S." inaccurately portrays this major trilateral convention in which both parties directly discussed these issues.

    @T.Canens

    Wiki policy states: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word.

    I refer to Sandstein who agreed with Ed Johnson among others: "WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone."

    I note that you and others have disagreed with this though the reasoning offered of constructive "tweaks" is not applicable here as DLDD's edits misrepresented the source asides from introducing a disputed POV text, within a 24 hour period.

    This issue constantly rears its head at AE and I am surprised that once again you see fit to ask this question. Various AE's demonstrate how this policy has been approached. What exactly about this revert policy requires clarification and can you specify why you are of the opinion that this does not "reverse the actions of other editors"?

    @BHB

    These events directly ensued from the Camp David summit and are connected in the source presented and many others. Please see the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and you will see that these proposals have received no mention at all and have conveniently been omitted.

    @The Blade of the Northern Lights

    You state: "2 was a separate wording fix". It was not a fix, it was a hotly disputed change and I remind you that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Edits 2 and 3 were clear reverts of previous material.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested



    Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    Statement by Dalai lama ding dong

    Entering new text is not a revert. Editor Ankmorpork makes continual changes to articles. I am not aware that there is a limit to the number of times thst you can edit an article, and add new information. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    There is no false use of sources, as suggested below. The 91 per cent comes from another wikipedia article. The RS used was only for the re wording as to whether or not an actual offer was made by Barak, to Arafat, or whether there were merely 'bases for discussion' relayed via the U.S, a claim which is fully supported by the RS.

    I have self reverted the 91 to 92 per cent. The important point is that there was concensus, (including from the originator of this AE) for a range, not a single figure.

    Reference the claims above. See this source which I added in. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?page=4 The figure of 91 per cent is on page 3. Therefore Shrike should revert the claim that I falsified what the source said.

    I have been asked where the 91% came from. It come from an update I made at the the 2000 Camp David Summit page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2000_Camp_David_Summit&diff=prev&oldid=495200868 The change I made there was to add in the figures 90–91%, and I based those figures on an existing source, this is the source. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html

    From below. 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy. 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to. 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources

    Please note that the change made at 17:54 should have included the source, but I clearly missed it out, and did not realise for 4 minutes. It was added at time 1758, ad is as follows.

    Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    Statement by Shrike

    There also apparent source falsification with this edit as changing from 92% to 91% but the source only mention 92% --Shrike (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @dlv I don't see it on P.168 of the source the quote you brought--Shrike (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    @dlv2 That not the source that follow 91/92 figure but this one hence the falsification and appearance that Karsh support the 91% while actually he says 92%.
    @Sean I let the admin to look into this.In my opinion if there different figures each figure should followed by its own source.Moreover I think its WP:TE too change one figure for another while one of the sources support still support the former figure.--Shrike (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    @Tom That not the edit I cited .About the reverts as he changed the text of other editors is considered a revert from WP:3RR

    Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

    Statement by DLV999

    @Shrike: From the cited source "According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967". In fact the the unsourced claim here is the 95% which has nothing to support it from what I can see. But for some reason this does not seem to be an issue for Shrike and the complainant. Dlv999 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Shrike: It appears on page 3 of the article , which is the cited source for the edit you are alleging was falsified. In fact the source says what the edit says. The source goes on to discuss further proposals that were made in December 5 months after Camp David which led to the Taba summit in January the following year. That is where the 94-96% figures come in, but to try to say these numbers were on the table at Camp David is misrepresentation of sources. On this detail Dalai Lama Ding Dong is quite right and the complainant is in the wrong. Dlv999 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Shrike, what are you saying? It was already discussed on talk that sources do not give the exact same figure and that we should give a range based on what reliable sources say. In light of that discussion DLDD adds a source and amends the range to reflect his cited source. and you say this is falsification? In fact the issue here is that the 95% claim added by the complainant is totally unsupported, but I suspect this detail will be ignored in the proceedings. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Shrike has refused to withdraw the accusation and now adds a new one. Now apparently it is tendentious to change "between 92% and 95%" to "between 91% and 95%" (supplying a source supporting 91%) because there is another sources that "still support the former figure". This, despite the fact that it had already been agreed on talk to give a range representing what different RS have said.). I believe these unfounded accusations and refusal to withdraw them reach the level of tendentious behavior and I think this kind of WP:GAMEing of the ARPBIA administrative environment is a far more serious problem to the topic area than the alleged 1rr violation brought against DLDD. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    User AnkhMorpork is misrepresenting sources in his statement. He quotes DLDD's citation for the 91% claim as saying "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank" but misses out the all important context prior to this statement, "Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended....The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank." . To try to use this to say that the offer on the table at Camp David was for 94-96% is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. DLDD quoted the correct figure, for Camp David, which is the topic of the section in question. Dlv999 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by BHB

