Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Caution within FG articles

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd posted a proposal here until now; I've updated the header for this section so it's a little more obvious by simply glancing at the page. In any event, I don't see that such an injunction would achieve much; as you point out, the editing policy asks editors to discuss such edits first anyway. One hopes also that the simple fact that this case is open would serve as warning enough - an editor, particularly one who is party to this case, that engages in disruptive conduct in the Falun Gong topic area would be doing so at their own peril. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@Homunculus: That's what the evidence phase was for. ;-) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Hersfold: I would hope so too. That the named parties would be on their best behavior and discuss controversial edits, that is. But I've been disappointed on an almost daily basis. Shall I give examples? Homunculus (duihua) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It actually helps a lot to look how participants behave during the case. Some of them simply can not stop their content conflicts, even during standing arbitration. If so, this is not a good sign. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I am virtually certain we are thinking of different people in this regard, I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Homunculus

Proposed principles

Conduct

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing policy

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Upholding community standards

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The idea behind this principle is nice, but not all users agree on what is and is not "disruptive behavior". For example, TSTF cites as evidence against me this[1] diff, in which I suggest that PCPP might not be "hounding" you, which is a subjective judgment. Plus, it is difficult to divine editors' "shared philosophical or ideological inclinations"? Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Accusations of impropriety

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not sure who you are accusing of making unsupported accusations? The evidence of both Colipon and Ohconfucius make clear that they've bitten their tongues for a long time and are only now making accusations of POV-pushing; You yourself acknowledge[2] that you've "only very recently been assigned that label" (of activist), and arbitration appears to be "the appropriate forum with evidence". Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote these as general principles. Please do not assume that I am using this forum for the purpose of accusing anyone of anything. Homunculus (duihua) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User space

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't recall any evidence being submitted which explains how user space pages "served to perpetuate a dispute". Was this matter discussed before the arbitration case? Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the parties named in this case maintain multiple pages in user space which appear intended to memorialize conflicts on the Falun Gong namespace, to keep account of other editor's perceived faults, or to make speculative accusations against other users. Some, though not all, of these pages, were linked to on the evidence page. To my knowledge it has not been discussed previously. I hope that answers your question.Homunculus (duihua) 03:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Assuming good faith

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There must be reasonable limits to the WP:AGF principle, particularly after very consistent patterns of behavior that can be clearly identified as being POV-pushing and advocacy. I quote WP:CRUSH: "The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated." Colipon+(Talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are naturally limits, and editors should not abuse the AGF clause. A user who has a clear and demonstrable history of behavioral problems, or who has been blocked or banned in the past, might reasonably expect that they are not accorded quite the same level of good faith and credulity as others. Even so, all editors should be treated with dignity, and their ideas and contributions must always be assessed on their individual merits, rather than on the basis of who is making them.

One of the other principles I proposed relates to accusations of impropriety. If an editor displays behavioral problems which cannot be addressed in a constructive manner, then these problems should be raised in the appropriate forum with evidence, if at all.

Non-specific accusations of POV-pushing and advocacy are problematic in that they may be highly subjective. For example, you wrote on the evidence page, "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." You're referring to this content. WP:FRINGE applies to theories of course; well sourced, notable, and factual information is not fringe. (Ironically, one of the definitions of WP:ACTIVIST is editors who try to remove legitimate material by erroneously claiming it's synthesis, undue, or fringe—all things Colipon did at Talk:Bo Xilai#Falun Gong.) You have defined as an activist anyone who disagreed with you on this content question—including, presumably, these people[3][4][5]. And in this forum, it seems you might be saying that activists are not entitled to good faith (is that right, or did I misread you?). Disagreements on content issues, or divergent points of view, is not a legitimate basis for failing to assume good faith.Homunculus (duihua) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't buy that at all. The evidence is so overwhelming on the SPA and POV-push charges, I'll let it speak for itself. As for myself, my record is there for everyone to scrutinize. Unlike your edit history, mine does not have any sort of pattern of being 'pro-' or 'anti-' anything, and I've worked on many controversial articles. ArbCom is welcome to scrutinize what I've written in any article. Colipon+(Talk) 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Poorly substantiated COI accusations is a serious problem in many cases. Yes, everyone must make every effort to AGF, especially while editing in contentious areas like this one. Unproven personal accusations must be avoided. Speaking about this, Evidence section by Colipon makes a claim that "Homunculus and TSTF are Falun Gong activists". This is serious accusation. But unfortunately, I do not see any real proof that they are members of Falun Gong or engaged in paid advocacy. Yes, they are interested in editing these subjects and may have certain POV, but so is everyone else in many subject areas. Now, let's take a look at AE request by Colipon. First two parts ("Background" and "Homunculus is an SPA") include a lot of personal accusations and links to policies, but exactly zero diffs that can prove anything. That AE request by Colipon is advocacy, or at least it looks like advocacy to me. If anything, this AE statement proves lack of willingness to assume good faith on the part of Colipon. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Users background and neutrality

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I fail to see the relevance of the "national background" aspect. Could you explain? Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Religious and national epithets

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Slurs or derogatory references are of course undesirable, but we haven't seen any clear instances of religious slurring in the evidence. A potential conflict of interest is certainly relevant to judging a user's contributions, but of course the standard prohibitions against harassment apply. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, agree with everything, except (partly) 2nd phrase. If an editor has any real (as opposed to imaginary) official affiliation with an outside organization, and this can lead to problems with editing in "difficult" areas, they must disclose their COI for the good of the project. But yes, the existence of COI per se should not be a reason for ad hominem attacks or dismissing or discrediting their contributions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Colipon

Proposed principles

POV-pushing not acceptable, no matter what form

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is not such a novel idea. New users especially are prone to be blocked if they make a series of exclusively POV-pushing edits, under the rationale that they are "not here to build an encyclopedia". Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No-tolerance policy towards SPAs

2) Single purpose accounts dedicated to advocacy should not be tolerated in any way and summarily banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Colipon, it may be helpful for you to read through some of the policies here [6] regarding this idea. In particular these parts:

Focus on the edits not the editor

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

Conflict of Interest guideline (this is basically what you're alleging)

Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

I agree with the idea that those who demonstrate an inability to edit and discuss things constructively should be sanctioned. I think problematic SPAs will inevitably be caught in these, existing, mechanisms for dealing with disruptive behavior.

