Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 16 May 2009 (→Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"For the dancers to appear at once ridiculous – stop up our ears to the sound of music, in a room where people are dancing." Where this user currently is, the time is 19:47, Thursday 02 January 2025. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Long term conflict regarding Falun Gong articles

User talk:Arcticocean/S My edits on the Falun Gong related articles are always systematically reverted by a group of overzealous Falun Gong activists. I'm really getting tired of these people with clear conflicts of interest patrolling the Falun Gong articles with little regard for the arbcom probation , following me around and trying to stop my right to edit wikipedia. This has been going on for 2 years with no end in sight, and we all have been blocked for edit warring.

There's further details on the ongoing dispute here .--PCPP (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Response.
From the evidence you have cited, I draw three findings:

1. Asdfg12345 and Dilip rajeev are improperly reverting your edits, on the basis that they are removing cited information. In my mind, that's an improper approach to take; where reliably sourced information is being deleted from an article, the correct course of action is to, in the first instance, open discussion with the user regarding it; in the second, to open talk page discussion; and, if the editor is being patently disruptive, to contact an administrator. Reverting the user is not the correct course of action simply because if an administrator later reviews the situation, s/he is faced with two editors reverting differing, but seemingly sourced, presentations of information; sysops are not judges of content, and so both editors can expect to be treated as part of a standard edit war.
2. Similarly, you are in the same situation, PCPP; the above advice applies equally to you.
3. There is a striking lack of cooperation amongst you three editors. That you are having trouble working together is not a surprise. Please sort it out—whether my putting your differences aside, or by reducing your activities in the article—or you will probably find yourself in serious trouble at a later juncture; the Arbitration Committee looks dimly upon editors whose dislike for other editors manifests itself in their uncooperative editing.

I've therefore issued warnings to all three editors, on the understanding that, if the warnings are violated, more decisive action will be taken.

AGK 10:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I just find it difficult to work with these editors since our personal beliefs clash and is reflected in our editing styles. Also it seems that they're the only ones editing the series of FLG articles, so with the absense of more experiences editors it's much more easier for edits wars to occur.

However, if there's long term dispute over the POV and content of the articles that both parties can't seem to agree with, is it possible to seek a third party to mediate the dispute?--PCPP (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course; there's a myriad of different routes parties with a genuine interest in resolving their differences of opinion can pursue. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution details most of them; in the case of mediation, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal is probably what you're looking for (although, if the MedCab fails to resolve the case, you can request that the Mediation Committee take your case). AGK 13:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence that I have removed sourced material added by PCPP, and I would be looking for something more than one or two instances. I could produce many dozens of examples of PCPP removing hundreds or thousands of words of sourced material from these articles, however. I've done my utmost to follow wikipedia's behaviourial and content guidelines, and I would like some very clear evidence that I've violated them. I've also always attempted to be very proactive in initiating discussion with PCPP. I've also never characterised this issue as one of "a clash of beliefs" or something that should not be dealt with in a systematic, step-by-step way, with strict reference to policy and the highest-quality sources. Without getting too much into it, PCPP displays some basic misunderstandings of wikipedia's content policies in his complaint here. Two that stand out:

• Not grasping WP:ASF, as in, we can say that so and so has this opinion, and that is a fact--a fact that so and so has such an opinion. When it is something like the motivations for a persecution, the opinion of people whose business it is to give opinions on that topic is all we have to go on, and they're what's in the article.
• Simply dismissing the large body of sources from peer-reviewed journals and top newspapers that are used in the articles as "pro-FLG," as though the content of the source were grounds for considering it, rather than its objective status as from a tenured academic or journalist from the Post, etc.

What PCPP needs to do is actually do some research and find the things in these good sources that he wants included. He has to actually dig them up (if there are any), and then I'd love to discuss about how best to include them. Using substandard, self-published sources with no academic credentials isn't abiding by WP:RS.

I have three contentions:

• I have not repeatedly removed additions of sourced content that PCPP has added, as it is alleged above. The burden of proof is on PCPP or AGK to show this;
• PCPP has repeatedly removed large amounts of sourced content with minimal discussion and minimal attempt to engage in discussion

(with an uninvolved editor who didn't come back after the skirmish:  ;

• The vast majority of all reverts I've made of PCPP's edits have been restoring deleted information.

Probably the dumbest thing I did was not be the first to initiate a complaint and hope he would just go away. The deletion/revertion cycles have gone on, intermittently, for a long time, but because it was infrequent it only once made me bother to do anything about it. Soon after I got busy, the reverting stopped, and I didn't finish filling out all the parts of the RfC form.

I emphasise again that a burden of proof is needed to show that I have repeatedly (or even a few times, really) deleted reliably sourced information added by PCPP. I've just posted a bunch of diffs showing PCPP's mass-blanking of article content and my reversion of it--I stand by that, and I expect that I've violated no policy by doing it. I await clarification from AGK, and appreciate the time you are taking to look into this. --Asdfg12345 14:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories again

User talk:Arcticocean/S Hi AGK — a quick update on the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories issue. After reliable third-party sources have been found, the information on the publications have been removed again, citing WP:UNDUE. (These publication are actually part of the article's subject here, not sources on another subject. There is an article Collapse of the World Trade Center, where including these sources would actually give undue weight to them.) See Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Undue weight?. — Regards.  Cs32en  23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. AGK 10:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)