Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Colipon (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 31 May 2012 (→My experiences with editing Falun Gong-related articles on Misplaced Pages: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive of case against Homunculus

Homunculus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

• User notified here.

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 [sic] deal with it." LOL. --Ohconfucius 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My experiences with editing Falun Gong-related articles on Misplaced Pages

Falun Gong activism on this encyclopedia has a long history - dating back to around 2004. Back then, the articles were a battleground between pro- and anti-Falun Gong editors, both with an axe to grind against the other. After months of back-and-forth destruction, two blatantly anti-Falun Gong editors were banned indefinitely, and all Falun Gong articles were put on probation. After the anti-Falun Gong'ers got banned, the articles were inevitably taken over by a group of four practitioner-editors, who seized the opportunity to turn the articles into a series of Falun Gong promotional pamphlets. These editors are not hard to identify - just look at the discussion archives. Attempts at making these articles more neutral were few and far in between, and the Falun Gong cabal worked together against anyone who tries to change the POV balance of any Falun Gong subject matter - stretching from Falun Gong's teachings to its master Li Hongzhi, to its various media companies. I had my own attempt at neutralizing these articles back in 2007, but that ended in failure because I was alone (and therefore badly outnumbered) and subject to an onslaught of abuse. I was called a Communist propagandist, communist apologist, and once it was clear that I am not too fond of the CCP either, I was simply called a heartless human being, someone who incites ideological struggle etc. Ultimately, I just got tired of the abuse and stopped editing these articles entirely in July 2007. Many other editors report the same experiences.

For those who have noticed, from the summer of 2007 to July 2009, all Falun Gong-related articles were used as a direct channel of advocacy for the movement. Single-purpose accounts patrolled the pages to remove critical content and make the articles' POV to be as favourable towards Falun Gong as possible. These users are Falun Gong practitioners who have no interest anywhere else on the encyclopedia, and are required to 'defend the Fa' as part of their belief system. This has all taken place away from the spotlight from admins, and through this process the Falun Gong group of editors grew increasingly sophisticated at gaming the system. Finally, some editors stepped up to do something about it in July 2009. Administrators began paying attention, and the Falun Gong editors were banned or restricted one after another. With help from a variety of outside editors, this version of the page materialized, and remained stable until February 2010. Subsequently, a series of bans were levied against Falun Gong editors, as well as one editor critical of Falun Gong. The Falun Gong SPAs then 'retired' and left Misplaced Pages altogether, proving that they were not on Misplaced Pages to improve it, but rather as a venue of activism.

Soon after, in mid-2010, another group of Falun Gong editors surfaced. This 'regeneration' of Falun Gong-focused accounts has begun to use sophisticated gaming-the-system tactics to avoid sanctions, but their modus operandi has not changed. For instance, they took their PR war against the Communist Party of China to articles related to the governance of the Chinese state - particularly the articles that have immediate implications to Falun Gong, such as Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, or that of Chinese politicians. These pages were now also "tainted" by Falun Gong advocacy. Similar struggles were also happening on the articles for Falun Gong-affiliated organizations (such as Epoch Times, Shen Yun Performing Arts, New Tang Dynasty Television etc.).

I am sick and tired of editing Falun Gong articles, and have by and large stayed away from them since early 2010. I only wish for two things - for a full third-party review of the articles to comb through all sorts of propaganda that have filled the pages over the years, and for all the Falun Gong activists to be banned from the site entirely. Until that is achieved, these articles will remain an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages.

David Ownby

THE CHARISMA OF MARTYRDOM

I stopped doing systematic fieldwork among Falun Gong practitioners in late 2002, in large measure because of the increasing pressure placed on me by practitioners to play a role in their struggle against the Chinese state. As Falun Gong multiplied its websites and media outlets— New Tang Dynasty Television and The Epoch Times newspaper being the most important—it was to be expected that they seek out the opinions of academic authorities to try to make their case. At the same time, despite my sympathy for the plight of Falun Gong practitioners, it became impossible to deliver any sort of nuanced message through Falun Gong media, or even to have meaningful conversations with many Falun Gong practitioners whose worldview had become increasingly dualistic. Many practitioners also became insistent and almost paranoid, adopting an “us against them” mentality which makes interaction with them unpleasant and unproductive, and which, unfortunately, confirms the suspicions of those who all along saw them as a cult. This was rarely the case when I was doing fieldwork between 1999 and 2002. Unwilling to become the Falun Gong pet expert, or to joust with practitioners as adversaries, as do most journalists, I simply decided to distance myself from them.