With your proposal here, my concern is that the way you have used "SPA" is so broad as to allow misuse. In the way that you, Ohconfucius, and Shrigley have applied it, there is no clear criteria for the label or accusation, and what one has to do to earn it, or be cleared of it. It seems to have become an exercise in mind-reading, or interpreting or imagining the motives or affiliations of other editors. Or to put it another way, it may be interpreted as a kind of label to negatively categorize and discredit editors who hold opposing views on matters of content. Then once those people are negatively categorized, they are to be banned. One criteria you provide for detecting these editors is in your evidence submission: "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." Statements like this may complicate an evaluation of your proposal. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is very clear criteria for SPA, which Homunculus fits: a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Colipon+(Talk) 14:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"China" is not a narrow topic area, and you have completely failed to adduce that my edits are oriented toward the advancement of a point of view. Simply restating this point emphatically will not make it true. I write complete articles, and I write good articles. By your own admission, I am "unwaveringly civil," meticulous about sourcing, am very familiar with policies and guidelines, edit a broad set of articles (500 of them), and proactively write and create content. These are good qualities. Take a look at the pages I've recently been working on — Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, Barefoot lawyer, Chongqing model, etc. — I wrote almost everything on these pages. If you have ideas on how these articles could better reflect the views of reliable sources, then you're welcome to collaborate on them. But don't try to divine that my intention in writing these articles is to vilify the Communist Party to advance a Falun Gong cause. It's seriously extraordinary that you think you can ban someone indefinitely from a broad topic area simply because you don't like what you imagine to be their point of view. Homunculus (duihua) 15:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's let ArbCom decide. If you don't like the evidence I've presented, you can counter with other evidence, do analysis of your own to refute what I've written, or even levy charges at myself like TSTF had done. Colipon+(Talk) 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, WP:SPA and WP:ACTIVIST are questionable essays, not a policy. In fact, telling to other contributors that they are "SPA" and "activists" does not help to maintain the collegial atmosphere and must be avoided. Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this principle may have been used in the past before. The fact that things are merely essays does not mean that they might include material which is potentially useful and relevant in particular cases. And I find the above comment, seeking to tell people how to behave, apparently specifically clearly instructing them that they cannot comment about individual editors in a situation which was specifically begun to address problematic behavior of specific editors, basically irrational and under the circumstances almost incomprehensible. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in assume good faith, particularly for newcomers, and I think we bite them too often for no good reason. But there should be a 'reasonable limits clause' on AGF - which is that if an editor shows consistent patterns of POV-pushing on both article and talk space, discussions of the user's good faith should not be considered a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, but should be reasonably limited to dispute resolution venues such as AE, instead of article talk pages. These discussions should be descriptive rather than speculative ("X's edit patterns overwhelmingly reflect that of a user with a Greek nationalist POV", rather than "X is being paid by the Greek lobbyists to protect Greek national interests on Wikipedia"). I agree that baseless speculation about a user's conflict-of-interest is not helpful, so there needs to be overwhelming evidence.

The point is, a user whose edits obviously have the appearance of bad faith cannot just invoke WP:AGF as a 'free pass' to do what they please. Colipon+(Talk) 19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Carter. Speaking about SPA, I do not think that anyone here qualifies as SPA. Speaking about ACTIVIST, the related official policy is WP:SOAP, and yes, it certainly applies in this case. Now, speaking about your last point (commenting about other contributors), let's consider this diff from another side [7]. It is civil, well intended and made on appropriate page (unlike soapboaxing on article take pages by others). Such comments are typical for many well-intended newbies. They think they can openly discuss any problems, as if they were doing a project at work. Wrong. The user would be better off if he never said this. Why? Because this environment is very far from collaborative, to say the least. Let's see if he will be punished for openly talking. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Homunculus is an SPA

1) Homunculus is a single-purpose account dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy (Alternate, more refined version: Homunculus is an editor with an easily-identifiable pattern of POV-pushing edits within a narrow topic area, which is aimed at advancing a more favourable portrayal of Falun Gong and vilifying the Communist Part of China)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please note that "Falun Gong advocacy" here should be broadly construed, and includes material that is critical of the Communist Party of China, which is the flip side of the same Falun Gong advocacy coin. Colipon+(Talk) 20:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Determining that would require a qualitative analysis of the user's edits and a finding that they promoted Falun Gong or were critical of the CPC in a way that was not supported by reliable sources. How would it work? Would a committee get together and carefully analyze the edits, acquaint themselves extensively with the content matter, and then produce a report showing how the user's edits were not consistent with what reliable sources have to say about the topics in question, and were probably part of a politico-religious agenda? As far as I know there is no precedent for that, and besides, it would obviously be impractical. The effect of such a categorization would be to make a judgement on which views were permissible on Wikipedia and which weren't. Scholars and experts regularly disagree about "content," so to speak. The way this has usually been resolved has been to examine patterns of behavior: to see who is being disruptive, who is attacking and accusing other editors, and who is unwilling to work collaboratively and in good faith. It has not been to divide people into various categories, then sanction them based on those categories. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that ArbCom tends not to actually make statements in their final decision that someone is an SPA. However, as per the archives here, it is proposed in the workshops rather often. Saying nothing one way or another about the technical details about who qualifies as an SPA as per WP:SPA or not, I think it would make more sense to address the perceived pattern of edits than get hung up on technicalities. Like I said, it doesn't seem ArbCom includes this in the final decision often, partially given the pages status as an essay, but it can still be potentially relevant to say it in the workshop, as many have apparently done in the past. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, the topic area in which I edit — mostly 20th-century and contemporary China—is not narrow. It's the same scope as your edits. And no, a quantitative analysis of my contributions cannot be used to make an assessment on the qualitative nature of my edits. Your AE was 5,000 words of bluster, argumentation, distortion and misrepresentation, not "overwhelming evidence" of POV-pushing. I have 4,000 edits to 500 unique pages. I write complete articles, have created dozens of pages, and was the primary author on two GAs, with more on the way. That you would propose this is extraordinary, and says more about you than about me. Homunculus (duihua) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not only the narrow scope, but also the easily identifiable pattern of anti-CCP rhetoric and editorializing very consistent with FLG world-views, that you would find totally absent from edits by say, Ohconfucius (who actually appears mildly anti-CCP), or myself. Therefore, independent of the size of articles you create, their completeness, and the perceived 'narrowness' of your scope etc., if the common purpose for the edits is basically the same, then it would make for a convincing case that the edits serve a purpose other than our project's stated goals, and altogether detrimental to building this encyclopedia.

Moreover, I'll add that it is perfectly fine to edit in a narrow topical area if the purpose of it is encyclopedic and consistent with our goals. One can be a widely-focused single-purpose account, just as one can be a narrowly focused editor-in-good-faith. I have faith that ArbCom will approach these principles with common sense, not sticking to just the letter of the policies. Colipon+(Talk) 15:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate in the analysis of evidence section, but I'll keep it short. To be clear, this section [8], which I wrote, is the kind of thing that you presented in your AE as my "anti-CCP" editorializing. I don't know if you saw it, but my response to your AE is here. I don't have anything more to say on this question. Homunculus (duihua) 15:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Contributing to two "GAs" doesn't excuse bad behavior elsewhere, but I should note that one of these GAs (Bo Xilai), Colipon basically wrote 40% of the pre-GA content, partly to balance your biases, and maintained primary authorship of the article for years. Plus, GA reviews are not comprehensive when it comes to bias; they are completed by a single user. By contrast, Ohconfucius wrote a featured article, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, which went through a rigorous review process. A large part of TSTF's "evidence" against Ohc consists of Ohc trying to recover the carefully established FA-ratified balance against subsequent edits which shifted the bias of the article in favor of Falun Gong's viewpoints. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User who edited 500+ different pages [9] (as Homunculus) can not be considered an SPA. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The number of unique pages edited is a useless metric. Ohconfucius's quantitative analysis shows that an overwhelming majority of both H and TSTF's significant edits in terms of byte count (i.e., not simple typo correction and formatting changes) relate to Falun Gong. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence presented by Ohconfucius did not show that. It's really quite serious to misrepresent editors with the purpose of having them banned or sanctioned. Homunculus (duihua) 04:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, Homunculus and TSTF edit-warred

2) Ohconfucius, Homunculus, and TSTF have engaged in edit-warring

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Falun Gong articles on revert parole

