Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold ( Talk) & Elen of the Roads ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the
/Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
2)
3)
1) I'd like to suggest that we consider imposing a temporary injunction on the Falun Gong namespace pending the outcome of this case. Perhaps something to the effect that editors should exercise caution with major or potentially contentious changes, and seek to discuss them on talk pages first? This seems consistent with the editing policy. Homunculus ( duihua) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
2) I am quite concerned that this page has devolved significantly and departed from its intended purpose. As is noted in some of the discussions below, some of the parties appear to have quite seriously misrepresented the actions, statements, and conduct of other users for the purpose of trying to have them banned. Other unfounded assertions, exceptional claims, and speculation on other user's motives, affiliations, of beliefs has continued. There also seems to be a bit of a misuse of the process, in that a great deal of new evidence has been added to the page, and in inappropriate venues. I've noticed that some previous arbitration proceedings have invoked special procedures for dealing with this (eg. here), and would like to ask whether it is possible that similar standards be applied here: namely, a "single warning" system for editors who can be shown to be misrepresenting other users in this forum, who make claims or speculative assertions without evidence, etc. Homunculus ( duihua) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought that my comments followed quite directly as reasonable interpretations of Colipon's own statements in this forum and on AE, but I will take another look through my comments, strike through and rephrase them if that is not so. As to my statement here [7], if Colipon would like me to do so, I can provide a diff showing him expressing this view (in somewhat cruder terms). I won't do this unless Colipon asks me to. Perhaps the other parties involved here will likewise take the initiative to strike through all of their comments which have a) misrepresented other users or their editing histories; b) involved unreasonable speculation, exceptional claims, guilt-by-association, etc. Homunculus ( duihua) 22:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
3) If I understand correctly, PCPP submitted his evidence by email to Arbcom. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to have this Evidence posted on-wiki as a part of the case for the purpose of transparency, excluding any personal information of course. My very best wishes ( talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
4)
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
2) Wikipedia is a serious intellectual project. The objective of the project is to build a free, high-quality reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.
3) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Editors are strongly encouraged to adhere to editing policy on talking and editing.
4) It is the responsibility of every member of the community to uphold the core pillars of Wikipedia and minimize disruptions, edit warring, or incivility. Editors should take care to apply Wikipedia policies and standards in a fair manner. Users should not defend or reinforce disruptive behavior by others on the basis of shared philosophical or ideological inclinations.
5) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. The misrepresentation of another editor’s behavior for the purpose of making it appear improper or sanctionable is considered a form of gaming the system. Assertions of improper conduct—including though not limited to claims of sockpuppety, wikilawyering, POV-pushing, or gaming the system—should be made with caution and supported by evidence, rather than offered as insults. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.
6) Pages in user space intended to memorialize conflicts or document other editors’ perceived faults without a clear and immediate purpose is considered unproductive, as it may serve to perpetuate a dispute. Longstanding consensus at WP:Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted.
7) Editors who find that they are unwilling or unable to assume good faith or behave in a professional, cordial manner are encouraged to recuse themselves. Persistent, misplaced accusations of bad faith against other users are demoralizing and counterproductive.
8) Editors espousing a religious or national background relevant to the topic area are welcome to participate, but must strive to edit from a Neutral Point of View and behave collaboratively and in good faith toward editors with whom they may disagree.
9) The use of slurs and derogatory references to groups such as religions, social classes or nationalities, is prohibited. It is unacceptable to use an editor's religious or national affiliation (whether real or presumed) as an ad hominem means or dismissing or discrediting their contributions. Fixation or speculation on another editor's off-wikipedia orientations, national or religious background, behaviors or lifestyle is unacceptable. Editors should discuss content, not contributors.
@ John, I suppose we could leave off the bit about national epithets, since we don't have people employing them. But the other parts of this proposal are highly relevant in this case, as follows from diffs presented on the evidence page (and many discussions that were not presented). Several of the parties named here have, in content discussions, sought to marginalize or diminish the ideas or contributions of others by casting them variously as Falun Gong members, devotees, sympathizers, meatpuppets, etc. These labels have been applied both to actual Falun Gong adherents, and to non-practitioners. These has been—and unfortunately, continues to be—a great deal of unreasonable speculation in this regard. Homunculus ( duihua) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1) The editors named have been involved in disputes over user conduct and content on pages broadly related to Falun Gong, including at such pages as Bo Xilai, Shen Yun Performing Arts, and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident.
2) The articles broadly related to Falun Gong have been the subject of disputes since their creation. Content disputes mirror real-world issues stemming from conflicting viewpoints over representations of the practice and the Chinese government’s suppression of the group. The namespace has been subject to discretionary sanctions since 2007, and these have been applied to block or ban several editors.
Over time, there has been a general trend of improvement on the Falun Gong namespace resulting in most articles becoming more complete, well-sourced, and stable overall. This owes to the work of dedicated editors to research and write high-quality content; to the adoption of a consensus-based model for discussing changes; to the involvement of subject matter experts; and to scrutiny applied by editors with different perspectives and views.
However, there has been a tendency among some editors to adopt adversarial approaches; some of the involved parties appear to have carried past grievances, resentments and feelings of exasperation into their interactions with other editors who do not share their views. This has manifest as a tendency to assume bad faith, to regularly impugn the integrity of others’ motives, to make personal attacks, adopt battleground mentalities, and to defend and reinforce disruptive edits and behavior. Some editors have expressed a lack of confidence in the consensus model, leading them to eschew collaboration in favor of either edit wars without discussion, or simply the disparagement of other parties. These behaviors, in turn, serve to deepen mutual feelings of exasperation among the parties.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Editors are encouraged to assume good faith, particularly for new users. However, if behavior and editorial patterns reveal over a lengthy period of time that they are interested in POV-pushing and not the improvement of the encyclopedia according to the Five Pillars, the accounts should be summarily sanctioned at the discretion of presiding administrators. This standard should be applied especially stringently with highly politicized articles, promotion, and advocacy.
2) Single purpose accounts dedicated to advocacy should not be tolerated in any way and summarily banned.
- Focus on the edits not the editor
1) Homunculus is a single-purpose account dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy. Unhelpful version redacted by clerk. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it's unfortunate that editors feel the need to make comments like this in such a forum. Ohconfucius' statement directly above contains assertions which are false and/or misrepresent other editors. I feel sorry for the Arbs reviewing the case that they have to wade through this. Ohconfucius, if you wanted to know why I reverted you edits so quickly at Cult suicide, you could have just asked me. You have claimed that I must have watchlisted this page, and used that as evidence that I am a secret Falun Gong SPA. It was not on my watchlist, and I am not a Falun Gong SPA. The explanation is simple: I was online, I saw you make two rather curious FLG-related edits on my watchlist ( here and here). I then checked your contribution log, and saw that you had made (what I considered to be) a rather disruptive edit related to Falun Gong at Cult suicide. It had not yet been buried by your other contributions. That is all. Homunculus ( duihua) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
There are smoother tag placing discussions in Wikipedia, see Talk:Xombrero#COI_check, for instance. The author places the tag, the tag is being discussed and when the consensus is established the tag is being removed. No hurry. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
2) Ohconfucius, Homunculus, and TSTF have engaged in edit-warring
3) Falun Gong articles have been the subject of heated content disputes since their creation. There has been one previous arbitration case, a large number of arbitration enforcement sanctions, and no noticeable reduction of conflict on the pages. Dispute resolution venues on Wikipedia have failed to resolve content issues.
1) Place all Falun Gong articles on revert parole indefinitely, including 'partial reverts', and 're-organization' of articles that removes recently added material.
2) Discussions over Falun Gong material outside of Falun Gong article space, if they reach an 'impasse', should be closed by uninvolved users, preferably admins, who will decisively summarize consensus much like they are summarized in a 'move' or 'deletion' request.
1) Homunculus topic-banned for a year from Falun Gong articles, widely construed, including articles related to the Communist Party of China and especially BLPs of individuals with whom Falun Gong has a grudge (Jiang, Bo, John Liu).
2) TSTF banned from Falun Gong articles, narrowly construed, for a year. Depending on behavior off-FLG space, the ban may be lifted subject to admin discretion. The ban is narrowly construed as such: 1) that articles related to the CCP or Chinese governance in general should not be part of this ban 2) editing Falun Gong material on the same articles, however, is prohibited.
1) [Still in development]: Topic bans lasting thirty calendar days be levied to any user who edit-wars, refuses to adhere to admin-sponsored consensus, or otherwise displays POV-pushing behavior consistent across multiple discussions/articles.
1) Wikipedia is a project to create a high-quality, free-content, neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.
3) Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating or advancing a viewpoint or position. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
4) It is a core policy of the encyclopedia that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.
5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
6) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.
7) Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, including expert editors with a professional or commercial interest in the subject of articles they edit. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed where applicable, and expert editors must at all times avoid editing (or appearing to edit) the encyclopaedia in order to promote their own professional or commercial interest.
8) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. (From Civility enforcement)
9) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
10) The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of blocks or sanctions as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damage the work of building an encyclopedia.
11) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.
12) Editors with a religious or sectarian background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular religious point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view. (Adapted from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)
1) The current dispute revolves around various topics related to Falun Gong, its suppression, and its relationship to individuals within the Chinese government.
2) The collaborative editing environment on Falun Gong-related pages has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Falun Gong has 37 archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together—but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself. (From Shakespeare authorship question)
3) The remedies imposed by the Arbitration Committee in the Falun Gong 1 case have failed to effectively resolve the various concerns raised regarding the editing in this topic area, leading ultimately to the filing of this request for arbitration.