    @Shrike - That's a ridiculous allegation. The source given by DLDD was the correct source (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&diff=495330341&oldid=495329787) and it fully supports his contention. His initial insertion of 91% was made before Karsh had been inserted into the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&diff=495200592&oldid=495199550) so the idea that he is trying to support that figure with the reference someone else added in later is complete nonsense. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @AnkhMorpork - That is a gross misrepresentation of the source. It reads:

    "Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. During these months additional talks had taken place between Israelis and Palestinians, and furious violence had broken out between the two sides. The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory."

    The 94-96% figure you keep stressing came five months after Camp David and not from Barak at Camp David. There is no reason anyone should take those figures into account when describing the completely different offer made at Camp David. Indeed, the source even stresses how much of a departure from the Camp David position these figures are. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Ankh - I don't dispute that there is a place for these later developments in the article but you are misrepresenting them by placing them in a context that suggests that this is what was offered at Camp David and this makes your criticism of another editor for failing to include that information in an inappropriate context doubly problematic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Tom - That PBS transcript is a terrible source and surely can't be relied on for that figure. 94.5% is not reported by a journalist but is a number pulled out by a talking head over whom PBS has no editorial control. Further the 94.5% figure is not directly said to have been offered by Barak and is nowhere included in the news report section of the source but is, rather, a figure used when the talking head hypothesises about what someone in Israel might say if Barak returned with a deal. If that is the only source for the 95% figure then that figure shouldn't be there at all. The passage reads:

    "And going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank, you're - the refugees - and go through a whole long list -- and you're not getting closure on Jerusalem. So we really don't have the end of the conflict. And so basically he's going to get massacred at home, but so far he hasn't accepted the proposal in totality, and I don't want to suggest that everything's hunky dory on the Israeli side. But he's going forward."

    So it's just a hypothetical list of things and not even a list that the speaker claims has been accepted by Barak. It certainly shouldn't be used to support a sentence claiming that Barak made such an offer. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @T.Canens - Tom's analysis suggested two reverts but you have said that you yourself don't think the first one is a revert. That leaves only one revert, which is an acceptable number. What exactly is the crime for which you are suggesting a 6 month topic ban if he did not breach 1RR?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Sean.hoyland

    Shrike, what you are doing is wrong. It's misrepresentation. You have made a patently false accusation against an editor of "apparent source falsification" at AE, repeated in bold, when the evidence clearly shows that they didn't do anything wrong. Here is Dalai lama ding dong's edit. They put the citation at the end of the sentence rather than mid-sentence just like hundreds, if not thousands, of other editors. The source cited supports the edit. You should withdraw the accusation. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Tom Harrison

