User:Homunculus/Falun Gong 2 AE submission

Responses to Colipon

Following are my responses to Colipon's statements in the AE he filed against me. It closed before I had a chance to respond. Some of this is responses to commentary, others specific rebuttals where the evidence presented misrepresented my editing behavior or the context of my edits.

• “I will not attempt to 'out' this user because I respect his privacy, and in any case feel that his real-life identity or beliefs are irrelevant given the weight of evidence against him.” —Colipon’s AE against me is premised on the idea that I am a meatpuppet or the reincarnation of a topic-banned Falun Gong editor (whose real-life identity seems to imply he knows?). I am not. This is my first and only Wikipedia account. I don’t edit on behalf of any individual or group. I don’t identify as being on one “side” of this issue, and I think that the dichotomous paradigm or pro- or anti-Falun Gong is silly reductionism. I consider Wikipedia to be a serious intellectual project, and I try to contribute to it holistically and in a nuanced manner.

• ”Homunculus and TSTF are Falun Gong activists. H is a single-purpose account.” —This, like the assertions that I am a “meatpuppet” or “sockpuppet,” is an exceptional claim, and it demands exceptional evidence. Restating the assertion emphatically will never amount to exceptional evidence.

• "here Homunculus staunchly defends Olaf's contributions.” – This is presented as evidence of sockpuppetry. I don’t see it. I didn’t agree with Olaf any more ‘staunchly’ than I did with, say, SilkTork in the same conversation. Colipon’s contribution to this thread is interesting though.[1]

• ”Between Homunculus and TheSound, the former is more problematic, since he has contributed more substantive written material to articles” — contributing substantial content to Wikipedia is not a problematic behavior. I write good content, and I write quite a lot of it.

• "Because he sticks obsessively to the letter of civility guidelines, he may look prima facie as a good-faith editor…Homunlucus is civil in discussions, has an in-depth understanding of Wikipedia policies, and is meticulous about sourcing." — These are good things. Colipon presents them as bad things.

• “Homunculus uses emotional terminology reminiscent of Falun Gong's own literature”— I try to take my cues from the language used by reliable sources, not from Falun Gong literature. Here’s an example of how I’ve determined this in the past.[2]

• “When he is not editing Falun Gong, he engages in content that disparages the Chinese state, the Communist Party, or sings praise for groups that carry a grievance against the regime.” — For a representative scope of my editing, I recommend taking a look at the articles I’ve created.[3] The editor presented a selection of my edits that ostensibly point to an anti-Chinese government bias. The opposite narrative might be constructed by presenting a different sample of my edits. In any event, the more salient question is whether the content I write on these topics is verifiable and representative of reliable sources per WP:NPOV. I think it is. Sometimes on it is unfortunately impossible to offer exculpations to the Chinese government.

• “He throws tangential and emotive accusations at any skeptical users” — I don’t think this has ever happened. There are no diffs provided as evidence. Here are recent examples of what I’ve recently written to “skeptical users” in this namespace:[4] [5][6]

• ”He editorializes in favour of Falun Gong in every subject area he touches” —Hyperbole is not evidence.

• “Most irritating, he injects Falun Gong content into articles that are otherwise unrelated to Falun Gong (such as Expo 2010, "anthroprogenic by death toll", Bo Xilai etc)." — If the material is notable and supported by reliable sources, it belongs there. Also, I wasn’t the one who originally added material on Falun Gong to these pages, though I have objected when I found that reliably sourced material was deleted or misrepresented without explanation.

• “The subjects that Homunculus edits mirror exactly those most heavily promoted by the Falun Gong newspaper the Epoch Times.” — Insofar as this is true, the same could be said of any user who works on topics related to contemporary China, including Colipon. The Epoch Times is a China-focused newspaper. Both Colipon and Ohconfucius seem to be somewhat fixated on comparing the topics I edit to topics reported on by the Epoch Times. Here they are working together to assemble a quantitative analysis of my edits based on this comparison[7], and Ohconfucius making rather strange insinuations about the Epoch Times on my userpage.[8] This is odd. Do they realize that the Wall Street Journal or New York Times also report on Chinese politics? Those are the newspapers I read every day, and those are the kinds of sources I cite in articles. I don’t even read the Epoch Times unless it shows up in Google News or something.