You are again engaging in an unreasonable form of guilt by association in an attempt to ascribe to me world views that I do not possess. I find there to be a vexatious quality in what you're doing here, and I think you need to stop misrepresenting my beliefs. Also, please tell me: in what publication (and on which page) does Ownby do this? Because I've read his just about all his writings, and never seen anything approximating this claim (to the contrary, in the reliable sources sitting in front of me, Ownby states pretty unequivocally that Falun Gong does not possess the characteristics of a cult. Indeed, in the very same article you have quoted on your user space, he dismisses this characterization as inaccurate). Homunculus ( duihua) 07:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue back and forth, but you have misrepresent people, so I am going to set the record straight. You said that Ownby had "declared for the opposition" on the Falun Gong issue. The opposition to Falun Gong is reasonably understood to mean the Chinese government—that is where opposition to the practice comes from in the real world. I made clear that Ownby has never approached endorsing the views of the Chinese government, not ever come close to 'denouncing' Falun Gong as a cult, as you've claimed. You then twisted my attempt to clarify this into another guilt by association tactic to ascribe to me a "Falun Gong worldview" that I do not possess (and that probably only exists in your mind; the worldview of millions of people is never monolithic). This is insulting, and you've done it repeatedly.
I don't see things as black and white on the subject of Falun Gong, and if someone were to read my comments in talk pages and my analyses of evidence, they would find them to be nuanced and substantive. This stands in marked contrast to your own comments, such as the declaration you put on your user page that you are not interested in "bickering of whether FG was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party or whether "Falun Gong Is a Cult."" First, no reliable source one would ever deny that Falun Gong is persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party, and serious scholars—including Ownby—uniformly say that the practice is not a "cult". The framing of the issue in this manner demonstrates, I think, a profound lack of sophistication in approaching this subject.
You have misrepresented my views, and you've (quite badly) misrepresented a scholar's views. A scholar whose article you apparently do not even have access to. Your comments here and elsewhere suggests to me that you do not have a very sound understanding of the corpus of literature. I actually do have the journal article you were quoting from, so I think I may have a better grasp of the context. I've also read nearly all of Ownby's other writings on the subjects, and it's not apparent that you have done same. The quote you are referring to is not Ownby endorsing the view that FLG is a "cult," as you claim. He is saying that, for people who were already predisposed to view Falun Gong this way, the notion is unfortunately (but wrongly) reinforced by the "dualistic" attitude that he says some practitioners came to adopt as a response to the persecution by Chinese authorities. That is the broader context. In the very same article, Ownby describes how Falun Gong does not display the characteristics of a 'cult.' This is something that Ownby repeats clearly in nearly all his writings, testimonies, and interviews. To quote from his book, "the entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong and the effectiveness of the group's activities outside of China."
As a person who strives for nuanced representations of things, it's quite worrying to me that you just draw these conclusions about a scholar's views based on one paragraph that you read out of context. This is also illustrative of a broader problem: yourself, Shrigley, and Colipon have charged me with altering the balance of articles in favor of Falun Gong and marginalizing negative views. You have built your entire case against me on this premise and sought for me to be indefinitely banned. But I edit based on extensive reading of the literature in order to represent viewpoints in proportion to their notability and prominence. You do not seem familiar with the literature, and in this case at least, you have drawn a rash, reductionist, and false conclusion about the views of a scholar on Falun Gong when it suited you. Given that, I don't think you can be considered a very good judge of whether my edits in this area comply with NPOV. Homunculus ( duihua) 13:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
4) Homunculus ( talk · contribs) registered an account in March 2010, and since then has focused his edits heavily on the political aspects of Falun Gong. The articles have ranged from the elements of Falun Gong's doctrine, to biographies of Chinese officials accused of mistreating Falun Gong, and to other Chinese dissident groups with which Falun Gong has a "de-facto media alliance". Homunculus has a limited number of contributions to other topics on Wikipedia.
5) Homunculus has confirmed that they have professional interest in the topic, [38] and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has compromised collaborative editing.
6) Homunculus's contributions to Wikipedia concerning Falun Gong, the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese dissident groups can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of the Chinese government and Communist Party. ( Colipon’s evidence, AE evidence, Ohconfucius’s evidence) There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual government officials and the government as a whole in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. For example, Homunculus's edits and articles often give undue weight to the subject's relation to Falun Gong, and the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on the subject of the article.
@Ohconfucius, I don't desire to engage in lengthy discussions of content here, but will make a couple comments. First, the arbs may like to read the page you're referring to, which I have written almost in full. I believe that it is a fairly even-handed approach to the subject, and represents a significant improvement over the previous version (which might generously have been called C-class). Colipon raised some complaints about my content choices in his AE, and I responded to some of these in my response, which I linked to on the evidence page. I would have been happy to answer any other content questions on the article talk page itself, and I believe that I could have provided sound rationales for any of my edits. If my explanations were not satisfactory, I would be willing to compromise. In the AE, you brought up a concern with one of the sources I used in this edit. [40] I had preserved this content from the previous page, the only reference used were to Falun Gong websites. Deeming that this was not ideal, but not wanting to delete the only information about Falun Gong in Latin America, I tried to find an alternate sources. One of those was the article from the Argentina Independent (I don't speak much spanish, so I had to go with an english-language source). If you would like to argue that it's not a good enough source, I would be open to that, and I would hope we could find a better one. Since you've brought this up, I'll point out that I found your comment in the AE to be somewhat problematic. There, you wrote that the article in the Argentina Independent is "almost certainly written by a practitioner or by some professional outfit employed by someone intimately involved with the movement," but you don't support this assertion very well. You have made similar comments about other news articles that were somewhat positive towards Falun Gong, suggesting that the pieces must have been paid for, but not supporting this with evidence. I don't think it's appropriate to do this. Homunculus ( duihua) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
7) Homunculus has made a series of increasingly uncivil comments and unsupported allegations of bias and wrongdoing against fellow editors with whom he was in editorial disagreement ( Shrigley's evidence).
8) Homunculus was previously admonished by an administrator for violating the biography of living persons policy. [51] [52]
- 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.
I firmly believe that only activists extremely invested in Falun Gong would push for the inclusion of FRINGE material on FLG lawsuits on articles about Chinese officials. These materials are not taken seriously by the vast majority of sources, except, of course, The Epoch Times: [59].
Of special concern is the round-the-clock patrolling of 'sensitive' FLG material and removing any edits that potentially alter POV-balance: Revision time in ([Hour]:[Minutes])
- Jiang Zemin: 1:15: [60]
- Using emotionally-charged language and imagery, examples include "persecution", "genocide", "torture" ( [61] vs. [62])
- Inserting Falun Gong lawsuit material to BLP articles of Chinese politicians ( Jiang; Bo Xilai by TSTF, by H)
- Attempt to undermine the undue weight clause ( TSTF H).
- Dig up and synthesize esoteric content to meet their ends. H: "There are reliable sources that elaborate on these allegations in more depth,"
9) A substantial focus of TheSoundAndTheFury's editing has been articles relating generally to Falun Gong. The articles have ranged from the elements of Falun Gong's doctrine to biographies of Chinese officials accused of mistreating Falun Gong.
10) TheSoundAndTheFury's contributions to Wikipedia concerning Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and the Chinese Communist Party can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of the Chinese government and Communist Party. ( Colipon’s evidence, Ohconfucius’s evidence)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Homunculus is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese government, broadly construed.
2) Homunculus is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.
3) Homunculus is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
4) TheSoundAndTheFury is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese government, broadly construed.
5) TheSoundAndTheFury is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
6) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China, broadly construed.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Several editors involved in this case, particularly User:Ohconfucius, have made significant and valuable contributions to the project and to the Falun Gong related content.
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The Arbitration Committee will call for editors to work on developing clearer guidelines regarding religious, sociological, and political controversies.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
I am sorry for not following the format. Here are my suggestions, very briefly.
It might be worth clarifying that MVBW has no prior involvement in Falun Gong or, to my knowledge, anything related to Chinese politics. I also don't think the user had any prior interaction with the parties named here. He/she followed us here from AE and took an interest in the case. I note this only because some of the other users here seen to have questioned the editor's reasons for involvement [76] (I'm not sure what to make of that conversation, actually).
As to these findings, it may be right that the locus of dispute is more accurately described as Chinese politics, and some of these problems have spilled over onto pages related to China, though not as intensely. It's probably not feasible or desirable to expand the scope of this case, but it's a fair observation. No comment on the other proposals. Homunculus ( duihua) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I must tell that
1) Ohconfucius has engaged in multiple edit wars with little to no talk page discussion, including two recent 3RR violations on topics related to Falun Gong. [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]/ [91] [92].
2) Ohconfucius has displayed incivility and disrespect towards other members of the community [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] ; has made personal remarks and attacks, including during arbitration proceedings and has sought to marginalize and discredit other users on the basis of what he believes to be their religious affiliations or beliefs. [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]
3) Ohconfucius has demonstrated a battleground mentality in the Falun Gong namespace, which has continued into arbitration proceedings. [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]
4) Colipon has engaged in unseemly behavior – including personal attacks, [118] incivility, assumptions of bad faith [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] and has sought to marginalize and discredit other users on the basis of what he believes to be their religious affiliations or beliefs – even after being counseled against this by other editors. This behavior has continued into this arbitration case. [124] [125] [126] [127]
5) Colipon has demonstrated a pronounced battleground mentality in the Falun Gong namespace, [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] which has continued in arbitration proceedings [134] [135], and he has made repeated misrepresentations of and exceptional and unsupported claims about perceived opponents during arbitration proceeding for the purpose of having them banned.
6) Shrigley has adopted a battleground mentality, has engaged in likely violations of NPA by seeking to discredit other editors on the basis of what he believes to be their religious affiliations or beliefs, [136] [137] [138] [139] and he has misrepresented perceived opponents during arbitration proceedings
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
User:My very best wishes, in bullet point four, portrays a series of edits as an "edit-war". In fact, they were part of deliberative discussion and consensus-building, which My very best wishes obscures by omitting links to other users' reverts and talk page discussion. Here were his diffs:
PCPP made a series of changes on 5-6 January, ending with diff 1, which were criticized by Homunculus and reverted by TheSoundAndTheFury largely because both users distrusted PCPP. After a multiparty talk page discussion here, in which we discussed all points of content, I was able to build trust between both sides and reinstate most of PCPP's edits on 7 January, diff 2. (TheSoundAndTheFury acknowledges that we reached consensus through discussion, rather than edit-warred). Ohconfucius's edit on 11 January, diff 3, did shorten some text but did not directly relate to the content in dispute.
One month later, from 8-10 February, User:Keahapana made a flurry of 17 edits without discussion, which both reverted PCPP's changes (against the consensus of H, me, TSTF, and PCPP) and reverted Ohconfucius's subsequent changes. (Keahapana acknowledges that his edits were "a response to the numerous changes made in January"). I revert him and ask him to discuss before making major changes, as has been expected of PCPP ( diff 4). Keahapana reverts me, saying his changes were "fully explained", although Homunculus notes that there was no recent discussion in which Keahapana could have justified his changes. Ohconfucius reverts Keahapana back to consensus version ( diff 5). And then, through discussion Ohconfucius, Homunculus, I, and Keahapana were able to come to a consensus on the changes to the page. Therefore My very best wishes' attempt to portray the editing there as "war" rings totally false.
The exact users who MVBW tries to frame as "edit-warriors" (me, Ohconfucius) were those users who edited and reverted in accordance with consensus-building norms, while the users who we reverted (TheSoundAndTheFury, Keahapana) wholly or partially violated those norms. The latest dispute erupted after I stopped editing that page, but PCPP basically alleges, credibly considering Keahapana's past behavior, that Keahapana disregarded our consensus and pushed through his personally desired changes. We have this problem with TheSoundAndTheFury and Homunculus flagrantly disregarding consensus that they themselves help formulate (Homunculus acknowledges one such self-made breach at Bo Xilai).
My very best wishes' portrayal of the Confucius Institutes as "engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China" in bullet point five is a true mischaracterization. It's a language learning center and has no political curriculum, yet opponents fault the teachers for not pushing an anti-Chinese government line. The teachers are recruited from China and Falun Gong is banned in China (so surprise, no employees are openly Falun Gong); if a nationwide Chinese law makes the Institutes a "Falun Gong article", then a topic ban on Falun Gong is effectively a topic ban on all China-related articles. Shrigley ( talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
TSTF cites as evidence [140] this diff on the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which I apparently refer to "Falun Gong-focused editors". It has been established in the Ohconfucius's and Colipon's evidence, particularly by link to Ohconfucius's quantitative analysis, that H and TSTF are single-purpose accounts dedicated to editing Falun Gong subjects. Colipon noted in his evidence how H and TSTF have a pattern of going to non-Falun Gong related articles, including biographies of high-ranking Chinese officials, and adding copious amounts of Falun Gong-related material. [141] [142] [143]
In this diff, I was participating in dispute resolution, where it is more common and even expected to comment on users' behavior, including patterns of editing, rather than simply content. Two months before the PCPP case came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, somebody changed the header to refocus the DRN towards content and not conduct disputes. I didn't notice this change and was perhaps operating under false assumptions, since I had used DRN to successfully mediate conduct disputes in the past.
The remarks to which TSTF took offense were demarcated under a section I wrote to establish the context of the article to a mediator. This included a reference to "Falun Gong followers" and a link to ARBFLG, where the pro-Falun Gong parties disclosed their membership. [144] [145] [146] Perhaps it was unwise to suggest a continuity between these now-banned editors and H and TSTF, but it should be understood within the context of a current AE case and talk page sniping in which TSTF made personal remarks about PCPP [147] and accused him of "pro-Chinese government editing". [148]
Ultimately, this edit was not an indication of battleground mentality, because they were focused on a narrow audience within a dispute resolution context. Such a mentality would also preclude civil cooperation towards building that article, but TSTF, Homunculus, Ohconfucius and I were able to repeatedly ratify compromises on the Confucius Institutes content. [149] [150]
TSTF links to [151] this diff on Talk:Bo Xilai, in which I supposedly "[suggest] that [certain] editors... are “followers of small religiopolitical movements.”" The actual text shows that my message was a rejoinder to a personal attack by Homunculus against me: "I'm seriously tired of editors (always the same ones) deleting credible reports of human rights abuses.... Shrigley has... [made] an edit that is patently misleading."
Although TSTF wrote a threatening message on my talk page, [152] I replied [153] to clarify that I was not referring to Homunculus as TSTF had assumed. While Homunculus attacked me by name, I mentioned no name in my diff, and actually linked to a section( [154] specifically) of the Bo Xilai talk page where a self-identified FLG member [155] and recognizably disruptive editor [156] advocated for the same "look how bad he treated Falun Gong" material in this man's biography as H and TSTF do now. Although H indicated in his evidence that he resents being connected to the ghosts of bad FLG editors, he makes exactly the same arguments and behaves in the same way.
TSTF describes what I shortened as an "impeccably sourced paragraph", which contrasts to what I supposedly called such material ("poorly sourced"). The sources cited included a little-known human rights litigation group, brief newswire accounts (with no followup) of completed lawsuits, and a Wikileaks cable. The first two weak sources were used to support the fact that Falun Gong filed lawsuits against Bo in the incorrect jurisdiction (anyone can file lawsuits and make such headlines, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia). The third source was used to argue for the lawsuits as a significant part of Bo's biography. Aside from being a "primary source" and "possibly illegal" (H's own ironic words on Wikileaks, before he argued the opposite when it could advance the FLG viewpoint), Wikileaks cables are at their core based on the hearsay of diplomats.
Although TSTF acknowledged my explanation for why this diff was not a speculation on the affiliations of H, and said that he "[doesn't] want to turn a molehill into a mountain", he dregs up this discredited diff again at Arbcom as a core part of his evidence against me. Although we've had many such pleasant exchanges, including on consensus-building at Confucius Institutes, these vignettes of cooperation don't mediate overall the level of vitriol that comes out during dispute resolution. I'm therefore not inspired with confidence by H and TSTF's continued paeans to "discussion, principled negotiation, and consensus building" throughout these proceedings. Shrigley ( talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an unusually nasty personal attack. Author of the comment (Shrigley) calls another editor by name, but he means all editors who do not share his POV on the subject. He claims (without any evidence) that named editor and all others are paid governmental agents to spread propaganda on-wiki, or at least this is my understanding of the diff. I do not know if there are other similar claims on the Evidence page, but it does not seem unreasonable if Arbcom would ban all contributors who made such claims. And I do not mean just topic ban, but site ban. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Here is his response to request by Homunculus to AGF:
Well, Homunculus, conversations are bound to be stable and civil when everyone out of lockstep with the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" is driven away or banned at AE. Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war. ( User:Shrigley)
If you think that was an appropriate comment, it means we have a significant difference in opinions. He tells about alleged '"U.S. government subsidies" "to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia." He also adds: "If only it were an ideological war." This is quite a battleground statement. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been accused of editing Falun Gong articles only from the perspective of Falun Gong, and against the Chinese government. I looked through my contributions recently; the evidence does not support this assertion. Below are a sampling of edits that do not fit this narrative. The purpose of presenting these diffs is to debunk the idea that I am somehow a "Falun Gong activist," SPA, meatpuppet, or <insert negatively-charged label here>. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
TheSoundAndTheFury charges Ohconfucius, Colipon, and me with not once expressing divergent opinions on the FLG namespace, and therefore "failing to exercise independent judgment". However, this idea is easily falsifiable by these significant cases where we disagree:
It should also be noted that my involvement in Falun Gong topics is relatively recent and narrow, at least compared to Ohc and Colipon, and that I focused on those general Chinese politics topics where H and TSTF have tried to insert undue Falun Gong material. Therefore, we have not had much chance for interaction.
The flip-side of TSTF's evidence against Ohconfucius for edit-warring is that in all of these cases, either Homunculus alone reverts Ohconfucius, or cooperately reverts with TSTF or Zujine in order to subvert WP:3RR. Three reverts are not an entitlement; both H and TSTF have edit-warred as much as Ohc.
Total reverts: Ohc: 4, H: 3, TSTF: 1.
Total reverts: H: 4, Ohc: 4, HiG: 1, Js: 1
Total reverts: Zujine: 6, Ohc: 5, H: 1, Shrigley: 1, Festermunk: 1
They weren't included in TSTF's evidence against Ohc, but rather in Colipon's evidence against H/TSTF, but they're instructive as to H and TSTF's "cooperative reversion" modus operandi.
Total reverts: H: 4, TSTF: 4, IP: 2, Shrigley: 2, Ohc: 2, Antilived: 1
I think it's worth examining the question of what "damages the encyclopedia." There have been several insinuations that editors are damaging the project on the basis of their perceived point of view. This is problematic. An editor may hold any point of view, and the possession of a point of view is not reasonable grounds for seeking to banish a person from contributing. The crucial question is whether editors demonstrate an ability and a willingness to work with others in good faith, regardless of divergent point of views; whether they treat other editors with courtesy and respect; whether they strive to edit from a neutral point of view, and seek to represent notable viewpoints in proportion to their prominence; whether they constructively build the encyclopedia by writing good content, and so on. Damage to the project occurs when editors consistently fail to adhere to content and behavioral policies that govern the encyclopedia.