--David Ownby, 2008

Call for Wiki administration to act

Misplaced Pages administration: please settle this matter once and for all. The four aforementioned users have been using these Falun Gong articles as a battleground for years on end and apparently no one here gives enough of a damn to ban them all from the site. The evidence has been crystal clear and given no short of 20 times by various users and on various wikipedia dispute resolution venues. Scour through their contributions and it is immediately clear that their mission here is not to create an encyclopedia but to advocate for a cause - and be destructive while doing it.

I was once 'an outsider' to the Falun Gong articles. I hate the subject, I hate editing it, and I hate arguing about it. I now regret clicking that edit button when I saw the article was basically being used as a piece of Falun Gong promotional material. Falun Gong has been, without doubt, the worst experience I have ever had on this encyclopedia. At numerous points I have contemplated quitting Misplaced Pages altogether because of these articles on Falun Gong. They not only highlight the ineffectiveness of dispute resolution, but severely undermines the integrity and credibility of Misplaced Pages.

Scientology has already set a precedent that this encyclopedia should have a zero-tolerance policy on new religious movements trying to paint themselves favorably, and Falun Gong articles are not any different. Anyone who edits Falun Gong to push for a point of view, and edits exclusively Falun Gong should be banned from the site for good - not some 6-month topic ban with the naive assumption that somehow this behavior would 'change' at the expiration of the ban. As we've seen, and as OhConfucius has pointed out - these SPA's editing now stretches to the 'second stage' of Falun Gong advocacy; i.e. when they are banned from Falun Gong, they edit against anything to do with the Communist Party of China. These are not edits in good faith and all of these edits should be stopped by imposing an indefinite site ban akin to those on Scientology. This is within the spirit of the arbcom decision and in line with Misplaced Pages's general principles. Administrators, this cannot go on. Do something about it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From AE request of User:PCPP

I could not help it but revisit this and give you administrators some suggestions. I was involved with the article sometime in 2007 and again in 2009-10. I stopped editing all Falun Gong related articles in early 2010, much like user OhConfucius, because I could no longer stand the SPAs, edit wars, personal attacks, and lengthy sessions of ideological battles veiled as "policy" or "content" discussions. Many other editors report the same experiences.

I could not care less if you sanction user PCPP. He has edit warred. He has broken WP rules. He has exchanged personal attacks with Falun Gong supporters. He is not always civil. What have you. Ban him from the site. Or from China-related articles. In fact, ban User OhConfucius too, from editing the Falun Gong family of articles. He would probably be thankful. Hell, ban me from editing these godforsaken articles.

Let me put it out there for you that this is not a battle of Pro-Falun Gong and Anti-Falun Gong. It is merely an article that badly needs work and revisions from committed third parties who are totally uninvolved in its history, who have no emotional attachment to its content. I have been trying to put forth this suggestion since 2007, and Wiki adminstration and bureaucracy has been woefully ineffective in taking action. We've visited noticeboards, put up arbitration requests, sanctioned a slew of users, put up ANIs, and pulled all parts of wiki-bureaucracy into the storm. But nothing has been done. Why? I attribute this to the fact that most Wiki administrators know little about Falun Gong, whereas a similar case involving Scientology years earlier proved decisive because of its cultural proximity to Misplaced Pages's home base.

That the committed Falun Gong team of editors has come to portray this as a war of "pro" and "anti" Falun Gong is a victory for them in and of itself. Please do not be fooled. The problems on this article will not be solved until you ban all the problematic users for good, and I am even offering myself up to the chopping block just so Misplaced Pages can achieve NPOV on this sensitive topic. For those who say that I am an "anti-Falun Gong" editor, I hope the message is clear. I have enough faith that third-party editing to the article will achieve the same degree of neutrality that I myself have tried to achieve during my involvement there, that I am able to opt out of such an editing process altogether. Can any "pro-Falun Gong" editors say the same? I dare you to say yes so you can prove yourselves to be "neutral" parties. I hope after reading this you will get some sense of who is "right" and "wrong" in this case, and act boldly to fix this problem once and for all. Colipon+(Talk) 00:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions?