1) Place all Falun Gong articles on revert parole indefinitely, including 'partial reverts', and 're-organization' of articles that removes recently added material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good idea. A large part of the conflict consists of editors (from diverse viewpoints) completely rewriting articles - whether in one big edit as is H's style, or a series of small edits, in Ohc's style. Also, there was an absurd amount of reverting from people who claimed justification from false "consensus" on talk pages, or just "revert - I justified my edits on the talk page!" Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, do not blame subjects. They can be neutrally written. The problem are always contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The articles are already under discretionary sanctions, as per earlier. Also, adding such a requirement would potentially make it such that editors would be afraid to remove some clearly disruptive edits, for fear of violating the sanction.John Carter (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. In a way, I'm trying to strike a balance here, because even a bit of 'tolerance' for disruptive behavior can be an open invite for gaming the system. So I am definitely open to the refinement of such proposals. Colipon+(Talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussions should be summarized and closed by uninvolved users

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is an existing process for this, which is WP:RFC. While, in a sense, I would not necessarily object to this regarding some articles related to this topic, this is a current and developing topic and making such a process obligatory might create some BLP problems in certain instances. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, having participated at a few FLG-related RFCs, they have been woefully inefficient at solving any content related disputes, and rarely is a discussion conclusively 'closed'. Basically, any user can just continue to wiki-lawyer their way out of consensus with any type of rationale they see fit, and act as a sort of filibuster. I've learned this approach from recent discussions at removing recurring items of In The News; an admin, hopefully somewhat knowledgeable in the area, will just have to boldly come in and establish consensus, particularly when one side (or both) is reluctant to even move an inch. Colipon+(Talk) 19:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus indefinite ban

1) Homunculus topic-banned indefinitely from Falun Gong articles, widely construed, including anti-CCP advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No comment on the proposal just yet, but if I may be pedantic this belongs in Remedies. Enforcement provisions are "this is what to do if an editor violates a remedy", and with the Committee's recent motions custom provisions are essentially deprecated anyway. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As overwhelming evidence from my AE case and the 'user analysis' by Ohconfucius reveal, Homunculus is an SPA dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy, including all manners of criticism against the CCP, and this pattern is consistent in the vast majority of articles edited by this user. Colipon+(Talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Moved here by arb, please keep the format consistent. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

TSTF narrowly-construed ban

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No comment on the proposal just yet, but if I may be pedantic this belongs in Remedies. Enforcement provisions are "this is what to do if an editor violates a remedy", and with the Committee's recent motions custom provisions are essentially deprecated anyway. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While the majority of this user's substantive edits are Falun Gong-related and his editing patterns reflect persistent pro-Falun Gong advocacy, he has made constructive edits consistent with the goals of Wikipedia to articles about philosophers, and as such this can be seen as a 'mitigating circumstance'. It does not harm the encyclopedia for this user to continue his work in areas unrelated to Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Moved here by arb, please keep the format consistent. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

No-tolerance policy

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 attempts to POV-push in any form whatsoever; to be reported at first instance of abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an enforcement proposal still under development; I am thinking about the greater context... previous ARBFLG ruling has failed to maintain NPOV and a constructive editing environment at Falun Gong articles, and problematic editing will likely continue despite targeted bans of certain users; sockpuppets and meatpuppets are bound to appear, since, much like other NRMs such as Scientology, real-world stakes for Falun Gong's polished image on Wikipedia is extremely high. I will do some more research on previous arbitration cases to see what remedies are available in this regard. Colipon+(Talk) 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Interesting idea, but I think blocks/bans of such length are pretty likely going to fairly common anyway on a topic which had been placed under discretionary sanctions before the current arbitration began. Certainly, anyone previously involved would likely be subject to fairly strict sanctions should they prove necessary. Also, this is probably already pretty much possible through Arbitration Enforcement, I think. And, while the comparison to Scientology is a good one, Scientology is figured to currently have maybe 30,000 or so followers worldwide, according to Janet Reitman's recent book. It also has so far as I can tell few if any outsiders really interested in promoting its cause. I think the number of adherents (of some sort) of FG, and the number of people seeking to promote its cause, or use it for their own purposes, is probably much higher. At this point, much as I hate saying it, I think maybe placing the articles relating directly to FG under indefinite hardlocks with edits to the article only possible by an uninvolved admin might be called for. To say I dislike that idea is understatement, but at least for a while it might be one of the few options that might work. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters, I think all Falun Gong articles, as well as select few 'sensitive' articles which may be frequented by FLG activists (Jiang Zemin, Bo Xilai, Propaganda in the PRC, Organ transplantation in the PRC), should be at least semi-protected. I noticed that not even the 'main' Falun Gong article is under such protection. Colipon+(Talk) 21:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the viability of a proposal that suggests a zero-tolerance policy towards "POV-pushing." How does one define that? Virtually any edit, with the exception of minor ones or stylistic changes, could potentially be interpreted as representing a point of view.

@ John, as a general comment, I'm not sure that comparisons to Scientology are the most apt in this circumstance. This is not merely a question of a new religious movement trying to advance particular representations. It is a new religious movement against which a very powerful government is engaged in a significant, global campaign of suppression and "struggle" (to quote Chinese authorities). My experience is that vandalism and abuse to Falun Gong pages occurs far more frequently by editors who are antagonistic towards Falun Gong (this is true of all confirmed sockpuppets I have encountered on these pages, for instance). Generally it is easily dealt with through existing remedies.

I am not opposed to protecting or semi-protecting all these pages—it would reduce the need to patrol for vandals—but I haven't seen any evidence that it's necessary at the current time. With the exception of new editors (and one of the parties named in this dispute), everyone else tends to be quite circumspect about making significant or potentially controversial changes. Already, the norm on the Falun Gong articles is to discuss proposed edits before making them and to attempt to establish consensus or agreement. Homunculus (duihua) 21:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I had thought that my comment above made it clear that I thought there were significant differences between Scientology and FG. I thought I even pointed them out, although, evidently, not clearly enough. Or, I suppose, alternately, the opportunity to soapbox just couldn't be passed up. I acknowledge I haven't really dealt with the articles much lately, so it may be true that sockpuppet POV pushers might be dealt with otherwise, although they may not be the only POV pushers. The one advantage to full protection, however, would be ending edit warring and ensuring that chagnes were agreed upon. In a previous Macedonia dispute here, ArbCom selected a group of highly regarded independent editors to make a short term decision about a matter, based on arguments put forward by those who disagreed about it. Something like that might work here. Alternately, some sort of ArbCom approved dispute resolution process could be started here, as has been done before with, for instance, WP:RFC/AAT. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I think your proposals would be fine if we deem that it's necessary—there's nothing objectionable about ensuring consensus for changes, or with initiating a dispute resolution processes. But as I said, most editors already apply on a consensus model. Homunculus (duihua) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Shrigley

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view and undue weight

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No objections, this is reasonable. Homunculus (duihua) 21:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Advocacy

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All parties seem to agree on this principle and on their own adherence to it, even if they accuse others of violating it. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Support the basic idea, though there are different ways to phrase the same principle. This might better be classified under NPOV, or something.Homunculus (duihua) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Biographies of living people

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Colipon’s evidence highlighted BLP as a concern for Jiang Zemin and Bo Xilai. At AE, Colipon highlighted BLP’s applicability to John Liu. TSTF’s AE evidence applied BLP to Sima Nan, and Homunculus’s evidence applied it to Gail Rachlin, while Homunculus was warned in accordance with BLPSE for his editing. Suffice it to say, BLP seems to be a concern for all parties in this dispute. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the most problematic BLP article right now is probably John Liu, who is a politician running for office in the United States. Colipon+(Talk) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A large part of Ohconfucius’s, Colipon’s, and TheSoundAndTheFury’s evidence concerns allegations of sustained POV editing. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Single-purpose accounts

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Counterproposal to Colipon’s “zero-tolerance” measure. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with H and TSTF as single-purpose accounts if their edits were sufficiently neutral that nobody could divine POV bias. However, the apparent narrow focus of their accounts is an aggravating factor to the “POV advocacy”. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Expert editors

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In light of the “finding of fact” that Homunculus has a professional COI. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fair criticism

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mostly an affirmation that Colipon’s proposals for some kind of moderated edit regime around Falun Gong pages are not inappropriate soapboxing, but constructive dialogue about Wikipedia as a project. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

9) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mostly a response to H’s attacks against other editors (e.g. [10] “Another editor (who does not exactly have clean hands with respect to this namespace—blocks for edit warring, warnings for outside canvassing...) has commented.... I have never been sanctioned or blocked, which is more than could be said for either of the two editors who have argued for my ban.”)

