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:

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:

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:

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[1][2][3]. 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:

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:

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:

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 [4] 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)

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 [5]. 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 [6], 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)

Comment by others:

User who edited 500+ different pages [7] (as Homunculus) can not be considered an SPA. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 18 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:

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:Example 3

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 [8] 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.[9][10][11]

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 [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Header&diff=453758395&oldid=450414925 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. [12][13][14] 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[15] and accused him of "pro-Chinese government editing".[16]

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.[17][18]

Bo Xilai mountain of a molehill

TSTF links to [19] 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,[20] I replied[21] 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([22] specifically) of the Bo Xilai talk page where a self-identified FLG member[23] and recognizably disruptive editor[24] 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 [25]. 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)

• [26] - seems neutral
• [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] - dissections of content on the page. This is the kind of work I do.
• [33] - delete praise for Falun Gong.
• [34] - delete Li Hongzhi defense of FLG
• [35] - question source, chastise FLG guy
• [36] - add a coercive treatment section.
• [37] - Ask how Falun Gong uses information about the persecution publicly in the West
• [38] - add the word "reportedly"
• [39] - delete praise
• [40] - neutrality
• [41] - question criticism of Falun Gong.
• [42] - defend reduction of persecution information
• [43] - chastise FLG editor
• [44] - again
• [45] - again
• [46] - try to mediate between parties
• [47] - remove assertion of fact favored by FLG
• [48] - soften FLG statements

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: