Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Homunculus (talk | contribs) →Homunculus: further comment |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
I’ll quickly address the three specific issues Agada raised against me. |
I’ll quickly address the three specific issues Agada raised against me. |
||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&action=historysubmit&diff=477052478&oldid=477050704], Agada says my edit summary was misleading. I certainly did not intend to mislead, though it’s true that I didn’t describe all the changes in the edit summary. In my defense, I did describe those changes on the talk page, and I believe that most of the editors involved supported those changes. |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&action=historysubmit&diff=477052478&oldid=477050704], Agada says my edit summary was misleading. I certainly did not intend to mislead, though it’s true that I didn’t describe all the changes in the edit summary. In my defense, this was not an "unexplained" removal of sourced content. I did describe those changes on the talk page, both before and after making them, and I believe that most of the editors involved supported those changes. |
||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=next&oldid=477052478] With this edit, I sought to clean up and condense some material. Agada said I misrepresented a source. I didn’t think I did, and I asked for clarification on the talk page. No further explanation was provided by Agada. |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=next&oldid=477052478] With this edit, I sought to clean up and condense some material. Agada said I misrepresented a source. I didn’t think I did, and I asked for clarification on the talk page. No further explanation was provided by Agada. |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
I’ve already wasted a considerable amount of time trying to engage with this editor (for instance, I’ve had to explain why the New York Times is not original research, or why reputable magazines and periodicals are not ‘self-published’). Ultimately I believe this case to be frivolous. However, if the admins believe that there are serious issues here, I will happily provide a more thorough account of my actions. Please let me know if that will be required. [[User:Homunculus|Homunculus]] ([[User talk:Homunculus|duihua]]) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
I’ve already wasted a considerable amount of time trying to engage with this editor (for instance, I’ve had to explain why the New York Times is not original research, or why reputable magazines and periodicals are not ‘self-published’). Ultimately I believe this case to be frivolous. However, if the admins believe that there are serious issues here, I will happily provide a more thorough account of my actions. Please let me know if that will be required. [[User:Homunculus|Homunculus]] ([[User talk:Homunculus|duihua]]) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
'''General comments Regarding my involvement in Falun Gong topics''' |
|||
Another editor (who does not exactly have clean hands with respect to this namespace—blocks for edit warring, warnings for outside canvassing...) has commented that I am merely another “tiresome pro-Falun Gong” editor who likes to “nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC.” I assume that the disciplinary admins reviewing this case have the judgment and experience necessary to determine that comments like this—which are completely devoid of substance or evidence—should be ignored. But just in case, I shall address the points raised: |
|||
* I am not a “pro-Falun Gong” editor. Nor am I am not an “anti-Falun Gong” editor. I furthermore reject that dichotomous paradigm as silly and childish. My interest in editing the Falun Gong namespace is academic; I am an expert in comparative Chinese politics, state-society relations and human rights. I publish on these topics in reliable sources and peer-reviewed journals (I don't cite myself, if anyone is wondering). The objective of my edits to this namespace and others has never been either to antagonize the government of the PRC or to promote Falun Gong, and a look through my editing history would turn up edits that might be construed as favorable to either “side”. Also, in case it wasn't clear, I edit a broad range of subjects related to Chinese politics and history. |
|||
* For several years, Falun Gong-related pages have been the scene of highly contentious edit wars, with nearly all the editors identifying along pro- or anti- Falun Gong battle lines. I have sought to move beyond this by ensuring that content is neutral, complete, and well sourced. I don't resort to personal attacks, or attempt to impugn the motives of other editors, as I believe this would damage the quality of discourse. I believe my presence (and that of a few others) has resulted in these pages becoming better and more stable. I also believe that if I were topic banned, the battleground would probably be resurrected, with few editors left capable of mediating. |
|||
* A representative example of my contributions to this namespace: Here’s a before[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuidang_movement&oldid=444798916] and after[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuidang_movement&oldid=481865011] on the page [[Tuidang movement]]. I do similar things on other namespaces, of course, such as [[Terrorism in the People's Republic of China]] (see before[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&oldid=473715581] and after[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&oldid=485761721]). I’ll note that after I made these changes to the Tuidang movement, an admin familiar with the literature praised these efforts.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATuidang_movement&diff=458012826&oldid=449050976] Yet Mrund/Martin Rundkvist (who commented below) took exception. I can’t recall having any prior interactions with this user, or any interaction since, but he went to my talk page, left a note asking if I was a “Falun gong practitioner or sympathiser,” and told me to stop editing these articles.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHomunculus&diff=453757261&oldid=450869808] This was quite extraordinary, and seemed to be an attempt to intimidate an editor based solely on a presumed religious affiliation or "sympathy" —the quality of their edits be damned! Imagine if Falun Gong were replaced with “Jew” or “homosexual.” |