    This edit cites page 4 of the article. The 91% figure appears on page 3. Conceviably this might have caused some confusion, but Dalai lama ding dong did not falsify the source with this edit. The four diffs don't appear to be reverts; I'd need a longer explanation of how they they violate the remedy. Tom Harrison 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    And one of these diffs was rewriting an extremely clumsy and badly-written POV sentence, which should have been reverted when it was added in February. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • 21:49, 30 May 2012 - DLDD changes 95% to 91%, saying that's what's in Misplaced Pages's camp David 2000 article. That looks like a revert under the definition, and it's a bad edit because it now makes it look like the existing source "Online NewsHour: Peace Talks Continue" supports the 91% figure instead of 95%. If an anon had changed a number like this without providing a source, reverting it would not have triggered 1RR. The article now misrepresents the source cited.
    • 21:56, 30 May 2012 - GHcool changes 91% to 92%, and gives a source. A revert because it undoes DLDD, but not a bad edit that I can see, though it doesn't restore the 95% figure, which is what the existing PBS source says (rounding 94.5 to 95).
    • 23:47, 30 May 201 - AnkhMorpork changes "approximately 92%" to "between 92% and 95%" A revert, and a good edit becuase it restores the 95% figure. The article now correctly reflects the sources cited.
    • 00:08, 31 May 201 - DLDD changes wording. If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to.
    • 01:29, 31 May 201 - GHcool reverts DLDD. That looks like two reverts in 24 hours, and so a violation of the 1RR remedy.
    • 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy.
    • 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to.
    • 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources.

    I don't think DLDD deliberately misrepresented the sources, but he was negligent. Because of his sloppy work, and his reverting to that same uncited figure, the article misrepresented the source(s) it cited for some time. This is more serious than violating 1RR, and I'd sanction him for this alone. His edits at 21:49, 30 May 2012 and 17:36, 31 May 2012 did violate 1RR. I'd sanction him for that also.

    I'm more sympathetic for GHcool, who seems to have been trying to correct DLDD's edits. He does appear to have violated 1RR, but he might reasonably argue that his edit of 21:56, 30 May 2012 should not trigger 1RR. It shouldn't be possible for someone to change a number without providing a citation and force others into 1RR when they revert. Tom Harrison 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

    Here's a list of articles DLDD edited while topic banned - Jewish culture, The Holocaust in Norway, Antisemitism in Norway, Septuagint, Purim, Book of Esther, Slavery (guess by whom), Origins of Judaism, Noahide laws, Mehadrin bus lines (probably a topic ban violation), Hebrews, Shechita, Kashrut, Antisemitism, Conversion to Judaism, Chabad, Holocaust denial, Brit milah, Messianic Judaism, Sacred prostitution (guess relating to what religion), Shomrim (volunteers), Criticism of Holocaust denial and Names of the Holocaust. I may have missed a few, but you get the gist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Jiujitsuguy

    I find this diff by Dali very troubling. Having reviewed the source twice, I could find no substantiation in the reference for Dali’s claim of 91%. Regarding percentages, the source states as follows; And he's going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank Perhaps another source might say 91% but in this specific diff and with this specific source, the edit doesn’t jibe. I’d like to hear an explanation for this discrepancy. Perhaps I just overlooked something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Moreover, I find this edit by Dali to be equally troubling. He again adds the 91% figure and that is adequately supported by page 3. However, he omits content from page 4 which states Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank The deliberate omission is misleading in the extreme and violates WP:TE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Blade, can you please respond to Tom Harrison's very detailed analysis, specifically as it relates to source falsification by DLDD.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    This is a very poorly supported complaint. The percentage thing (91 or 92) is an easily solved triviality; different sources give different numbers, big deal, and people who want to write 95 are simply mistaken. The last diff given is in fact a very good edit. The fact that AnkhMorpk thinks "The Palestinians have had their continuing incitement to violence against Jews and Israel harshly criticized by Israeli officials and other political figure" is better than "Israeli officials and other political figures have harshly criticized what they regard as Palestinians inciting violence against Jews and Israel" shows that AnkhMorpk has not yet learned about fundamentals of Misplaced Pages such as the requirement to attribute opinions to their sources. Zero 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    It is a big deal, a very big deal because it involves source falsification and DLDD did it twice as Tom Harrison points out with a very detailed analysis. Also, you gratuitous ad homenims do little to bolster your argument.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    I see no reason to disbelieve that DLDD copied the 91 from the specialist Misplaced Pages article just like he said. The proper response was to ask for a direct citation. Zero 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    You look at the source first. Then you make the edit. Not the other way around. I once got sloppy like that and did 6 months hard time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    In fact, as DLDD makes clear above, s/he made the original edit to the other WP article, citing as source the Jewish Virtual Library. So s/he did read the source first, before adding it to two WP articles. RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    Is it only me that finds it ironic that 91% is supported by the sources currently cited and 95% is not reliably supported by any of them?BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    JJG, you are guilty of a far worse source misrepresentation here at AE than the one you allege against DLDD, and yours was not made in the process of good faith improvements to the project, it was made in the process of building a case to gain sanctions against a fellow editor. In your statement you quote the DLDD's source, saying that he omits material from page four saying "Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank", but what you fail to report is the all important context that this was made 5 months after Camp David so would not be suitable for introduction into the passage that related to the proposals made at the Camp David Summit. Dlv999 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