In my real life as on this project, I have a philosophy to disputes that I think is worth stating here: in a conflict, always stay focused on the resolution, and don't do or say anything that is not conducive to achieving that resolution. In other words, don't do anything that will only serve to deepen a conflict. I'm admittedly not perfect in applying this philosophy, but I try, and this is why I have (in Colipon's words) been so unwaveringly civil in this namespace: because that's what is necessary to move it past the state of an ideological battleground with deeply entrenched personal resentments. In this case, the desired outcome is this: editors involved in the Falun Gong pages should be able to regard other editors with good faith, even when disagreeing; should all strive to edit from a neutral point of view, and be willing to hear out divergent opinions; discuss content in an earnest and substantive manner, rather than focusing on contributors; and so on. I hope all the parties here can consider this when writing on this page. I'll try to do better myself. Homunculus ( duihua) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ohconfucius just declared his
retirement from Falun Gong articles. I strongly urge him to reconsider, and remind him that Homunculus' full-frontal assault will be considered by ArbCom as evidence in this case.
I feel a profound sense of loss. The more editors fall like him, the more this community suffers at the hands of partisan interests fixated on crafting our encyclopedia to achieve their real-world ends. The abuse that he has endured at the hands of the FLG cabal is reprehensible, and the community ought to do something to rescue good-faith editors that get worn out by these dedicated activists who will do anything to get their way.
Colipon+(
Talk)
15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The dispute at Shen Yun is simple. I argue that the article's content obfuscates the show's politicized nature. Despite my references to reliable sources, users TSTF and H filibustered. Unwilling to intrude further into their territory for fear of getting shelled, I simply acquiesced, and gave up. All the diffs TSTF presents against me for 'Shen Yun' are contentions to that effect. My views about content on 'Shen Yun' were echoed by user John Carter at the original AE.
The situation at Shen Yun is worrisome. There is a vested interest for the show's real-world promoters to obfuscate its political nature. In the past, they were singled out by the Canadian ethics commissioner for offering free tickets to politicians, in the hopes of obtaining federal funding. When money and politics are involved, it is not difficult to read between the lines why Wikipedia would be a fertile staging ground for a real-world agenda. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The following diffs may be problematic taken as standalone comments.
Such commentary, justified or not, should have been made in a dispute resolution venue such as this page, rather than on the article talk pages, which should be used to discuss content. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ohconfucius is a good case study of the Falun Gong story. If one takes a look at this user's extensive contributions, it is clear that he is a 'clean-up' expert with many barnstars to show for his efforts and a large network of users willing to vouch for his credibility (including User SilkTork), and has displayed open skepticism towards both FLG and the CCP. He understands the purpose of this encyclopedia. This makes his presence especially irksome for Falun Gong users, who, absent the options of calling him a CCP agent and accuse him of being narrowly-focused on FLG, have laboured for years to find the only way to get rid of him: intimidate him, and slap him with an AE case to discourage him from participation forever. Ironically this is exactly what happened. This state of affairs is truly very sad. As he has emerged unwittingly as 'public enemy #1' for Falun Gong on Wikipedia over time, I sometimes fear for his personal safety. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Above all, the conduct of users H and TSTF is not aligned with the goals of this encyclopedia. I worked productively with both at first, but over time they have irreversibly depleted my goodwill.
The community must stand firm against users who act counter to our encyclopedic mission. I am unwilling to deal with the continued abuse. If user Homunculus continues editing in any capacity on this website, I will impose a 'restraining order' on myself to stay away from this user as much as possible. Unless I have 'back-up' from the community at large, I will not interfere with their advocacy drive, nor will I bother to fight their POV-pushing.
I am but one user, and I can only do so much. I have had enough, and my time is better spent being productive elsewhere.
Should either user continue their involvement on Falun Gong articles or related pages, I will self-impose an indefinite ban on editing those articles much like user ohconfucius had done.
I still have faith that we can continue building this encyclopedia for the service of our readers, and at the conclusion of this ArbCom case, I will resume producing high-quality content in subjects unrelated to Falun Gong. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Colipon, I do not wish to harp on this, and you're entitled to leave a parting note, expressing your opinions, in peace. However, I would like to make a couple comments.
Colipon has characterized me as an incorrigibly biased editor, against the Chinese government and for Falun Gong; he has called me an activist, and I’ve also been called an SPA and a meatpuppet, etc. by Ohconfucius. The complaint is that I am a “civil point of view-pusher”: an activist that has learned how to game the system by behaving civilly to people while pushing a political mission.
I fundamentally reject this. There is no single “ truth” for the topics we write about, especially on contentious matters related to contemporary Chinese politics and religion and human rights. I make honest efforts to edit based on my reading of reliable sources. No doubt that if I were to sit down with Colipon or Ohconfucius, we would have different views on the topic of Falun Gong. But I am happy to agree to disagree. And I am happy to work in a productive manner with others with different views on the content. My editing history shows that. I have never attempted to impugn the intentions of other editors or ascribe to them political motives, and would not contemplate doing so. And I do not deserve the opposite. How can they be so sure their views on the matter are the correct ones? The way this is supposed to work is that we discuss things in a collegial manner. We sit down and take a close look at all the sources available, we figure out which are the best, which are reliable for different facts, and so on. And when we disagree, we compromise and make accommodations in good faith. We engage in rational argument and discussion. The page that emerges as a result of that will differ from a page written by one party. But Wikipedia’s model means there is no alternative to that process: “Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.”
I began an AE case against Shrigley, Colipon, and Ohconfucius because I believed they had forsaken this fundamental tenet: through personal attacks, edit warring, accusations of bad faith, accusations of activism, inappropriate claims or suspicions of what my beliefs or political affiliations are, etc. In that case the process of consensus breaks down, and someone has to step in and be the circuit-breaker. Unfortunately I believe their behavior throughout this arbitration proceeding has only shown a reinforced need for intervention. TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I’ve tried over the last couple days to understand where other parties in this case are coming from, and have asked myself what I might have done better to avoid this situation from emerging.
On one hand, I’m not really sure. For my part I try to be fair and policy-compliant editor, and to be proactive about talking and editing to reach agreements, especially on the Falun Gong namespace. I also like to think my views on Falun Gong are nuanced, changeable, and well informed, and that I’ve made very significant contributions both here and in the broader topic area related to China. I think many of the complaints against me aren’t really fair or supported by evidence. There seem to be deep misunderstandings between people, and I don't know how it came to be this way; maybe it was always this way.
As to the other parties named here: my impression is that they hold very strong personal views on Falun Gong, and they've all made various statements before indicating the nature of those views. In general, I’ve found that their opinions seem to fall pretty far outside of the spectrum of mainstream discourse. On topics related to Falun Gong they seek to have their ideas represented and contrarian views or information minimized. They don't do much else in this namespace. I have found many of their edits problematic: sometimes they introduce factual inaccuracies, violate BLP policies, employ original research or poor sourcing, delete notable and reliably sourced information for unclear reasons, misrepresent reliable sources, etc. (diffs found throughout evidence submissions, in AE and my rebuttal to the AE, as well as on this page). When I see them make these edits, I challenge them by pointing out the content problems I perceive. I don’t think these editors like being challenged as such, and I think that’s probably part of the reason they would like me to go away. This is just my perspective. I'm speaking in general terms here, and I understand and appreciate that others see this dispute very, very differently.
I have been reading and re-reading the diffs and the evidence, and tried to see my conduct through other people’s eyes. I can't say I agree with the charges against me, though I do think I understand them somewhat better after this process. For instance, I recognized how my conduct can be sometimes be construed as exercising ownership over these articles; I often write long explanation of a sourcing issue or delve into some obscure historical or legal detail, and I consider this constructive, content-oriented discussion. To other people, it can look like an unreadable or intimidating wall of text, or may appear to be “lawyering” (as Colipon and Ohconfucius often say) that can deter participation. I’m not sure really how to resolve this issue, other than to be more mindful of it.
I’ve tried very hard to keep the discourse somewhat elevated, to be civil towards other editors, and focused on the content issues, rather than personalities. But sometimes I’ve failed at this. I’ve become exasperated, have personalized my comments too much (including here, probably), or have adopted an unnecessarily oppositional tone in discussions. I could argue that there are extenuating circumstances, but this is still not appropriate or necessary. These are all things to improve on, but maybe after a drink and a break in the mountains to recuperate.
Good luck to the arbitrators, and to everyone else here. Homunculus ( duihua) 23:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have little association with the matter, beyond a few copy-edits to Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident before it became an FA. I've looked occasionally at this article with suspicion that not all editors are aware of the site's pillar concerning neutrality (as far as I can see, Ohconfucius has worked hard to bring neutrality to the article). Falun Gong appears to be a highly emotive issue in the real world, yet more opaque through what seem to be unusual cross-mappings of government support/opposition and FG support/opposition. I hope the committee will pursue remedies that give us a neutral account of the topic, preferably written by those who have no affiliation with the real-world players.
CoI declaration: I know Ohconfucius's work well and admire it.
Tony (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold ( Talk) & Elen of the Roads ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the
/Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
2)
3)
1) I'd like to suggest that we consider imposing a temporary injunction on the Falun Gong namespace pending the outcome of this case. Perhaps something to the effect that editors should exercise caution with major or potentially contentious changes, and seek to discuss them on talk pages first? This seems consistent with the editing policy. Homunculus ( duihua) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
2) I am quite concerned that this page has devolved significantly and departed from its intended purpose. As is noted in some of the discussions below, some of the parties appear to have quite seriously misrepresented the actions, statements, and conduct of other users for the purpose of trying to have them banned. Other unfounded assertions, exceptional claims, and speculation on other user's motives, affiliations, of beliefs has continued. There also seems to be a bit of a misuse of the process, in that a great deal of new evidence has been added to the page, and in inappropriate venues. I've noticed that some previous arbitration proceedings have invoked special procedures for dealing with this (eg. here), and would like to ask whether it is possible that similar standards be applied here: namely, a "single warning" system for editors who can be shown to be misrepresenting other users in this forum, who make claims or speculative assertions without evidence, etc. Homunculus ( duihua) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought that my comments followed quite directly as reasonable interpretations of Colipon's own statements in this forum and on AE, but I will take another look through my comments, strike through and rephrase them if that is not so. As to my statement here [7], if Colipon would like me to do so, I can provide a diff showing him expressing this view (in somewhat cruder terms). I won't do this unless Colipon asks me to. Perhaps the other parties involved here will likewise take the initiative to strike through all of their comments which have a) misrepresented other users or their editing histories; b) involved unreasonable speculation, exceptional claims, guilt-by-association, etc. Homunculus ( duihua) 22:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
3) If I understand correctly, PCPP submitted his evidence by email to Arbcom. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to have this Evidence posted on-wiki as a part of the case for the purpose of transparency, excluding any personal information of course. My very best wishes ( talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
4)
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
2) Wikipedia is a serious intellectual project. The objective of the project is to build a free, high-quality reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.
3) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Editors are strongly encouraged to adhere to editing policy on talking and editing.
4) It is the responsibility of every member of the community to uphold the core pillars of Wikipedia and minimize disruptions, edit warring, or incivility. Editors should take care to apply Wikipedia policies and standards in a fair manner. Users should not defend or reinforce disruptive behavior by others on the basis of shared philosophical or ideological inclinations.
5) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. The misrepresentation of another editor’s behavior for the purpose of making it appear improper or sanctionable is considered a form of gaming the system. Assertions of improper conduct—including though not limited to claims of sockpuppety, wikilawyering, POV-pushing, or gaming the system—should be made with caution and supported by evidence, rather than offered as insults. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.
6) Pages in user space intended to memorialize conflicts or document other editors’ perceived faults without a clear and immediate purpose is considered unproductive, as it may serve to perpetuate a dispute. Longstanding consensus at WP:Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted.
7) Editors who find that they are unwilling or unable to assume good faith or behave in a professional, cordial manner are encouraged to recuse themselves. Persistent, misplaced accusations of bad faith against other users are demoralizing and counterproductive.
8) Editors espousing a religious or national background relevant to the topic area are welcome to participate, but must strive to edit from a Neutral Point of View and behave collaboratively and in good faith toward editors with whom they may disagree.
9) The use of slurs and derogatory references to groups such as religions, social classes or nationalities, is prohibited. It is unacceptable to use an editor's religious or national affiliation (whether real or presumed) as an ad hominem means or dismissing or discrediting their contributions. Fixation or speculation on another editor's off-wikipedia orientations, national or religious background, behaviors or lifestyle is unacceptable. Editors should discuss content, not contributors.
@ John, I suppose we could leave off the bit about national epithets, since we don't have people employing them. But the other parts of this proposal are highly relevant in this case, as follows from diffs presented on the evidence page (and many discussions that were not presented). Several of the parties named here have, in content discussions, sought to marginalize or diminish the ideas or contributions of others by casting them variously as Falun Gong members, devotees, sympathizers, meatpuppets, etc. These labels have been applied both to actual Falun Gong adherents, and to non-practitioners. These has been—and unfortunately, continues to be—a great deal of unreasonable speculation in this regard. Homunculus ( duihua) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1) The editors named have been involved in disputes over user conduct and content on pages broadly related to Falun Gong, including at such pages as Bo Xilai, Shen Yun Performing Arts, and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident.
2) The articles broadly related to Falun Gong have been the subject of disputes since their creation. Content disputes mirror real-world issues stemming from conflicting viewpoints over representations of the practice and the Chinese government’s suppression of the group. The namespace has been subject to discretionary sanctions since 2007, and these have been applied to block or ban several editors.
Over time, there has been a general trend of improvement on the Falun Gong namespace resulting in most articles becoming more complete, well-sourced, and stable overall. This owes to the work of dedicated editors to research and write high-quality content; to the adoption of a consensus-based model for discussing changes; to the involvement of subject matter experts; and to scrutiny applied by editors with different perspectives and views.
However, there has been a tendency among some editors to adopt adversarial approaches; some of the involved parties appear to have carried past grievances, resentments and feelings of exasperation into their interactions with other editors who do not share their views. This has manifest as a tendency to assume bad faith, to regularly impugn the integrity of others’ motives, to make personal attacks, adopt battleground mentalities, and to defend and reinforce disruptive edits and behavior. Some editors have expressed a lack of confidence in the consensus model, leading them to eschew collaboration in favor of either edit wars without discussion, or simply the disparagement of other parties. These behaviors, in turn, serve to deepen mutual feelings of exasperation among the parties.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Editors are encouraged to assume good faith, particularly for new users. However, if behavior and editorial patterns reveal over a lengthy period of time that they are interested in POV-pushing and not the improvement of the encyclopedia according to the Five Pillars, the accounts should be summarily sanctioned at the discretion of presiding administrators. This standard should be applied especially stringently with highly politicized articles, promotion, and advocacy.
2) Single purpose accounts dedicated to advocacy should not be tolerated in any way and summarily banned.
- Focus on the edits not the editor
1) Homunculus is a single-purpose account dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy. Unhelpful version redacted by clerk. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it's unfortunate that editors feel the need to make comments like this in such a forum. Ohconfucius' statement directly above contains assertions which are false and/or misrepresent other editors. I feel sorry for the Arbs reviewing the case that they have to wade through this. Ohconfucius, if you wanted to know why I reverted you edits so quickly at Cult suicide, you could have just asked me. You have claimed that I must have watchlisted this page, and used that as evidence that I am a secret Falun Gong SPA. It was not on my watchlist, and I am not a Falun Gong SPA. The explanation is simple: I was online, I saw you make two rather curious FLG-related edits on my watchlist ( here and here). I then checked your contribution log, and saw that you had made (what I considered to be) a rather disruptive edit related to Falun Gong at Cult suicide. It had not yet been buried by your other contributions. That is all. Homunculus ( duihua) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
There are smoother tag placing discussions in Wikipedia, see Talk:Xombrero#COI_check, for instance. The author places the tag, the tag is being discussed and when the consensus is established the tag is being removed. No hurry. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
2) Ohconfucius, Homunculus, and TSTF have engaged in edit-warring
3) Falun Gong articles have been the subject of heated content disputes since their creation. There has been one previous arbitration case, a large number of arbitration enforcement sanctions, and no noticeable reduction of conflict on the pages. Dispute resolution venues on Wikipedia have failed to resolve content issues.
1) Place all Falun Gong articles on revert parole indefinitely, including 'partial reverts', and 're-organization' of articles that removes recently added material.
2) Discussions over Falun Gong material outside of Falun Gong article space, if they reach an 'impasse', should be closed by uninvolved users, preferably admins, who will decisively summarize consensus much like they are summarized in a 'move' or 'deletion' request.
1) Homunculus topic-banned for a year from Falun Gong articles, widely construed, including articles related to the Communist Party of China and especially BLPs of individuals with whom Falun Gong has a grudge (Jiang, Bo, John Liu).
2) TSTF banned from Falun Gong articles, narrowly construed, for a year. Depending on behavior off-FLG space, the ban may be lifted subject to admin discretion. The ban is narrowly construed as such: 1) that articles related to the CCP or Chinese governance in general should not be part of this ban 2) editing Falun Gong material on the same articles, however, is prohibited.
1) [Still in development]: Topic bans lasting thirty calendar days be levied to any user who edit-wars, refuses to adhere to admin-sponsored consensus, or otherwise displays POV-pushing behavior consistent across multiple discussions/articles.
1) Wikipedia is a project to create a high-quality, free-content, neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.
3) Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating or advancing a viewpoint or position. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
4) It is a core policy of the encyclopedia that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.
5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
6) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.
7) Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, including expert editors with a professional or commercial interest in the subject of articles they edit. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed where applicable, and expert editors must at all times avoid editing (or appearing to edit) the encyclopaedia in order to promote their own professional or commercial interest.
8) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. (From Civility enforcement)
9) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
10) The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of blocks or sanctions as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damage the work of building an encyclopedia.
11) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.
12) Editors with a religious or sectarian background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular religious point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view. (Adapted from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)
1) The current dispute revolves around various topics related to Falun Gong, its suppression, and its relationship to individuals within the Chinese government.
2) The collaborative editing environment on Falun Gong-related pages has been dysfunctional for several years. A series of editors have behaved poorly, some of whom are no longer active. The problems are demonstrated by the fact that Talk:Falun Gong has 37 archive pages. Extensive and lively talkpage discussion on an article may sometimes reflect active, productive collaborative editing by engaged and knowledgeable editors happily working together—but not in this case. Rather, these talkpage archives reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself. (From Shakespeare authorship question)
3) The remedies imposed by the Arbitration Committee in the Falun Gong 1 case have failed to effectively resolve the various concerns raised regarding the editing in this topic area, leading ultimately to the filing of this request for arbitration.