I don't want to get into an analysis of evidence here, but the comment you're quoting was made in the appropriate forum. In an AE hearing, it's fair game to point out if someone has been blocked or banned in the past, or if they don't have clean hands. Homunculus (duihua) 21:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unclean hands, yes, but the big red warning on top of AE states, "Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still assume good faith.... Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted". Editors should perhaps apply a higher standard of civility to the arbitration family of pages. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gaming the system

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Partially a response to H and TSTF’s cooperative reverting in my evidence analysis, and ‘patrolling’ in Colipon’s evidence. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Users religious background and neutrality

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I articulate a similar principle in my proposals above, though with one difference: this standard applies both to people with a religious interest in the topic, and those with a nationalist or ethnic interest in the topic. All are welcome, and all should be mindful of adhering to a NPOV.Homunculus (duihua) 21:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The current dispute revolves around various topics related to Falun Gong, its suppression, and its relationship to individuals within the Chinese government.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Persistent disruption

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure of previous arbitration

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In my view, we should be very focused on how to prevent the same failures from occurring again. It is in none of our interests to deal with another FLG arb case in five years. As long as the real-world need exists, Falun Gong advocacy is not just going to go away. We will need to put serious thought into how to go about achieving this. Colipon+(Talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Colipon's goal is to make what he characterizes as "Falun Gong advocacy" go away forever. Again, to be clear, Colipon has effectively defined as a "Falun Gong advocate" anyone who has a legitimate disagreement with him over content in the Falun Gong namespace (ie. at Bo Xilai:Talk#Falun Gong). In his AE, the kind of qualities he identifies as telltale evidence of a "Falun Gong advocate" are people who employ academic sources, or who are discerning in employing academic sources. It does not matter how policy-compliant other editors are, how civil, how broad their scope of editing, how well their edits represent the discourse in reliable sources, or how much good content they produce: if they are active on the Falun Gong namespace and do not adhere to the "right" point of view, they are to labelled Falun Gong activists and indefinitely banned from all China-related articles. It appears to me that the users are seeking to craft principles that would have the permanent effect of making a particular point of view verboten on Wikipedia. Nevermind that it may be the point of view that aligns with the best reliable sources on the subject.Homunculus (duihua) 12:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Homunculus's history

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The phrase “de facto media alliance” comes from H’s own edits: c.f. [11][12].

She has edited 500 articles and created over a dozen... I don't know how it can be said that she has "a limited number of contributions to other topics." These proposals are really something. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, this is really getting out of hand. I edit on topics related to China. That's a very broad topic area. Homunculus (duihua) 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't edit topics related to Chinese cuisine or calligraphy. You have previously stated that: "I am more interested in the political aspects of the Falungong issue."[13] and have admitted that you don't edit articles outside "Chinese politics and history"[14] (in this comment you also claim, "My interest in editing the Falun Gong namespace is academic; I am an expert in comparative Chinese politics, state-society relations and human rights.") There are plenty of editors who edit even on Chinese political issues and don't touch Falun Gong once. Since your registration, you have been involved in every significant discussion about Falun Gong on talk pages, RFCs, and AEs, and little else (cf. Ohconfucius's analysis). Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Homunculus has a conflict of interest

5) Homunculus has confirmed that they have professional interest in the topic,[15] and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has compromised collaborative editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The relevant quote from the diff: [16] “[M]y real life sometimes overlaps with my editing interests on Falun Gong and other issues. I work as a research analyst focused on China, and I sometimes publish in scholarly journals and newspapers on issues related Falun Gong... A number of the scholars and the journalists whose names appear as reliable sources on Falun Gong and other contemporary China-related pages are people I know in real life. I also know (and like) both Falun Gong practitioners and Chinese government officials in real life. My experiences bias me in certain ways.... I’ve come to know several Falun Gong practitioners, including some who have been imprisoned and tortured (as well as their lawyers).... I respect and even admire them, and respect their right to dignity and expression.... the notion that Falun Gong adherents in China are not mistreated....well, I find this unsettling at a personal level” Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear where the interests are supposed to conflict. Which interest of Homunculus's conflicts with Wikipedia's principles? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the conflict of interest policy is that it is not considered a conflict of interest for experts or scholars to edit articles related to their field of expertise. In either case, insofar as this may be a conflict of interest, I've declared it openly. No evidence has been presented that my professional affiliations have compromised my ability to engage in collaborative editing (I don't think there's any evidence at all that I don't engage in collaborate editing). Homunculus (duihua) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You say yourself that "My experiences bias me in certain ways", and the direction of the bias can be discerned by your subsequent statement, "[I] respect [Falun Gongers'] right to dignity and expression" and your apparent declaration that you cannot emotionally detach yourself from your edits, "the notion that Falun Gong adherents in China are not mistreated....well, I find this unsettling at a personal level". Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you seem to have misquoted me and altered the meaning of my words. Second, the very next sentence was "I don’t let personal disagreements stop me from trying to collaborate with these editors, or prevent me from having civil discussions on the content." My editing history provides proof of this: even when working with editors who hold profoundly different personal opinions, I strive to be fair, civil, and content-oriented. It is valuable for all editors to try to be aware of their personal biases, and be mindful of how they might be affected by those biases, particularly in content disagreements. I try to do this, and try to be open about where I think my judgement may be somehow colored. Homunculus (duihua) 03:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Homunculus's 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It'd have to be shown that her editing gave undue weight according to the weight accorded to the various viewpoints in reliable sources. In other words, you're asking for judgement on a question of content. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for a judgment on a question of Homunculus's behavior. To say that H "added undue weight about Falun Gong on Bo Xilai" might be a content judgment, but to note that the sweep of H's edits serve to aggrandize information about the "persecution of Falun Gong" on peripherally-related subjects is a conduct judgment. The statement about undue weight could be adjusted, but the key is the consistent unbalancing of articles' POV in one direction. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence of what you allege. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Homunculus's conduct

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).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is based on the diffs you presented on the evidence page of "personal attacks." As I wrote on the evidence page, with the exception of the very first comment (which I retracted and apologized for), I don't think anything else constitutes a personal attack. If the arbitrators reviewing those diffs feel differently, I would hope they could let me know so I can improve. Homunculus (duihua) 22:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This principle does not mention "personal attacks", which might have a stricter meaning under WP:NPA than in normal English usage, but "uncivil comments and unsupported allegations of bias and wrongdoing", which are certainly shown by my evidence. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Homunculus previously admonished

