Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 15 June 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Supplementary information for parties to this case

The origin of this case lies in some detailed submissions to WP:AE. In order to prevent information overload, parties to the case may if they wish confine their evidence to pointing to their previous AE submissions, adding on this page only any supplementary information that they feel necessary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, if you believe that your evidence here sufficiently covers all the points you raised at AE, such that you feel reading your AE comments would be redundant, please point that out to save us some time. Thanks. Hersfold non-admin 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TheSoundAndTheFury

Current word length: 1403; diff count: 109.

Given word constraints, I’m presenting only a limited amount of recent diffs as evidence. I believe they are largely representative of these editors’ behavior across the namespace over the last year.

Ohconfucius edit wars

Breaks 3RR at Bo Xilai. Editor deleted reliably sourced information that Bo was found liable for torture and indicted on allegations of genocide against Falun Gong. Makes reverts without engaging on talk page discussion, where uninvolved editors expressed support for the material.

Reverts:

Editor was warned about 3RR breach, responded by calling it “droll”. Refused to explain rationale for reverts when asked. He was asked to self-revert, and refused. Thereafter he continued edit warring.

One week later, editor breaks 3RR again while trying to include claim that Falun Gong engages in “cult suicide” (a claim asserted by no reliable source): (He was temporarily blocked for this). These edits are also likely breaches of WP:OR and WP:SOAP.

On learning that Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident would become TFA on April 3, Ohconfucius made over 100 edits to the page without discussion (starting March 30 ), undoing numerous changes that had been discussed at length and agreed upon in early 2011. Ohconfucius characterized the talk page discussions as “moans” from “suspected Falun Gong meatpuppets,” concluding that he was therefore justified in ignoring them . While rewriting the page, he made no attempt to explain the edits or build consensus. He failed to answer substantive questions and concerns raised by increasingly exasperated editors on the talk page (eg. ), insulted other editors, and edit warred.

Here is just a sample of the reverts and cumulative reverts:

Ohconfucius is uncivil and makes personal attacks

(Note: All three editors persistently accuse perceived opponents of being Falun Gong adherents, sometimes using a negative epithets. This is done as a form of ad hominem attack meant to discredit editors who disagree with them, rather than discussing content. This is a violation of WP:NPA, which forbids “Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views.” In the context where none of the other editors have identified as Falun Gong members, it also seems to be a misplaced attempt at “outing” and harassment.)

• Describes other editors as Falun Gong devotees in order to discredit their ideas and contributions.

• On being asked to clearly articulate perceived content problems, instead calls other editors “the assembled Falun Gong sympathisers,” etc.

• Belittling comments in edit summaries

• Responded to a suggestion of dispute resolution by making ad hominem attacks against other editor. Adds ‘opponents’ to a his lists of “falun gong editors" to whom he ascribes a variety of undesirable traits.. This list appears to be in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC.

• Profanity

• Taunting to “come out of the closet”

• Declares opponents “Falun Gong meatpuppets,” “Falun Gongsters.”

• Declares former Falun Gong editors to be “sockpuppets.” (There is no evidence of this).

Colipon displays battleground mentality, fails to assume good faith, makes personal attacks

• In content discussion, complains of “Falun Gong users” harming the project. No discussion of actual content.

• Enters into a (non-ideological) discussion of sourcing and content only to declare it an “ideological war” and suggest everyone give up.

• Use of talk page as a forum to complain about other editors. No discussion of content.

• After being asked to discuss content, not contributors, says good faith content discussions a “waste of time.”

• In response to an editor pointing out a content issue, makes accusations of bad faith and POV-pushing.

• Insults other editors

• Accusation of tag-teaming in response to an explanation of content changes

• Maintains a subpage where, among other things, account is kept of other editors’ perceived faults, expresses the belief that Falun Gong pages are an ideological battleground, calls two respected Canadian politicians and lawyers “clueless,” etc.

• This is old though indicative: Colipon solicits help from another (now banned) editor to conduct and promote original research for the purpose of dealing “a big blow” to the Falun Gong’s founder.

Colipon uses talk pages as forums / soapboxes

Concerning the Falun Gong-affiliated Shen Yun Performing Arts, Colipon uses talk page as a forum to express his dislike of Falun Gong and Shen Yun, in the process misattributing his opinions to reliable sources.

• “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 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. (None of these sources make that claim).

Shrigley makes personal attacks, displays battleground mentality

• Complains that “a bunch of Falun Gong-focused editors” and “Falun Gong followers” are damaging Misplaced Pages.

• Calls the impeccably sourced paragraph about Falun Gong “slanderous,” suggests that editors arguing for its inclusion are “followers of small religiopolitical movements.”

• 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). Marginalizes reports of human rights abuses by Chinese government.

Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley fail to adhere to NPOV

The three editors place excessive emphasis on highlighting negative portrayals of Falun Gong, and expunging or marginalizing criticisms of the Chinese government. Virtually none of their edits to this namespace diverge from this pattern, and they express little to no interest in developing neutral or non-ideological aspects of Falun Gong pages. In one instance at Shen Yun Performing Arts, editors deleted every section of the article that did not mention Falun Gong or involve some potentially “controversial” dimension. This is the opposite of building an encyclopedia. The diffs here are far from exhaustive.

• Ohconfucius deletes all information on Shen Yun performers, calls it “rubbish”, cites 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).
• Adds a collection of references to exclusively negative reviews of Shen Yun into lede
• Highlights more negative reviews in the reception
• Deletes sourced content about the content and nature of the performances
• Erroneously writes that depictions of Falun Gong in the performances received only negative reviews

• Ohconfucius deletes paragraph about the censorship of a Falun Gong art exhibit in Tel Aviv against consensus.

• Ohconfucius opines that Falun Gong victims of torture are merely engaged in a “propaganda war….to gain publicity and cause maximum embarrassment” to the PRC.

• Colipon deletes a well-sourced paragraph about Bo Xilai’s involvement in the anti-Falun Gong campaign. On talk page, declares that anyone who would restore the material is tendentious. Later erroneously claims lawsuits against Bo Xilai were dismissed as frivolous.

• Shrigley marginalizes reliably sourced reports about the large-scale detention, disappearance and torture of Falun Gong practitioners in connection with the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai. Calls “the misadventures of Falun Gong” a “fringe concern.”

• Shrigley deletes information on persecution of Falun Gong

Shrigley, Colipon and Ohconfucius fail to exercise independent judgment, and defend disruptive behavior

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the three editors express divergence in opinion on the Falun Gong namespace. They perform essentially the same unconstructive edits (examples: | ), and express the same opinions in FLG-related disputes. More worryingly, they reinforce and defend problematic behavior—including edit warring, incivility, and harassment—by editors who share their point of view.

• Colipon defends Ohconfucius’s radical refactoring of a page and refusal to partake in content discussions.

• 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, wikilawyering.

• Ohconfucius defends alleged hounding behavior by PCPP (now banned from FLG content)

• Shrigley defends alleged hounding behavior by PCPP. (Note, the “other users” he refers to here is Colipon).

• Shrigley defends edit warring by PCPP, seems to imply that other editors are part of a Falun Gong plot involving U.S. government subsidies (?).

• Shrigley defends PCPP, asserts that “Falun Gongers” have utilized “unsavory” tactics to insert reference to Falun Gong on Misplaced Pages, thereby trapping PCPP into breaking his topic ban (info was added by people who don’t even edit FLG pages).

• Ohconfucius describes the enforcement of a topic ban against PCPP as a “tactical victory by those who sought to oppose him.” (seems to think this is a war)
• Colipon defends (or does not recognize) profanity, sexual innuendo, other abusive comments by Antilived, who holds similar views on FLG

• Colipon concludes in his AE case that Shrigley and Ohconfucius 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.”

Evidence presented by Shrigley

Current word length: 928; diff count: 30.

Personal attacks by Homunculus

Against Ohconfucius

• "The interests of pro-Falun Gong sources... are certainly no more nefarious than those of editors like Ohconfucius, who for whatever reason seem to want to marginalize these claims"
• "Rem frivolous...harassment"
• "OhConfucius, you're making a series of edits to the page that do not appear to be neutral, representative, or helpful."
• " behavior that has led to endless conflict on the page. Each side can and has presented the reviews that most closely align with their opinions and sought to highlight them."

Against PCPP

• "Seeing as you are now well past debating the facts at hand, I am going to leave this discussion."
• "PCPP, you are being disruptive.... You would be a much better member of this community if... you contributed original research."
• "I cannot but wonder what your intention is... the level of aggression and persistent POV-pushing that you display derails any substantive conservation and leads other editors to turn on you.... quite impossible when you are around... you cannot be taken at your word"
• "iven your editing history in this article, you are probably not the ideal candidate ."
• "When he is around, the pages become a battle ground that is extremely unpleasant to work in.... I can imagine that cognitive dissonance is a difficult thing to live with. It’s hard to accept that Mao Zedong is not a saint, and that innocent people are victimized by the Communist Party. But I would recommend that the best way to cope is to try accepting facts, rather than deleting them from wikipedia in a vain and annoying attempt to shape the world to accord with one’s personal beliefs."
• " strike me as fairly obvious attempts to defend CIs and marginalize or delete critical views."
• "He has a historical propensity to edit from a clear pro-PRC perspective"

Against Shrigley

• "So, you are essentially protesting an attempt to use the highest quality sources... That's not very helpful.... This is not a question of pro- or anti- Falun Gong sources for me as it is for you."
• "I'm seriously tired of editors (always the same ones) deleting credible reports of human rights abuses.... Shrigley has... an edit that is patently misleading."
• "I wondered how you even found this .... I imagine he might be frustrated to learn his research is being appropriated and misused to promote the anti-Shen Yun agenda of the Communist Party.... Pardon me for speculating on your motives, but you seem to want to shift the blame: that is, make it appear that Falun Gong is the aggressor, not the Chinese state."