You are again engaging in an unreasonable form of guilt by association in an attempt to ascribe to me world views that I do not possess. I find there to be a vexatious quality in what you're doing here, and I think you need to stop misrepresenting my beliefs. Also, please tell me: in what publication (and on which page) does Ownby do this? Because I've read his just about all his writings, and never seen anything approximating this claim (to the contrary, in the reliable sources sitting in front of me, Ownby states pretty unequivocally that Falun Gong does not possess the characteristics of a cult. Indeed, in the very same article you have quoted on your user space, he dismisses this characterization as inaccurate). Homunculus ( duihua) 07:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue back and forth, but you have misrepresent people, so I am going to set the record straight. You said that Ownby had "declared for the opposition" on the Falun Gong issue. The opposition to Falun Gong is reasonably understood to mean the Chinese government—that is where opposition to the practice comes from in the real world. I made clear that Ownby has never approached endorsing the views of the Chinese government, not ever come close to 'denouncing' Falun Gong as a cult, as you've claimed. You then twisted my attempt to clarify this into another guilt by association tactic to ascribe to me a "Falun Gong worldview" that I do not possess (and that probably only exists in your mind; the worldview of millions of people is never monolithic). This is insulting, and you've done it repeatedly.
I don't see things as black and white on the subject of Falun Gong, and if someone were to read my comments in talk pages and my analyses of evidence, they would find them to be nuanced and substantive. This stands in marked contrast to your own comments, such as the declaration you put on your user page that you are not interested in "bickering of whether FG was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party or whether "Falun Gong Is a Cult."" First, no reliable source one would ever deny that Falun Gong is persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party, and serious scholars—including Ownby—uniformly say that the practice is not a "cult". The framing of the issue in this manner demonstrates, I think, a profound lack of sophistication in approaching this subject.
You have misrepresented my views, and you've (quite badly) misrepresented a scholar's views. A scholar whose article you apparently do not even have access to. Your comments here and elsewhere suggests to me that you do not have a very sound understanding of the corpus of literature. I actually do have the journal article you were quoting from, so I think I may have a better grasp of the context. I've also read nearly all of Ownby's other writings on the subjects, and it's not apparent that you have done same. The quote you are referring to is not Ownby endorsing the view that FLG is a "cult," as you claim. He is saying that, for people who were already predisposed to view Falun Gong this way, the notion is unfortunately (but wrongly) reinforced by the "dualistic" attitude that he says some practitioners came to adopt as a response to the persecution by Chinese authorities. That is the broader context. In the very same article, Ownby describes how Falun Gong does not display the characteristics of a 'cult.' This is something that Ownby repeats clearly in nearly all his writings, testimonies, and interviews. To quote from his book, "the entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong and the effectiveness of the group's activities outside of China."
As a person who strives for nuanced representations of things, it's quite worrying to me that you just draw these conclusions about a scholar's views based on one paragraph that you read out of context. This is also illustrative of a broader problem: yourself, Shrigley, and Colipon have charged me with altering the balance of articles in favor of Falun Gong and marginalizing negative views. You have built your entire case against me on this premise and sought for me to be indefinitely banned. But I edit based on extensive reading of the literature in order to represent viewpoints in proportion to their notability and prominence. You do not seem familiar with the literature, and in this case at least, you have drawn a rash, reductionist, and false conclusion about the views of a scholar on Falun Gong when it suited you. Given that, I don't think you can be considered a very good judge of whether my edits in this area comply with NPOV. Homunculus ( duihua) 13:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
4) Homunculus ( talk · contribs) registered an account in March 2010, and since then has focused his edits heavily on the political aspects of Falun Gong. The articles have ranged from the elements of Falun Gong's doctrine, to biographies of Chinese officials accused of mistreating Falun Gong, and to other Chinese dissident groups with which Falun Gong has a "de-facto media alliance". Homunculus has a limited number of contributions to other topics on Wikipedia.
5) Homunculus has confirmed that they have professional interest in the topic, [38] and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has compromised collaborative editing.
6) Homunculus's contributions to Wikipedia concerning Falun Gong, the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese dissident groups can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of the Chinese government and Communist Party. ( Colipon’s evidence, AE evidence, Ohconfucius’s evidence) There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual government officials and the government as a whole in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. For example, Homunculus's edits and articles often give undue weight to the subject's relation to Falun Gong, and the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on the subject of the article.
@Ohconfucius, I don't desire to engage in lengthy discussions of content here, but will make a couple comments. First, the arbs may like to read the page you're referring to, which I have written almost in full. I believe that it is a fairly even-handed approach to the subject, and represents a significant improvement over the previous version (which might generously have been called C-class). Colipon raised some complaints about my content choices in his AE, and I responded to some of these in my response, which I linked to on the evidence page. I would have been happy to answer any other content questions on the article talk page itself, and I believe that I could have provided sound rationales for any of my edits. If my explanations were not satisfactory, I would be willing to compromise. In the AE, you brought up a concern with one of the sources I used in this edit. [40] I had preserved this content from the previous page, the only reference used were to Falun Gong websites. Deeming that this was not ideal, but not wanting to delete the only information about Falun Gong in Latin America, I tried to find an alternate sources. One of those was the article from the Argentina Independent (I don't speak much spanish, so I had to go with an english-language source). If you would like to argue that it's not a good enough source, I would be open to that, and I would hope we could find a better one. Since you've brought this up, I'll point out that I found your comment in the AE to be somewhat problematic. There, you wrote that the article in the Argentina Independent is "almost certainly written by a practitioner or by some professional outfit employed by someone intimately involved with the movement," but you don't support this assertion very well. You have made similar comments about other news articles that were somewhat positive towards Falun Gong, suggesting that the pieces must have been paid for, but not supporting this with evidence. I don't think it's appropriate to do this. Homunculus ( duihua) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
7) Homunculus has made a series of increasingly uncivil comments and unsupported allegations of bias and wrongdoing against fellow editors with whom he was in editorial disagreement ( Shrigley's evidence).
8) Homunculus was previously admonished by an administrator for violating the biography of living persons policy. [51] [52]
- 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.
I firmly believe that only activists extremely invested in Falun Gong would push for the inclusion of FRINGE material on FLG lawsuits on articles about Chinese officials. These materials are not taken seriously by the vast majority of sources, except, of course, The Epoch Times: [59].
Of special concern is the round-the-clock patrolling of 'sensitive' FLG material and removing any edits that potentially alter POV-balance: Revision time in ([Hour]:[Minutes])
- Jiang Zemin: 1:15: [60]
- Using emotionally-charged language and imagery, examples include "persecution", "genocide", "torture" ( [61] vs. [62])
- Inserting Falun Gong lawsuit material to BLP articles of Chinese politicians ( Jiang; Bo Xilai by TSTF, by H)
- Attempt to undermine the undue weight clause ( TSTF H).
- Dig up and synthesize esoteric content to meet their ends. H: "There are reliable sources that elaborate on these allegations in more depth,"
9) A substantial focus of TheSoundAndTheFury's editing has been articles relating generally to Falun Gong. The articles have ranged from the elements of Falun Gong's doctrine to biographies of Chinese officials accused of mistreating Falun Gong.
10) TheSoundAndTheFury's contributions to Wikipedia concerning Falun Gong, the Chinese government, and the Chinese Communist Party can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of the Chinese government and Communist Party. ( Colipon’s evidence, Ohconfucius’s evidence)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Homunculus is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese government, broadly construed.
2) Homunculus is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.
3) Homunculus is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.
4) TheSoundAndTheFury is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese government, broadly construed.
5) TheSoundAndTheFury is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.
6) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China, broadly construed.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Several editors involved in this case, particularly User:Ohconfucius, have made significant and valuable contributions to the project and to the Falun Gong related content.
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The Arbitration Committee will call for editors to work on developing clearer guidelines regarding religious, sociological, and political controversies.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
I am sorry for not following the format. Here are my suggestions, very briefly.
It might be worth clarifying that MVBW has no prior involvement in Falun Gong or, to my knowledge, anything related to Chinese politics. I also don't think the user had any prior interaction with the parties named here. He/she followed us here from AE and took an interest in the case. I note this only because some of the other users here seen to have questioned the editor's reasons for involvement [76] (I'm not sure what to make of that conversation, actually).
As to these findings, it may be right that the locus of dispute is more accurately described as Chinese politics, and some of these problems have spilled over onto pages related to China, though not as intensely. It's probably not feasible or desirable to expand the scope of this case, but it's a fair observation. No comment on the other proposals. Homunculus ( duihua) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I must tell that
1) Ohconfucius has engaged in multiple edit wars with little to no talk page discussion, including two recent 3RR violations on topics related to Falun Gong. [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]/ [91] [92].
2) Ohconfucius has displayed incivility and disrespect towards other members of the community [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] ; has made personal remarks and attacks, including during arbitration proceedings and has sought to marginalize and discredit other users on the basis of what he believes to be their religious affiliations or beliefs. [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]
3) Ohconfucius has demonstrated a battleground mentality in the Falun Gong namespace, which has continued into arbitration proceedings. [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]
4) Colipon has engaged in unseemly behavior – including personal attacks, [118] incivility, assumptions of bad faith [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] and has sought to marginalize and discredit other users on the basis of what he believes to be their religious affiliations or beliefs – even after being counseled against this by other editors. This behavior has continued into this arbitration case. [124] [125] [126] [127]
5) Colipon has demonstrated a pronounced battleground mentality in the Falun Gong namespace, [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] which has continued in arbitration proceedings [134] [135], and he has made repeated misrepresentations of and exceptional and unsupported claims about perceived opponents during arbitration proceeding for the purpose of having them banned.