8) Homunculus was previously admonished by an administrator for violating the biography of living persons policy.[17][18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Umm, wasn't that an honest mistake that she later explained and apologized about? Homunculus may be able to clarify briefly. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I made a stupid but honest mistake of writing that a Chinese official was "found guilty" rather than "indicted," and I corrected it as soon as it was pointed out. Also this was a year and a half ago, and I learned from the error to exercise greater caution. Relevant diffs here: [19] and the admin noting that the concern was adequately alleviated: [20] Homunculus (duihua) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This finding of fact would not be necessary and discarded on grounds of time if H's subsequent edits to BLPs were found unobjectionable on grounds of NPOV, V, and NOR, but unfortunately these concerns have come up again in the evidence around H's editing of pages like John Liu, Bo Xilai, and Jiang Zemin. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is really extraordinary. No evidence has been presented that I have breached NPOV, V, or NOR on any or these pages. No one other than yourself, Colipon, or Ohconfucius has declared my edits to these pages objectionable. I wrote most of the article on Bo Xilai, and (whether deserved or not), it achieved GA status. The content I wrote at John Liu was scrupulously cited to eminently reliable sources, and I actually fixed BLP errors. I had concerns that I may have given too much weight to criticisms, and I noted that concern on the talk page, and sought another editors help to balance it out. Before that could happen, I was effectively driven away from the page by yourself and Colipon. I really hope the Arbs look at this. The extent to which you are misrepresenting me is just incredible. Homunculus (duihua) 04:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is patently false that "No one other than yourself, Colipon, or Ohconfucius has declared my edits to these pages objectionable". Both User:Ferox Seneca[21] and User:Jayen466[22] expressed discomfort at how much you wanted to expand the "Bo Xilai as a ruthless persecutor of Falun Gong" meme; the latter explicitly noted the lack of Falun Gong coverage in reliable sources on Bo. Also, the comment[23] you seem to recast as having "driven you away from the page" was one where I pointed out that the sole editor you "sought... help to balance out" your self-admitted excessive criticism was... another editor who exclusively added negative content, including content which you acknowledge as BLP violations! Your behavior in this incident would then seem to violate your own proposed principle about "reinforc[ing] disruptive behavior by others on the basis of shared philosophical or ideological inclinations".

It is also patently false that "No evidence has been presented that [Homunculus has] breached NPOV, V, or OR on any [of] these [BLP] pages". To quote from the AE case-as-evidence[24] concerning you:

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.

And to excerpt Colipon's evidence.

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: [25].

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: [26]

• Using emotionally-charged language and imagery, examples include "persecution", "genocide", "torture" ([27] vs. [28])
• 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,"

The extent to which you are shooting yourself in the foot with these easily falsifiable blanket denials is just incredible. Shrigley (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Homunculus, I do not suggest you respond to this. This isn't the place for discussing these content issues. It will be clear to people who look at the diffs that Shrigley has misrepresented the matter here. These proposal sections have been misused enough at this point. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

TheSoundAndTheFury's history

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

TheSoundAndTheFury's editing

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. That cannot be reasonably perceived. It is a question of the balance accorded to various views in reliable sources. My edits broadly reflect what the most reliable sources say about the topics that I edit, and I edit from different points of view on different topics. All I've done is edit according to my reading of the literature, and I've edited honestly and fairly. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Though this user definitely has a history of polemical emotive edits aimed at the CCP [29] [30] [31] [32], but from my analysis of his contributions to Falun Gong above, this user's edits seem more 'pro-Falun Gong' than they are 'anti-CCP', so I think the phrasing can be altered somewhat. Colipon+(Talk) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You have linked to my additions of the research of Ralph Thaxton, a scholar who did in extensive work, documented in his nearly 500 page book that I read, based on interviews with dozens of survivors of the GLF and archival research. You are describing my addition of his assessment of the Great Leap Forward as "polemical emotive." Are you saying that you believe Ralph Thaxton to be a polemical and emotive scholar, and that I was wrong to add his research to Wikipedia? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There were hundreds of other quotes which could have chosen from that book... simply because it is cited to an RS does not make the edit any less disruptive. You can judge by tone, emotive phrasing, selectiveness, over-use of quotations etc., that the edit's purpose is advocacy rather than encyclopedic interest. Colipon+(Talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Colipon: this is why we discuss things. I don't care about those edits and I don't seek to defend them; I was very new to Wikipedia when I made them. My point is this: if it was brought to my attention on the talk page that my edits were problematic for such-and-such reason, I would listen, and I would discuss it, and I would compromise. Maybe some parts of the additions would remain, while other parts would be refactored, or whatever. I'm happy to talk about this stuff. If disagreement with my edits was brought up on the talk page, I would not suggest that the editor who pointed out their disagreement with my additions was doing so for some ulterior motive. I have always been willing to discuss what is the best way to present the material in reliable sources. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Homunculus topic-banned

1) Homunculus is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese government, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Homunculus banned

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Homunculus admonished

3) Homunculus is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

TheSoundAndTheFury topic-banned

4) TheSoundAndTheFury is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to Falun Gong and the Chinese government, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

TheSoundAndTheFury warned

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I include TSTF’s sharp-tempered comments in this case as worthy of warning. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I have come across as sharp-tempered in these exchanges. Whatever the outcome, I will do my best to be more receptive, tolerant, and not as sharp-tempered. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions

6) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since there are already sanctions for the Falun Gong topic area, and since this case has had a significant amount of Falun Gong material spilling over into the broader Chinese politics area. Shrigley (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In my view, Falun Gong activists' interests in Chinese politics is quite limited: they only focus on their 'pet subjects' like officials they accuse of genocide (Bo Xilai, Jiang Zemin, Luo Gan, Zhou Yongkang), "propaganda in the PRC", "Thought reform in the PRC", legal framework of the PRC, "organ transplants in the PRC", "human rights torch relay", and other such generally polemical articles consistent with their "Nine Ccommentaries" and advocacy pamphlets. They would generally not show interest towards articles somewhat removed from these topics, such as human rights in Tibet, Uyghur unrest, Wang Yang, or even Deng Xiaoping. Thus having this spill over to Chinese politics in general may be overreaching. Colipon+(Talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tend to agree with Colipon here. The number of pages which could be "broadly interpreted" as relating to the CCP government is pretty enormous, and the number of issues of any real interest to this subject rather small in comparison. Narrowing it perhaps to actions or individuals of the CCP who have had substantive impact on FG might be a bit better, but it too has problems, given the potential vagueness of any wording I can think of. Having said that, if the wording issue can be resolved, that might work better. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Example 4

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of My very best wishes' evidence

Confucius Institutes edits were not an "edit war"

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:

1. PCPP (6 January 2012),
2. Shrigley (7 January 2012),
3. OhConfucius (11 January 2012),
4. Shtigley (10 February 2012),
5. OhConfucious (13 February 2012).

January edits

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.

February edits

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.

A more holistic analysis of the evidence

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).