• “Homunculus represents par excellence the dualistic world view of Falun Gong practitioners” — I don’t possess a dualistic worldview. Also, it's not very prudent to toss around categorical statements like this about the world view of an entire group of people, as though it were monolithic.

• “Once Asdfg was banned, Homunculus emerged at the helm of the Falun Gong cabal.” — This isn’t a battle, and there isn’t a cabal.

• “Do not be fooled by Falun Gong advocates' insistence on "reliable sources". David Ownby, foremost expert on Falun Gong, writes that in recent years Falun Gong devotees have begun borrowing on academic works as a front to legitimize their cause, and that approach is in full swing on Wikipedia.” —It seems the editor is saying that the use of academic sources is evidence of being a Falun Gong advocate.

• “[H insists] that 'some sources are more equal than others': manifested on talk pages as 'some people are "not experts" in a specialized field.'” — I believe in trying to use high quality sources in accordance with their field of expertise, particularly on very contentious or complex issues, or where apparently RS disagree. I see this as a way of ensuring long-term stability of pages and reducing the potential for partisan edit warring. I don’t understand why it this would be viewed as a negative.

• “H filibustered Ashcraft and Gallagher[9]...” — Filibustering occurs when an editor presses their point against consensus. There was no need to me to filibuster here, as consensus was on my side. I was explaining the issue as a courtesy to another editor. Namely, I was explaining why a three-page overview of Falun Gong (in a volume edited by Ashcraft & Gallagher) should not be used as the authoritative source to describe a complex aspect of Falun Gong eschatology. This is especially so since other, more established scholars in this field had devoted full journal articles and book chapters to the specific question.

• H “has voiced his support for [Ethan] Gutmann[10]” — Ethan Gutmann is an established expert on Falun Gong whose writings and research on the topic is published in multiple reliable sources. He’s not a great source for everything, but in this specific context, his research was germane and reliably published.

• “apparently in H's eyes, Ashcraft & Gallagher's peer-reviewed academic paper is much more problematic than a polemic written by someone at the partisan American think tank Foundation of the Defense of Democracies.” — I don’t think this is an accurate representation, either of my position or of the sources. The appropriateness of sources depends on context.

• ”Lengthy editorializing by at Lei Feng, inserting polemical anti-Communist Party rhetoric.”— I was writing based on reliable sources and reorganizing the page. Other uninvolved editor appeared to agree that the material I added represented the general views of scholars and contributed to the improvement of the article.[11]

• “Gratuitous insertion of Falun Gong content on the article of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin.” — The material is well sourced and notable. “Gratuitous” is a subjective assessment.

• “At List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll, reinforces User Asdfg's edits through insertion of 'quality sources', for which he was warned by admin Timotheus Canens for violating WP:BLPSE.”— I was not warned for adding “quality sources” (what’s the with scare quotes? The source I added was Reuters.) Rather, I made a stupid but honest mistake of writing “found guilty” rather than “indicted.” I fixed it when T. Canens pointed out the error.

• “[12] and [13] edit-warring against me at Sima Nan— I “edit warred” to delete material that violated WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Colipon was involved in previous discussions where this material was shown to be non-compliant with core content policies, so I don’t know why he would edit war over this.

• ”Highlights implication that Gao Zhisheng was detained and tortured simply for writing letters to the Chinese leadership about "sexual abuse against Falun Gong adherents", whereas he had obviously done many other things against the Chinese state.” — The user may not be very familiar with the topic. Gao Zhisheng did many things in his career, but this retribution was a direct result of the letters he wrote on Falun Gong. This was in the source. Chinese authorities themselves admit this.[14]

• “Numerous instances of edit warring at Tiananmen Square Self-immolation: [15] [16] The dedication to altering the balance of this article prior to its TFA was astounding.” — This is a serious accusation that is not supported by the evidence. There are two diffs provided, and this wasn’t edit warring; this was a misunderstanding accompanied by a civil talk page discussion. Also, note the date: these diffs are from April 5. The page was TFA on April 3. I did not touch this article for ten months prior to April 3.

It was not I who tried to alter the balance of the page prior to it becoming TFA. Ohconfucius made dozens of edits the page without discussion prior to TFA[17] and edit warred. His admitted objective was to alter the page’s balance, and Colipon defended his behavior.[18] The user appears to by applying very different standards to different editors.