6) Shrigley has adopted a battleground mentality, has engaged in likely violations of NPA by seeking to discredit other editors on the basis of what he believes to be their religious affiliations or beliefs, [136] [137] [138] [139] and he has misrepresented perceived opponents during arbitration proceedings
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
User:My very best wishes, in bullet point four, portrays a series of edits as an "edit-war". In fact, they were part of deliberative discussion and consensus-building, which My very best wishes obscures by omitting links to other users' reverts and talk page discussion. Here were his diffs:
PCPP made a series of changes on 5-6 January, ending with diff 1, which were criticized by Homunculus and reverted by TheSoundAndTheFury largely because both users distrusted PCPP. After a multiparty talk page discussion here, in which we discussed all points of content, I was able to build trust between both sides and reinstate most of PCPP's edits on 7 January, diff 2. (TheSoundAndTheFury acknowledges that we reached consensus through discussion, rather than edit-warred). Ohconfucius's edit on 11 January, diff 3, did shorten some text but did not directly relate to the content in dispute.
One month later, from 8-10 February, User:Keahapana made a flurry of 17 edits without discussion, which both reverted PCPP's changes (against the consensus of H, me, TSTF, and PCPP) and reverted Ohconfucius's subsequent changes. (Keahapana acknowledges that his edits were "a response to the numerous changes made in January"). I revert him and ask him to discuss before making major changes, as has been expected of PCPP ( diff 4). Keahapana reverts me, saying his changes were "fully explained", although Homunculus notes that there was no recent discussion in which Keahapana could have justified his changes. Ohconfucius reverts Keahapana back to consensus version ( diff 5). And then, through discussion Ohconfucius, Homunculus, I, and Keahapana were able to come to a consensus on the changes to the page. Therefore My very best wishes' attempt to portray the editing there as "war" rings totally false.
The exact users who MVBW tries to frame as "edit-warriors" (me, Ohconfucius) were those users who edited and reverted in accordance with consensus-building norms, while the users who we reverted (TheSoundAndTheFury, Keahapana) wholly or partially violated those norms. The latest dispute erupted after I stopped editing that page, but PCPP basically alleges, credibly considering Keahapana's past behavior, that Keahapana disregarded our consensus and pushed through his personally desired changes. We have this problem with TheSoundAndTheFury and Homunculus flagrantly disregarding consensus that they themselves help formulate (Homunculus acknowledges one such self-made breach at Bo Xilai).
My very best wishes' portrayal of the Confucius Institutes as "engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China" in bullet point five is a true mischaracterization. It's a language learning center and has no political curriculum, yet opponents fault the teachers for not pushing an anti-Chinese government line. The teachers are recruited from China and Falun Gong is banned in China (so surprise, no employees are openly Falun Gong); if a nationwide Chinese law makes the Institutes a "Falun Gong article", then a topic ban on Falun Gong is effectively a topic ban on all China-related articles. Shrigley ( talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
TSTF cites as evidence [140] this diff on the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which I apparently refer to "Falun Gong-focused editors". It has been established in the Ohconfucius's and Colipon's evidence, particularly by link to Ohconfucius's quantitative analysis, that H and TSTF are single-purpose accounts dedicated to editing Falun Gong subjects. Colipon noted in his evidence how H and TSTF have a pattern of going to non-Falun Gong related articles, including biographies of high-ranking Chinese officials, and adding copious amounts of Falun Gong-related material. [141] [142] [143]
In this diff, I was participating in dispute resolution, where it is more common and even expected to comment on users' behavior, including patterns of editing, rather than simply content. Two months before the PCPP case came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, somebody changed the header to refocus the DRN towards content and not conduct disputes. I didn't notice this change and was perhaps operating under false assumptions, since I had used DRN to successfully mediate conduct disputes in the past.
The remarks to which TSTF took offense were demarcated under a section I wrote to establish the context of the article to a mediator. This included a reference to "Falun Gong followers" and a link to ARBFLG, where the pro-Falun Gong parties disclosed their membership. [144] [145] [146] Perhaps it was unwise to suggest a continuity between these now-banned editors and H and TSTF, but it should be understood within the context of a current AE case and talk page sniping in which TSTF made personal remarks about PCPP [147] and accused him of "pro-Chinese government editing". [148]
Ultimately, this edit was not an indication of battleground mentality, because they were focused on a narrow audience within a dispute resolution context. Such a mentality would also preclude civil cooperation towards building that article, but TSTF, Homunculus, Ohconfucius and I were able to repeatedly ratify compromises on the Confucius Institutes content. [149] [150]
TSTF links to [151] this diff on Talk:Bo Xilai, in which I supposedly "[suggest] that [certain] editors... are “followers of small religiopolitical movements.”" The actual text shows that my message was a rejoinder to a personal attack by Homunculus against me: "I'm seriously tired of editors (always the same ones) deleting credible reports of human rights abuses.... Shrigley has... [made] an edit that is patently misleading."
Although TSTF wrote a threatening message on my talk page, [152] I replied [153] to clarify that I was not referring to Homunculus as TSTF had assumed. While Homunculus attacked me by name, I mentioned no name in my diff, and actually linked to a section( [154] specifically) of the Bo Xilai talk page where a self-identified FLG member [155] and recognizably disruptive editor [156] advocated for the same "look how bad he treated Falun Gong" material in this man's biography as H and TSTF do now. Although H indicated in his evidence that he resents being connected to the ghosts of bad FLG editors, he makes exactly the same arguments and behaves in the same way.
TSTF describes what I shortened as an "impeccably sourced paragraph", which contrasts to what I supposedly called such material ("poorly sourced"). The sources cited included a little-known human rights litigation group, brief newswire accounts (with no followup) of completed lawsuits, and a Wikileaks cable. The first two weak sources were used to support the fact that Falun Gong filed lawsuits against Bo in the incorrect jurisdiction (anyone can file lawsuits and make such headlines, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia). The third source was used to argue for the lawsuits as a significant part of Bo's biography. Aside from being a "primary source" and "possibly illegal" (H's own ironic words on Wikileaks, before he argued the opposite when it could advance the FLG viewpoint), Wikileaks cables are at their core based on the hearsay of diplomats.
Although TSTF acknowledged my explanation for why this diff was not a speculation on the affiliations of H, and said that he "[doesn't] want to turn a molehill into a mountain", he dregs up this discredited diff again at Arbcom as a core part of his evidence against me. Although we've had many such pleasant exchanges, including on consensus-building at Confucius Institutes, these vignettes of cooperation don't mediate overall the level of vitriol that comes out during dispute resolution. I'm therefore not inspired with confidence by H and TSTF's continued paeans to "discussion, principled negotiation, and consensus building" throughout these proceedings. Shrigley ( talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an unusually nasty personal attack. Author of the comment (Shrigley) calls another editor by name, but he means all editors who do not share his POV on the subject. He claims (without any evidence) that named editor and all others are paid governmental agents to spread propaganda on-wiki, or at least this is my understanding of the diff. I do not know if there are other similar claims on the Evidence page, but it does not seem unreasonable if Arbcom would ban all contributors who made such claims. And I do not mean just topic ban, but site ban. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Here is his response to request by Homunculus to AGF:
Well, Homunculus, conversations are bound to be stable and civil when everyone out of lockstep with the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" is driven away or banned at AE. Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war. ( User:Shrigley)
If you think that was an appropriate comment, it means we have a significant difference in opinions. He tells about alleged '"U.S. government subsidies" "to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia." He also adds: "If only it were an ideological war." This is quite a battleground statement. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been accused of editing Falun Gong articles only from the perspective of Falun Gong, and against the Chinese government. I looked through my contributions recently; the evidence does not support this assertion. Below are a sampling of edits that do not fit this narrative. The purpose of presenting these diffs is to debunk the idea that I am somehow a "Falun Gong activist," SPA, meatpuppet, or <insert negatively-charged label here>. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
TheSoundAndTheFury charges Ohconfucius, Colipon, and me with not once expressing divergent opinions on the FLG namespace, and therefore "failing to exercise independent judgment". However, this idea is easily falsifiable by these significant cases where we disagree:
It should also be noted that my involvement in Falun Gong topics is relatively recent and narrow, at least compared to Ohc and Colipon, and that I focused on those general Chinese politics topics where H and TSTF have tried to insert undue Falun Gong material. Therefore, we have not had much chance for interaction.
The flip-side of TSTF's evidence against Ohconfucius for edit-warring is that in all of these cases, either Homunculus alone reverts Ohconfucius, or cooperately reverts with TSTF or Zujine in order to subvert WP:3RR. Three reverts are not an entitlement; both H and TSTF have edit-warred as much as Ohc.
Total reverts: Ohc: 4, H: 3, TSTF: 1.
Total reverts: H: 4, Ohc: 4, HiG: 1, Js: 1
Total reverts: Zujine: 6, Ohc: 5, H: 1, Shrigley: 1, Festermunk: 1
They weren't included in TSTF's evidence against Ohc, but rather in Colipon's evidence against H/TSTF, but they're instructive as to H and TSTF's "cooperative reversion" modus operandi.