To stretch a topic ban beyond credulity

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• @Here is diff by Shrigley. It tells : "engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China". Here is my text (the diff). It tells: "... is an organization funded by Chinese government and allegedly engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions ... The allegations are documented in multiple RS, and words “Falun Gong” appear in this article several times." Hence Shrigley starts his quotation of me directly after word "allegedly". Such selective quotation to "prove" something is totally inappropriate. I do not know anything about Shrigley, but I can only imagine what kind of "evidence" he provided to Arbcom. Please note that whole his Evidence section consists of selective quotations out of context. I probably would not even bother to read it. As about his another point, there is plenty of edits here which can be qualified as edit warring. But edit warring was not my point. My point was topic bans violations by PCPP, and this is not my conclusion. That was conclusion by several uninvolved AE administrators, as follows from the diffs in my Evidence section. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of TheSoundAndTheFury's evidence against Shrigley

Confucius Institutes dispute resolution

TSTF cites as evidence [33] 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.[34][35][36]

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. [37][38][39] 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[40] and accused him of "pro-Chinese government editing".[41]

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.[42][43]

Bo Xilai mountain of a molehill

TSTF links to [44] 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,[45] I replied[46] 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([47] specifically) of the Bo Xilai talk page where a self-identified FLG member[48] and recognizably disruptive editor[49] 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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bad faith assumptions

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure how you can interpret a comment clearly directed at one person to be directed at people in general. The first sentence of Shrigley's comment does appear to be a veiled threat to get Homunculus banned, but I don't see that it's directed at anyone else, nor can I find a personal attack or any of the allegations you're claiming are there. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To avoid confusing matters, could you post replies to comments in the "Comment by parties" section below rather than refactoring your original post? Thanks. And yes, I read the comment in the diff you posted, there's little need to repost it here. I'm not saying it was appropriate, you'll note I considered the first sentence to be a veiled threat. What I am saying is that I feel that your interpretation of the comment is not supported by what the comment actually says. How I interpret "Here's a horrifying excerpt..." onward is an explanation of why he feels Coliphon's idea won't work; to paraphrase, bad PR for Falun Gong == no money. I do not see this as an accusation that specific editors are receiving that money, and am somewhat confused how you'd come to that conclusion. I think the "idealogical war" comment is simply a continuation of those observations. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm not entirely sure what was meant by that statement. My reading of it was that the first part of the statement was directed at me, but the latter part of the comment was directed at what Shrigley called "Falun Gong activists." I have only very recently been assigned that label, so I assume that he was referring to other editors involved in the thread, and/or that this was a general statement about Falun Gong editors. The suggestion was that "Falun Gong and its NGOs allies of convenience" are engaged in a campaign to "suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia" in order to procure or maintain U.S. government subsidies. I think this could reasonably be interpreted as an insinuation that that certain editors in the Falun Gong namespace are editing Wikipedia for the purpose of procuring U.S. government subsidies. I do not know what U.S. government subsidies are being referred to, but this does seem like a very unproductive and rather serious accusation of bad faith, whoever the target was. Homunculus (duihua) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To Hersfold: my first sentence was not a threat to get Homunculus banned. My comment about the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" was an allusion to an AE case against PCPP, wherein H used that phrase to argue against PCPP's alleged interpretation of NPOV. I was replying to a post where H said that "the page was stable and the discussions civil for a good long while before PCPP returned". Therefore my first sentence was a complaint that H's lauded "stability" of the Falun Gong page relied on the banning of a user who is seen as representing one side of the dispute, rather than genuine multiparty consensus.

As for the allegation that I was accusing specific Wikipedians of paid advocacy, that is an impossible reading of my comment. The grammatical subject of the sentence is "Falun Gong"; both H and TSTF deny that they belong to Falun Gong, and I have never accused them of belonging to that organization. I didn't need to make any great "assumption" to arrive at a simple corollary from the reliably-sourced statement about the real-world implications of Falun Gong's image on Wikipedia. I wasn't even soapboxing, because H and I were discussing a proposal from Colipon for third-party mediation of the article, and I was explaining why I thought such a proposal might not work.

TSTF, I don't think it's useful for you to conflate my statements with those of Ohconfucius and Colipon, by using phrases like "claims by Shrigley et al". This seems to be indicative of a battleground "us vs. them" mentality. I did note that Ohc and Colipon's evidence charged him with being an SPA, but can you point out a diff where I myself unambiguously mark H as a "Falun Gong activist or meatpuppet"? You seem to have this problem of attributing statements to me which I attribute to others, such as in your evidence where you say I call Falun Gong a cult, when I actually made reference to other people's judgments of that group. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the precise difference is between calling someone a Falun Gong SPA, or a Falun Gong meatpuppet, or a Falun Gong activist? The three terms have the same effect in discussions. It is the attributing of undesirable motives, and political or religious affiliations, to another editor in order to marginalize them and discredit their contributions. When I raise issue with this, I don't split hairs on the precise term being used because the meaning and effect is the same. When you refer to Falun Gong as "an organization widely regarded as a cult," aren't you simply stating your own views? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, re-reading what Shrigley wrote, I'm not even sure what he meant. I think he was disagreeing with me about my calling for third-party oversight on the articles. Regardless, I think this is now becoming something of a red herring. There are bigger issues at play that should be discussed. Colipon+(Talk) 20:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Shrigley, when you wrote "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," were you or weren't you alluding to other editors? You seem to be saying above that this was just a general comment on Falun Gong, and not a personal attack or assumption of bad faith against other users. If it's a general comment about Falun Gong, then I think MVBW may be right—it's still an example of soapboxing and/or using the talk page as a forum. Comments of this nature have no utility in content discussions.

As an aside: the veracity of these claims themselves may be worth clarifying, as it's come up twice now. I am aware of no reliable source that asserts Falun Gong receives U.S. government (or any other government) subsidies. The closest thing I know of is some technology companies run by Falun Gong adherents who get operating contracts from Voice of America. Aside from that, the Chinese government claims Falun Gong is funded by the U.S. government, Falun Gong says that it's not, and reliable sources have neither proven or disproven the claims.Homunculus (duihua) 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is an unusually poorly sourced comment. One, Shrigley does not directly comment on any other editors, despite that being the clear indication of the comment above. The evidence simply does not support the first claim. Also, the fact that MVBW makes a further conclusion (without any evidence) that the comment is directed at "all editors who do not share his POV" is one which I cannot believe can be necessarily reasonably supported by the evidence. This seems to me to be a possibly/probably concious example of misrepresentation of the comments of others, which seems to me to be itself perhaps more problematic than the edit he is introducing as evidence. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the part of the text that I think My very best wishes finds objectionable: "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." This seems to be saying that Shrigley believes that "Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience" are editing Wikipedia articles "in order to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings" so as to retain "U.S. government subsidies." This is in the context of other claims by Shrigley et al that Homunculus is a single purpose account and a Falun Gong activist or meatpuppet, so I assume that that is who Shrigley is referring to (or, who else? Shrigley may wish to clarify.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, this is WP:SOAP by Shrigley. But I think this is also a personal attack, one that is constantly repeated by this group of users on numerous pages, and it seem to affect other people [50]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of claims of being an SPA

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)

• [51] - seems neutral
• [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] - dissections of content on the page. This is the kind of work I do.
• [58] - delete praise for Falun Gong.
• [59] - delete Li Hongzhi defense of FLG
• [60] - question source, chastise FLG guy
• [61] - add a coercive treatment section.
• [62] - Ask how Falun Gong uses information about the persecution publicly in the West
• [63] - add the word "reportedly"
• [64] - delete praise
• [65] - neutrality
• [66] - question criticism of Falun Gong.
• [67] - defend reduction of persecution information
• [68] - chastise FLG editor
• [69] - again
• [70] - again
• [71] - try to mediate between parties
• [72] - remove assertion of fact favored by FLG
• [73] - soften FLG statements

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

(This section is a response to TSTF's statement above)

TSTF's edits show a consistent pattern of pro-Falun Gong advocacy. Whether we want to call this "SPA" or not is entirely a matter of semantics and in any case irrelevant. What matters is the damage it has done to the encyclopedia.