• “At Shen Yun Performing Arts, diluting criticism, remove criticism from a Buffalo newspaper, diluting criticism from Toronto Star, restoring advertising section, Removal of criticism from Buffalo removal of criticism from Atlanta Journal Constitution.” — These edits (which were discussed) were a response to efforts by Ohconfucius and Shrigley to stack the page with exclusively negative reviews out of proportion to what WP:NPOV calls for. I have never sought to scrub the page of criticism (actually I’ve added criticisms and removed praise[19]), but do care that the article does not become an attack page.

• “The attached lawyering for these appalling edits is seen here.” — I do no know where or how I engage in “lawyering.” There was an edit war, and I used the talk page to diffuse it and establish grounds for consensus.

• “More often than not, an 'outside' editor makes a large edit, and it is scrubbed clean by Homunculus or TheSound within several minutes, without any attempts at discussion.” — I have no recollection of this ever happening, and it would be very out of character for me (I discuss most everything). No diffs were provided as evidence.

• “Lengthy editorializing at "Terrorism in the PRC...with the basic message that the real terrorist in China is the party-state!.” — It is unfortunate that Colipon imputes these motives to me. I took this page from this[20] to this [21] . I think everything I’ve written is supported by and representative of reliable sources, but if that’s not the case, someone should point it out on the article talk page.

• “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.” — I wasn’t editing this page to reflect the perspective of Falun Gong. I was editing based on coverage in the New York Times. This involved adding highly notable, conservative and scrupulously sourced information on fundraising irregularities, and fixing a major BLP error. I explained my concerns about giving undue weight to criticisms on the talk page, and suggested expanding other parts of the page to compensate.[22] I lost my enthusiasm to do so when this happened. [23].

• “The most egregious piece of Homunculus' advocacy work is "Falun Gong outside mainland China"— This article was in rough shape. I greatly expanded and improved this article, doubling its length and more than doubling the number of reliable sources cited. It is now coherent, relatively complete, well referenced, and at least modestly well written. I explained the proposed changes on talk months before making them, and would have been happy to answer any questions about content issues there.

(Colipon highlighted instances where I removed ostensibly critical material and added favorable material. He failed to mention that I also deleted favorable material and added criticisms. The majority of my changes can’t be characterized as either favorable or unfavorable. I won’t go through all of the content issues raised, but here are some):

• “Despite his insistence on "high-quality sources", he evidently does not use the same standard of scrutiny when presenting information critical of the Chinese state, sourcing the following passage from a National Post blog whose contents are no longer available...”— The National Post is a major Canadian national newspaper, and this was a feature-length investigative article written by one of the paper’s senior editors. It’s a reliable source.

• “Full removal of criticism of Falun Gong that links it to controversies: Together these organizations also promote Falun Gong activities, including the Chinese New Year Spectacular, performed by the Falun Gong-affiliated Shen Yun Performing Arts troupe” — This information about these organizations is still in the article. But these are facts, and there is no need to frame them as criticisms or controversies.

• “Removal of discussions on the financial status of Falun Gong practitioners, sourced to David Ownby, which even H says is the "highest-quality" source on Falun Gong” — Removed because I checked the source and could not find the material. If someone pointed me to the source it on the talk page I would be happily reconsider.

• “Homunculus states in his explanation for the edits that he tries to look at the 'bigger picture' and avoid anecdotes. This apparently did not stop him from cherry-picking an example of Chinese government's evil campaign of censorship: Governments and private enterprises have also come under pressure from China to censor media organizations operated by Falun Gong practitioners. In 2008, for instance, French satellite provider Eutelsat suspended its Asian broadcasts of New Tang Dynasty Television in response to pressure from China’s State Administration of Radio, Film and Television.” — I didn’t say avoid anecdotes. I said that lengthy anecdotes should generally be eschewed in favor of broader discussions of trends and themes, with anecdotes used selectively and briefly to illustrate them. In this case, the event received significant coverage in reliable sources, and I described it in one sentence.

• “The Falun Gong cabal can discredit me, but they cannot discredit the diverse opinions from the community.” — Opinions should be discussed constructively, in good faith, and supported by reliable sources.

• “[Users Ohconfucius and Shrigley] should be strongly 'exonerated' from any sanctions, charges, to signal Wikipedia's iron will to crack down on Falun Gong litigation in wiki form.” — Comments of this nature do not instill confidence that Colipon can view this space as anything other than a battleground.