Total reverts: H: 4, TSTF: 4, IP: 2, Shrigley: 2, Ohc: 2, Antilived: 1
I think it's worth examining the question of what "damages the encyclopedia." There have been several insinuations that editors are damaging the project on the basis of their perceived point of view. This is problematic. An editor may hold any point of view, and the possession of a point of view is not reasonable grounds for seeking to banish a person from contributing. The crucial question is whether editors demonstrate an ability and a willingness to work with others in good faith, regardless of divergent point of views; whether they treat other editors with courtesy and respect; whether they strive to edit from a neutral point of view, and seek to represent notable viewpoints in proportion to their prominence; whether they constructively build the encyclopedia by writing good content, and so on. Damage to the project occurs when editors consistently fail to adhere to content and behavioral policies that govern the encyclopedia.
In my real life as on this project, I have a philosophy to disputes that I think is worth stating here: in a conflict, always stay focused on the resolution, and don't do or say anything that is not conducive to achieving that resolution. In other words, don't do anything that will only serve to deepen a conflict. I'm admittedly not perfect in applying this philosophy, but I try, and this is why I have (in Colipon's words) been so unwaveringly civil in this namespace: because that's what is necessary to move it past the state of an ideological battleground with deeply entrenched personal resentments. In this case, the desired outcome is this: editors involved in the Falun Gong pages should be able to regard other editors with good faith, even when disagreeing; should all strive to edit from a neutral point of view, and be willing to hear out divergent opinions; discuss content in an earnest and substantive manner, rather than focusing on contributors; and so on. I hope all the parties here can consider this when writing on this page. I'll try to do better myself. Homunculus ( duihua) 21:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ohconfucius just declared his
retirement from Falun Gong articles. I strongly urge him to reconsider, and remind him that Homunculus' full-frontal assault will be considered by ArbCom as evidence in this case.
I feel a profound sense of loss. The more editors fall like him, the more this community suffers at the hands of partisan interests fixated on crafting our encyclopedia to achieve their real-world ends. The abuse that he has endured at the hands of the FLG cabal is reprehensible, and the community ought to do something to rescue good-faith editors that get worn out by these dedicated activists who will do anything to get their way.
Colipon+(
Talk)
15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The dispute at Shen Yun is simple. I argue that the article's content obfuscates the show's politicized nature. Despite my references to reliable sources, users TSTF and H filibustered. Unwilling to intrude further into their territory for fear of getting shelled, I simply acquiesced, and gave up. All the diffs TSTF presents against me for 'Shen Yun' are contentions to that effect. My views about content on 'Shen Yun' were echoed by user John Carter at the original AE.
The situation at Shen Yun is worrisome. There is a vested interest for the show's real-world promoters to obfuscate its political nature. In the past, they were singled out by the Canadian ethics commissioner for offering free tickets to politicians, in the hopes of obtaining federal funding. When money and politics are involved, it is not difficult to read between the lines why Wikipedia would be a fertile staging ground for a real-world agenda. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The following diffs may be problematic taken as standalone comments.
Such commentary, justified or not, should have been made in a dispute resolution venue such as this page, rather than on the article talk pages, which should be used to discuss content. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ohconfucius is a good case study of the Falun Gong story. If one takes a look at this user's extensive contributions, it is clear that he is a 'clean-up' expert with many barnstars to show for his efforts and a large network of users willing to vouch for his credibility (including User SilkTork), and has displayed open skepticism towards both FLG and the CCP. He understands the purpose of this encyclopedia. This makes his presence especially irksome for Falun Gong users, who, absent the options of calling him a CCP agent and accuse him of being narrowly-focused on FLG, have laboured for years to find the only way to get rid of him: intimidate him, and slap him with an AE case to discourage him from participation forever. Ironically this is exactly what happened. This state of affairs is truly very sad. As he has emerged unwittingly as 'public enemy #1' for Falun Gong on Wikipedia over time, I sometimes fear for his personal safety. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Above all, the conduct of users H and TSTF is not aligned with the goals of this encyclopedia. I worked productively with both at first, but over time they have irreversibly depleted my goodwill.
The community must stand firm against users who act counter to our encyclopedic mission. I am unwilling to deal with the continued abuse. If user Homunculus continues editing in any capacity on this website, I will impose a 'restraining order' on myself to stay away from this user as much as possible. Unless I have 'back-up' from the community at large, I will not interfere with their advocacy drive, nor will I bother to fight their POV-pushing.
I am but one user, and I can only do so much. I have had enough, and my time is better spent being productive elsewhere.
Should either user continue their involvement on Falun Gong articles or related pages, I will self-impose an indefinite ban on editing those articles much like user ohconfucius had done.
I still have faith that we can continue building this encyclopedia for the service of our readers, and at the conclusion of this ArbCom case, I will resume producing high-quality content in subjects unrelated to Falun Gong. Colipon+( Talk) 16:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Colipon, I do not wish to harp on this, and you're entitled to leave a parting note, expressing your opinions, in peace. However, I would like to make a couple comments.
Colipon has characterized me as an incorrigibly biased editor, against the Chinese government and for Falun Gong; he has called me an activist, and I’ve also been called an SPA and a meatpuppet, etc. by Ohconfucius. The complaint is that I am a “civil point of view-pusher”: an activist that has learned how to game the system by behaving civilly to people while pushing a political mission.
I fundamentally reject this. There is no single “ truth” for the topics we write about, especially on contentious matters related to contemporary Chinese politics and religion and human rights. I make honest efforts to edit based on my reading of reliable sources. No doubt that if I were to sit down with Colipon or Ohconfucius, we would have different views on the topic of Falun Gong. But I am happy to agree to disagree. And I am happy to work in a productive manner with others with different views on the content. My editing history shows that. I have never attempted to impugn the intentions of other editors or ascribe to them political motives, and would not contemplate doing so. And I do not deserve the opposite. How can they be so sure their views on the matter are the correct ones? The way this is supposed to work is that we discuss things in a collegial manner. We sit down and take a close look at all the sources available, we figure out which are the best, which are reliable for different facts, and so on. And when we disagree, we compromise and make accommodations in good faith. We engage in rational argument and discussion. The page that emerges as a result of that will differ from a page written by one party. But Wikipedia’s model means there is no alternative to that process: “Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.”
I began an AE case against Shrigley, Colipon, and Ohconfucius because I believed they had forsaken this fundamental tenet: through personal attacks, edit warring, accusations of bad faith, accusations of activism, inappropriate claims or suspicions of what my beliefs or political affiliations are, etc. In that case the process of consensus breaks down, and someone has to step in and be the circuit-breaker. Unfortunately I believe their behavior throughout this arbitration proceeding has only shown a reinforced need for intervention. TheSoundAndTheFury ( talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I’ve tried over the last couple days to understand where other parties in this case are coming from, and have asked myself what I might have done better to avoid this situation from emerging.
On one hand, I’m not really sure. For my part I try to be fair and policy-compliant editor, and to be proactive about talking and editing to reach agreements, especially on the Falun Gong namespace. I also like to think my views on Falun Gong are nuanced, changeable, and well informed, and that I’ve made very significant contributions both here and in the broader topic area related to China. I think many of the complaints against me aren’t really fair or supported by evidence. There seem to be deep misunderstandings between people, and I don't know how it came to be this way; maybe it was always this way.
As to the other parties named here: my impression is that they hold very strong personal views on Falun Gong, and they've all made various statements before indicating the nature of those views. In general, I’ve found that their opinions seem to fall pretty far outside of the spectrum of mainstream discourse. On topics related to Falun Gong they seek to have their ideas represented and contrarian views or information minimized. They don't do much else in this namespace. I have found many of their edits problematic: sometimes they introduce factual inaccuracies, violate BLP policies, employ original research or poor sourcing, delete notable and reliably sourced information for unclear reasons, misrepresent reliable sources, etc. (diffs found throughout evidence submissions, in AE and my rebuttal to the AE, as well as on this page). When I see them make these edits, I challenge them by pointing out the content problems I perceive. I don’t think these editors like being challenged as such, and I think that’s probably part of the reason they would like me to go away. This is just my perspective. I'm speaking in general terms here, and I understand and appreciate that others see this dispute very, very differently.
I have been reading and re-reading the diffs and the evidence, and tried to see my conduct through other people’s eyes. I can't say I agree with the charges against me, though I do think I understand them somewhat better after this process. For instance, I recognized how my conduct can be sometimes be construed as exercising ownership over these articles; I often write long explanation of a sourcing issue or delve into some obscure historical or legal detail, and I consider this constructive, content-oriented discussion. To other people, it can look like an unreadable or intimidating wall of text, or may appear to be “lawyering” (as Colipon and Ohconfucius often say) that can deter participation. I’m not sure really how to resolve this issue, other than to be more mindful of it.
I’ve tried very hard to keep the discourse somewhat elevated, to be civil towards other editors, and focused on the content issues, rather than personalities. But sometimes I’ve failed at this. I’ve become exasperated, have personalized my comments too much (including here, probably), or have adopted an unnecessarily oppositional tone in discussions. I could argue that there are extenuating circumstances, but this is still not appropriate or necessary. These are all things to improve on, but maybe after a drink and a break in the mountains to recuperate.
Good luck to the arbitrators, and to everyone else here. Homunculus ( duihua) 23:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have little association with the matter, beyond a few copy-edits to Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident before it became an FA. I've looked occasionally at this article with suspicion that not all editors are aware of the site's pillar concerning neutrality (as far as I can see, Ohconfucius has worked hard to bring neutrality to the article). Falun Gong appears to be a highly emotive issue in the real world, yet more opaque through what seem to be unusual cross-mappings of government support/opposition and FG support/opposition. I hope the committee will pursue remedies that give us a neutral account of the topic, preferably written by those who have no affiliation with the real-world players.
CoI declaration: I know Ohconfucius's work well and admire it.
Tony (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)