    @T. Canens: I don't see any serious breach here. At most some carelessness. Your proposal seems to me excessive. Zero 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    Question by Beyond My Ken

    Since unsourced derogatory statements about living persons are forbidden anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and since the Dalai Lama is a living person, and "ding dong" is a playground expression meaning "idiot" or "fool", why is "Dalai lama ding dong" a permitted username? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Blade: I've raised he issue at WP:UAA, but I don't see much wiggle room in "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." from WP:NAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

    Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • What are the four edits alleged to be reverts of? T. Canens (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I generally agree with Tom harrison's analysis, with one exception: I don't think DLDD's first edit is a revert. AE has repeatedly held that edits falling within the technical definition may nonetheless not qualify as a revert; in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, for example, the first edit at issue removed an entire section, but it was nonetheless held to be not a revert. In this case the 95% number was in the article since at least April 2009 and there does not appear to be any recent edit war on this point before DLDD made his first edit. It is my longstanding view that for an edit to qualify as a revert, the editor in question must have intended it to undo a particular edit, in whole or in part. This can be shown either by directive evidence such as use of undo or rollback or the edit summary mentioning revert, or by circumstantial evidence such as a recent or ongoing edit war on the matter or restoring an old revision of the page that is unlikely to have occurred from normal editing. In this case there is evidence of neither. The xRR rules are intended to constrain actual edit warring, not traps for the unwary or invitations to do hypertechnical parsing of edits in search of reverts to "win the battle".

        I'm not inclined to sanction GHcool, whether or not there is a 1RR violation. For DLDD, maybe a 6 month topic ban? They just recently come off a 3-month one, and should have known better. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

    • I'm really not seeing it here. In order of diffs; 1 looks like a standard change, 2 was a separate wording fix, 3 was perhaps 1 revert, and 4 was another wording change unrelated to the other diffs. Unless I'm completely misreading something or the wrong diffs are linked, I don't see where 1RR was breached. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken; I think that was discussed on his talkpage at some point, and it seemed that the people who initially expressed concern were all right with it. If you still have a problem with it, the venue to raise it at is RFCN. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
    • I've thought about this for a while, and I'm thinking that if this had happened someplace that wasn't so emotionally charged, it probably would have been chalked up as a simple mistake and left at that. I obviously understand why this topic area raises hackles, but I'm somewhat inclined to lean towards applying Hanlon's razor and leaving this as a molehill instead of building it into a mountain of sanctions. However, I haven't made up my mind, and I will revisit this tomorrow when I'm not feeling lightheaded from 6 1/2 hours of inhaling chlorine. Comments from other admins would be really nice too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    1. Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). "The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective". The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665–683
    2. The gospel truth: Falun Gong, Sunday Star Times, March 2, 2008
    3. ^ Morais, Richard C."China's Fight With Falun Gong", Forbes, 9 February 2006. Retrieved 7 July 2006.