I fully acknowledge very collegial exchanges between TSTF and myself in the 'early life' of his account, when the previous Falun Gong cabal was still around. At the time, it was favourable for him to set himself apart from the FLG practitioners on the pages, who were all stained with topic bans of one form or another. Under those circumstances, any inkling of a pro-FLG POV would have gotten TSTF sanctioned without fail, as would have exclusively Falun Gong-focused editing. So he carefully treaded the minefield.

TSTF fully 'spread his wings' once the Falun Gong cabal were handed indefinite bans as a result of the PCPP arbitration case in 2011; with the previous cohort of FLG SPAs gone, no one was left to 'defend the Fa' and the articles risked losing the 'balance' that the cabal had worked so hard to engender over the years, so TSTF showed his true colours by stepping into the fray.

Even if we ignore the extenuating circumstances, TSTF's defense falls apart when we examine his diffs more closely. Along with his more recent content contributions in 2012, everything unmistakably paints the picture of a Falun Gong activist.

TSTF makes substantive edits and non-substantive edits to Falun Gong articles. Most of the diffs he presents as 'neutral' were very insignificant, compared to his apparent POV-pushing diffs, which were lengthy, argumentative, and weaselly.

Non-substantive edits:

• For example, this non-substantive edit removed some Falun Gong fluff, which is easy to identify even to a totally uninvolved user. Plus, removing it cannot be considered unfavourable to FLG, as the flowery praise makes it very obvious that the page is written by FLG practitioners.
• The explanation of removing a quote from Li is also relatively insignificant, and this also cannot be construed as unfavourable to FLG, since Li's quotation has been used by some scholars critical of Falun Gong while dissecting the politicized nature of the movement.
• This is a neutralizing-style edit. It's somewhat of a low-hanging fruit though. Again, fairly unsubstantive.
• Ditto, this is a good edit at the time, and it would help his claims of 'neutrality' were he consistent, because inexplicably, TSTF forcefully argues for the He-Luo familial relationship's inclusion here, in tandem with Homunculus. So what exactly did he want?

When we look at substantive edits, a clearer picture emerges:

• Like Falun Gong's "official narrative", TSTF launches into an extremely lengthy wikilawyering session to argue for removal of content critical of Falun Gong: the edit seeks to obfuscate the idea that Falun Gong was 'controversial' prior to the Chinese government ban and isolate all criticism of the practice as a conspiracy by the CCP.
• Here TSTF says he encounters "sourcing irregularities", but if one reads the general discussion surrounding those edits, it is very clear that all of these 'irregular sources' discuss content critical of Falun Gong.
• Another lengthy lawyering session that argues for excising Ostergaard's analysis, which is only mildly skeptical of Falun Gong (you can tell the extreme sensitivities to criticism.)
• Again lawyers to argue, in effect, that Oostergaard is not a great source (see "some sources are more equal than others"), as compared to sources which were somewhat more sympathetic to Falun Gong.
• This comment challenges edits that apparently reduced the emphasis on emotive imagery, a central part of FLG advocacy.
• This edit argues for the term "propaganda" to be used for information that comes out of Chinese government sources.
• Very obviously trying to downplay Falun Gong's more 'controversial' teachings, such as homophobia, race-based heavens, and apocalypse. The same arguments from Falun Gong's official source is seen here. The similarities are striking.
• Looking back, even in the diffs he had selectively chosen for the sake of combating his SPA accusations, his POV-pushing comes off as extremely obvious, if perhaps somewhat civil in tone.

Of course, the vast majority of his substantive edits to Falun Gong were omitted in his defense above. These edits uniformly fit the editing patterns of a Falun Gong activist. Not only does he remove information that can be considered critical of Falun Gong, he is sensitive to even minor alterations to Falun Gong's "preferred narrative". Most alarmingly, his argumentation is effectively identical to those presented by Falun Gong's official website. Where applicable below, I provide the link to Falun Gong's official position to show similarities with TSTF's argumentation.

• This edit says 'activist' left and right: it dresses up esoteric Falun Gong doctrine much in the same way as Falun Gong promotional pamphlets, expounding on its 'moral code'. Note that the majority of these edits directly cite Falun Gong's official website.
• [74] [75] Tag-revert-warring with AgadaUrbanit without even hearing out the user's concerns. (FLG SPAs in the past were extremely sensitive to neutrality tags being placed on articles)
• Edit-warring with what seemed like a student doing a Wikipedia-based project for school on Chinese propaganda. Here again. Notice how the material written by the new user is actually very critical of the Chinese government, but it was still basically removed wholesale because it did not fit Falun Gong's "preferred narrative".
• Despite its 'reliable source', This edit basically acts to inflate Falun Gong's membership figures to an implausible 70 million, a trait typical of NRMs
• Removes reliably sourced apocalyptic teachings of Falun Gong's founder (wikilawyering seen in above diffs), to fit Falun Gong's "preferred narrative". (Elsewhere TSTF has lobbied in favour of Penny as a source, but apparently when the information cited is unfavourable to Falun Gong, suddenly Penny is no longer acceptable)
• Wholesale revert of Falun Gong's politicized nature (something that is an open secret but FLG activists emphatically deny).

• From the analysis above, the fact that TheSound is a Falun Gong activist should be very clear. Given the weight of this evidence, speculation on his real-life identity is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he is a Falun Gong practitioner, a paid lobbyist, an opinionated human rights researcher, a mutinous CCP member looking to defect the regime, or even just an ordinary investment banker with no affiliation at all. None of this is irrelevant if his presence on Wikipedia is detrimental to our project and does not serve our five pillars. I would be extremely surprised if even the most innocent bystander do not see the obvious POV-pushing nature of his edits. Since his primary purpose on Wikipedia is to advocate on behalf of Falun Gong, a topic ban would effectively amount to a site ban.

Colipon+(Talk) 19:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is the precise definition of a conspiracy theory. I remove information on the persecution, and that is because it does not precisely fit Falun Gong's narrative of persecution. A piece of evidence is explained through the lens by which you impute my beliefs. Every new piece of evidence is simply made to fit within that predefined framework. The classification here of activism and SPA behavior, using your own criteria, could very easily be used against yourself. The fixation on the identity and motives of other editors - rather than the forthright discussion of specific content proposals with reference to the most reliable literature - is one of the problems that the initial case was about. And all my edits are explainable in those terms, as I could look at each of my edits and justify them according to the reliable sources, all without insulting anyone or impugning their motives. Of course, once you have decided who I am and divined my motives, all becomes an exercise in justifying that conspiracy. This is in fact one of the main reasons I filed the original AE. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's permitted to introduce new evidence on this page. The clerks may choose to delete some of the above if appropriate. If not, some guidance on acceptable conduct here would be appreciated. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive analysis of these diffs, but I was involved in a lot of the events that transpired, and can only say that I think a lot of the summaries Colipon provided appear to be distortions, and he has continued to unreasonably speculate on the editor's motivations and personal beliefs as a way of explaining those edits—even edits that clearly don't fit the narrative. I really don't think this is healthy. Homunculus (duihua) 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I make it very clear that it is the persistent pattern of POV-pushing edits that is the most troubling, not speculation of his real-life identity, which I emphasized is irrelevant. Colipon+(Talk) 23:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I dearly hope that whoever is evaluating all this will take a look at some of these diffs. This one, for example [76] is a good representation. I carefully looked through the sources on the page, checked the references, and collegially discussed the problems with them. In hindsight it is clear that the effect of it was to undo many of the distortions of sources and original research that had been put on the page, but that is only a byproduct of the work I did. My methodology in examining sources carefully and looking for accurate depictions according to the most reliable sources is sound and defensible. Anyone reading that diff, which you have provided here as evidence of how I am a Falun Gong SPA POV-pusher, should see things very clearly. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to your explanation of this edit, which primarily relies on Falun Gong official sources, and seems like it came right out of a Falun Gong promotional pamphlet. Surely you won't argue that Faluninfo.net is the "best reliable source" for an article dealing with Falun Gong itself. Colipon+(Talk) 01:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should engage in content discussions here, but as I recall that edit was simply removing some unnecessary citation tags (i.e. sources were already supplied) and adding back to the page longstanding information which had been removed without proper discussion. Used judiciously, Falun Gong's texts and advocacy websites are reliable sources for representing official the views of Falun Gong, per WP:SPS. I didn't actually write any of that material, just restored it in an attempt to improve the page. Hope that helps. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Declare Independence