Against Colipon

• "Colipon should be viewed on the same terms he is viewed: that is, as an editor with strong views on the subject, and the desire to have those views represented on the encyclopedia"
• "Colipon... you don't seem to have the ability to evaluate this from a neutral point of view.... believe it or not, most people are not offended by Falun Gong's efforts to call attention to their plight in China."
• "wo editors whose sentiments you recently echoed at Talk:Falun Gong were summarily banned... I think leniency has been applied to you (at least by me)"

Against new/uninvolved editors

• (Gw2005) "Your edit... reflect pervasive if subtle attempts at POV-pushing.... I could not identify a single edit that improved the quality of the article"
• (Agstf, Jsw663) "I'm not sure my edits would assuage the concerns other editors have expressed, however, because none of them have provided... other than vague (and somewhat facile) arguments to moderation."
• (130.126.209.90, Benjwong) "I noticed that someone (or perhaps several people) appear to have engaged in an effort to remove any information on the controversies surrounding the event, and otherwise scrub the page of "negative" content."
• (Enric Naval) "I don't suppose you would argue that Jews whose hair was used in the manufacture of pillows were not victims of a genocide?"
• (HXL49) "ur job here is not to describe Xinhua in the way that Li Changchun might find fitting."
• (Destynova) "t seems you have failed to understand what the other editor was attempting to illustrate with the parallel between the Falun Gong/CCP dynamic to Jews under Nazism.... it is both absurd and facile to argue that neutrality is achieved by giving equal representation to the unsubstantiated propagandizing... I exhort you to actually read up on the Falun Gong in the scholarly literature, or read human rights reports"
• (188.29.19.85) "Editor in questions seems more interested in vandalism than helpful contributions."
• (Bailong52) "Reverting nonsense vandalism."
• (AgadaUrbanit) "My belief is that we are not simply monkeys quoting any and all scholars—regardless of expertise or notability—at will.... I meant no offense in removing some of your research"
• (AgadaUrbanit) "The only reason to delete the Gutmann reference would be for the purpose of appeasement ."
• (SH9002) "ou are neither familiar with the scholarly literature on Falun Gong, nor with immigration processes."

Vague insinuations

• "t does seem there are a handful of disruptive individuals who edit from that POV (though in my personal opinion, I think they're motivated by nationalism and sport, rather than money."
• "I can believe that the page has been subject to attempted censorship before... Your warnings may turn out to be prescient"
• "It is my observation that some of the partisan editors who frequent these pages don’t appreciate my presence. Presumably, having unaligned, knowledgable editors involved detracts from their ability to advance their respective points of view."
• " 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."

Evidence presented by My very best wishes

Falun Gong topic ban violations by PCPP

• Episode 1. In February 2011 User:PCPP was topic banned for four months per this AE thread.

• Episode 2. In November 2011 he was topic banned again for at least eight month per another AE discussion.

• Episode 3. In January 2012 he was blocked for violation of his topic ban by editing article Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes - AE thread here -(see comment by OhConfucius about this: )

• Episode 4. Later in January 2012 he was admonished on AE for continuing topic ban violations . This is related to edit wars in Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes in January-February 2012: PCPP, Shrigley, OhConfucius, Shtigley, OhConfucious.

• Episode 5. Despite being warned and sanctioned many times, PCPP continued edit warring in the same article in May (OhConfucius tells this about it).

• Episode 6. An AE administrator warned him about this last violation . PCPP tells this is not a violation . How come? He is “banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed". Here is the obvious connection: Confucius Institutes is an organization funded by Chinese government and allegedly engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China, including Falun Gong. The allegations are documented in multiple RS, and words “Falun Gong” appear in this article several times.

• Episode 7. Despite being warned, PCPP continue editing this page .

• Episode 8. PCPP started mediation about the same article . I think this was probably inspired a similar story with TLAM and Igny .

Now PCPP has mediators on his side; they start negotiations on his behalf; and they convinced the AE administrator to compromise on the issue . I think this mediation started by PCPP represents not only another topic ban violation, but also a successful attempt to exercise unfair pressure on AE administrators (six of whom already issued him warnings and bans) by mobilizing mediators. Is it? Only Arbcom can answer. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.