In any other articles I would have supported less stringent restrictions. But Falun Gong, this is just naive. Nothing good will come out of it. That article has been the battleground between Falun Gong and PRC supporters for years. But it's clear that the Communist Party has lost that war long, long ago, and they have never been taken that seriously anyway. The anti-Falun Gong users who have been banned as a result of the arbitration, interestingly, were not actually Communist Party supporters. Merely a few people who, in my view, felt that Falun Gong was promoting hatred of homosexuals and whose had very negative personal experiences with Falun Gong. Of course, I support their indefinite ban - because they have become too emotionally invested in the subject to edit or discuss objectively. After the ban of all "Anti-Falun Gong" editors, what resulted is a group of strengthened Falun Gong advocates who seize on the situation to turn those articles into Falun Gong propaganda pamphlets, not the least by arousing sympathy from the plight of Falun Gong within China. These editors have grew extremely sophisticated with their editing tactics over the years and now cite wikipolicies whenever possible while skirting the real pillars of Misplaced Pages - most notably WP:NPOV. These articles were essentially destroyed until July 2009, when Olaf Stephanos was banned. Since then the article has seen marked improvements - and in January 2010, two other SPAs, HappyInGeneral and Asdfg12345, have also been topic banned. Dilip Rajeev is the last SPA who have not been sanctioned with the topic ban, and it's safe to say that he is the worst of the four, which makes this situation rather humorous. I guess it really highlights the sophistication of Dilip's gaming-the-system tactics and his deep understanding on how to use wikipedia's policies to justify his advocacy. For that, kudos to him. I will be happy to engage in discussion with users who are not emotionally invested in this issue. But I refuse to do it with Falun Gong SPAs because I know their primary interest is to promote Falun Gong, not edit an encyclopedia. My past discussions with these users have all been consistently fruitless, and as new users enter Falun Gong wikispace they often feel so intimidated by the poisoned environment that they leave within a month. I hope the administrators truly understand the magnitude of the abuse this encyclopedia has suffered at the hands of Falun Gong advocates, and do something substantial to stop it once and for all. Colipon+(Talk) 15:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution and "Allegations"

Some of the abuses that Falun Gong practitioners have been subject to in Mainland China are widely documented by third-party groups, especially human rights organizations. These should be presented in the article and given its due weight. I am curious to know, however, that since the initial crackdown of Falun Gong, how much more of this "persecution" is actually directed against Falun Gong in specific, and how much of it is directed against all qigong groups, all the groups that are considered 'heretical sects', or all the groups that oppose the Chinese gov't in general. Organ Harvesting is a case in point. You had two clueless Canadian politicians commissioned by Falun Gong going to "investigate" the allegations, and then Falun Gong jumping on it as a "third party corroboration" that the organ harvesting is occurring on a grand scale, and targeted specifically to Falun Gong. If this is not an "allegation", I don't know what is. Even Harry Wu, an expert on organ harvesting, and the first one to bring light to the issue and lambaste the Chinese government, severely criticized the Kilgour-Matas Reports.

Heather Kavan has a good piece detailing Falun Gong's deception tactics in its media outlets - outlining how it has managed its public relations war against the Chinese government. One of Kavan's points, which is echoed by Human Rights Watch, is that there is no doubt Falun Gong practitioners are being treated badly by the Chinese government, and subject to a wide range of abuses. But the scale and the magnitude of these abuses have been vastly exaggerated or twisted by Falun Gong to earn itself legitimacy amongst Western governments and people. Another reason for the Falun Gong 'counter-propaganda' is because the group has been slandered badly by the Chinese government, and, because it belongs to a similar culture of discourse, attacks the Chinese government back with even more slander. Both Kavan and HRW are careful in saying that they endorse neither Falun Gong nor the Chinese government's story, but conclude that regardless of what kind of deceptive products have come out of these media wars, people should not be persecuted just because they have a different belief system. These views of Kavan and Human Rights Watch sum up my position as well. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (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.