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:

• [77] This much ballyhooed diff shows me arguing against Colipon's proposals for a moderated edit regime on Falun Gong.
• [78][79] Colipon and Ohconfucius vote the opposite way on the AfD of the son of a man with whom Falun Gong has a grudge.
• [80] I criticize Colipon, among other users, for their interpretation of the balance of the reviews on a Falun Gong-promotional dance troupe.

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It takes two WP:GAMErs to tango

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.

Bo Xilai reverts

1. [81] Ohc <-> [82] H
2. [83] Ohc <-> [84] TSTF
3. [85] Ohc <-> [86] H
4. [87] Ohc <-> [88] H

Total reverts: Ohc: 4, H: 3, TSTF: 1.

Cult suicide reverts

1. [89] Ohc <-> [90] HappyInGeneral (banned)
2. [91] Ohc <-> [92] H
3. [93] Ohc <-> [94] H
4. [95] Ohc <-> [96] H
5. [97] Jsjsjs111 <-> [98]
6. Final version <-> [99] H

Total reverts: H: 4, Ohc: 4, HiG: 1, Js: 1

This isn't the forum to present new evidence. Also, I made four edits, not four reverts. I made two reverts in 24 hours, accompanied by a talk page discussion. OhC made 4 reverts in 24 hours. I made another revert days later when an editor restored the contested material without discussion, and exhorted them to discuss, rather than edit war. Homunculus (duihua) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

T-square self-immolation reverts

1. [100] Ohc <-> [101] Zujine (Z)
2. [102] Ohc <-> [103] Z
3. [104] Shrigley <-> [105] Z
4. [106] Ohc <-> [107] Z
5. [108] Festermunk <-> [109] Z
6. [110] Ohc <-> [111] Z
7. [112] Ohc <-> [113] H

Total reverts: Zujine: 6, Ohc: 5, H: 1, Shrigley: 1, Festermunk: 1

I think I'm going to need to write something up documenting the manner in which evidence is being misrepresented here. I've looked through the history of this page myself. Many of Z's changes were not reverts: in many case he/she was adding and adjusting content based on talk page discussions. Ohc made many reverts and effective reverts that are not listed here. And what's more, this does not account for the context. Z was actively discussing changes on the talk page, trying to engage Ohc, and raising clear and specific content issues. I think Zujine probably discussed every single change he made. Ohc was ignoring these comments and insulting the other editor while making major, unilateral reverts to the page with no discussion. That's the difference, and this applies to all the counts provided here: not only can they not really be trusted (eg. you're calling edits reverts when they were not), but they ignore the context. For instance, any time I revert someone, I provide an explanation on the talk page or their user page. In most cases, I don't even revert: I'll preemptively start a talk page discussion in an attempt to demonstrate to them why I believe their edits were not constructive, and then allow them to make modifications based on the outcome of that discussion. When Ohconfucius edit wars, he often does so with no discussion, and ignores the pleas of other editors to talk about the content issues (for instance, he characterized Zujine's talk page threads at this page as "moans" to be ignored). I'm not saying that edit warring under any circumstance is justified, but the context and surrounding behavior matters. Homunculus (duihua) 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Shen Yun reverts

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.

1. [114] H <-> [115] Gw2005
2. [116] TSTF <-> [117] IP
3. [118] TSTF <-> [119] Antilived
4. [120] TSTF <-> [121] IP
5. [122] H <-> [123] Ohc
6. [124] H <-> [125] Ohc
7. [126] TSTF <-> [127] Shrigley (S)
8. [128] H <-> [129] S

Total reverts: H: 4, TSTF: 4, IP: 2, Shrigley: 2, Ohc: 2, Antilived: 1

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unfortunately, I don't feel that this is really fair. Look at the dates. Also, my edits really were in good faith. In one diff I remove material that had no author name and was not a usable source; in another case I revert material that I thought had been gratuitously deleted. The dates are January 4, Jan. 25, Jan. 26, and April 23. This is not edit warring and I did not plan or coordinate my edits with anyone else. Unfortunately, I feel that this accusation is not fair. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Keep the solution in mind

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just so Homunculus does not continue abusing my quotation about "unwaveringly civil": it was a value-neutral remark that was meant to demonstrate how the mode of Falun Gong advocacy has changed and adapted to new circumstances. If one goes back into the editing history of previous Falun Gong SPAs, who often abused the WP:AGF in the same way H is doing now, one would see that HappyInGeneral and Asdfg12345 were both very civil in discussions. I am happy, though, that some determined AE reviewers stepped up to the plate and saw through their civil facade, and was brave enough to ban these users even though they themselves initiated much of the arbitration-related drama, and I forsee a similar outcome here. Colipon+(Talk) 00:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, I agree. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@ John, I suppose this is just an area where we'll have to agree to disagree. In a perfect world, the evidence phase would be used to present clear evidence. Then the workshop phase would be used to help editors clarify issues and move beyond the dispute. We would be able to discuss things calmly, engage in some self-reflection, consider how we may have behaved inappropriately, seek to understand the perspectives of others, and agree to basic principles, determinations of fact, and remedies. My understanding of the workshop page is that it should not be a forum for the parties to take off the gloves and duke it out, maligning and misrepresenting perceived opponents in order to try to get them banned, and thereby permanently damaging their relationships. Maybe that is how the process normally goes—I'm not sure—but that's not me. That's not how I've conducted myself on article space, and it's not how I will conduct myself now. Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would question this myself as it specifically applies here. We are here because certain involved editors brought a matter to WP:AE because they found the conduct of other editors such that arbitration enforcement was required. Once there, the admins who monitor the AE page saw that the conduct of some parties involved was such that full Arbitration seemed called for, and the editors involved seem to have agreed. So, basically, we got here because some parties did not assume AGF or apparently show willingness to conduct themselves according to guidelines. It seems to me unreasonable for us to now try to metaphorically kiss and make up, and certainly unreasonable to do so before the Arbitrators determine what to do here. Requests for arbitration are basically like court rooms. We are supposed to present evidence to the judges, and in many cases that evidence will be damaging to some of the parties involved. That is the nature of the proceedings. Maybe, after the Workshop phase is ended, this might make sense. But for now it is unreasonable and ultimately likely counterproductive for anyone to "pull their punches" because they might offend someone. It is I believe well too late to worry about that. However, at the end of the workshop phase, and certainly after the decision, then it is certainly reasonable for those who remain to acknowledge that the Arbitrators have acted reasonably, which I am sure they will, and all sanctions required are given out. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)