|||
It is my observation that some of the partisan editors who frequent these pages don’t appreciate my presence. Presumably, having unaligned, knowledgable editors involved detracts from their ability to advance their respective points of view. It is also true that, because I try to watch over the Falun Gong page and engage with editors who make comments there, I sometimes end up offending the sensibilities of random interlocutors. Yet with very few exceptions, I get alone with and can work well with everyone (here’s a recent example[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Where_do_Critiques_go]). 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. That’s all for now. [[User:Homunculus|Homunculus]] ([[User talk:Homunculus|duihua]]) 19:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=====The Sound and The Fury===== |
=====The Sound and The Fury===== |
Revision as of 19:52, 8 April 2012
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
Request concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
- User requesting enforcement
- AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Homunculus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Consensus
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Homunculus
- Homunculus was warned about removing sourced material without explanation, with misleading edit summary: "Moving this into controversies, where it belongs. Will revisit to clean up more later." and about distortion on what sources say using neutral factual Wikipedia narrator voice [1] and [2], see Talk:Falun_Gong#Gallagher_and_Ashcraft_source.
- Homunculus fails to adhere normal editorial process during Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 Chronology:
- 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) - discussion appears as concluded
- 01:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC) - edit
- 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC) - raising a new concern. (See bellow revert by SnF at 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC))
- The Sound and the Fury
- [3] - User:TheSoundAndTheFury reverts commenting : "as there has been no explanation by Agada about the change". The user did not engage in any meaningful content discussion
- [4] User:TheSoundAndTheFury removes a tag with personal attack in edit summary.
- [5] User:TheSoundAndTheFury engages in edit warring, removes a tag again, shortly after the verbose rational for placement was provided on talk page. Prefers personal attacks on talk page to meaningful content discussion.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [6] Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)
- [7] Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)
- [8] Last Warning by AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)
- [9] Warning by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Topic ban
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Both editors fail to adhere to normal editorial process.
On Talk:Falun Gong#Gallagher and Ashcraft source
Reading this discussion just puzzles me: the article is already sourced to the teeth, and the sourcing to Gallager and Ashcraft is being questioned again on the grounds that 'they are not scholars of Eastern religion', despite the fact that their publications appear in all the peer-reviewed journals and meet all the criteria that many editors on this article ask for ad nauseum. I find a degree of irony that Danny Schechter, who is about as far removed as one can be from being an expert on religion, China, or traditional eastern culture, is sourced so heavily in the article without any sort of careful scrutiny. -- Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think what's being pointed out is the tendentiousness of, on the one hand, fighting to exclude Falun Gong-skeptical sources like Maria Chang on account of their focus being more on politics rather than religion, while basing this article on Falun Gong-sympathetic sources with similarly (ir)relevant credentials, such as Danny Schechter. Now I'm not sure how much of a role Homunculus had in promoting Schechter, but he definitely added, for example, Ethan Gutmann's exoneration of Falun Gong on charges of homophobia, based on comparisons to "traditional religions" that Gutmann (of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) has no scholarly credentials on religion to speak about. -- Shrigley (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999
- The quantum leap State General Administration for Sports equals Communist Party or China's government is still not reliable. Please see ref [37][1], cited multiple times in the article. Yuezhi Zhao outlines in Falung Gong, the Chinese State and Media Politics. see page 212 the affiliation of Li Hongzhi with this Sports Commission, when Falun Gong was legitimized by the state. -- AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
On Talk:Falun Gong#Multiple issues
- Continued removal of an explained tag is a disruption of editorial process and an example of WP:TE. It is clear from talk page discussion that the removal does not enjoy a consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
Statements by Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
Homunculus
This is interesting. My patience with user AgadaUrbanit has been worn thin, so I shall be more candid and curt than usual. I do not believe this user has an adequate understanding of the concept of consensus, edit waring, or of “normal editorial process.” If he/she did, he might have the insight to recognize that it was he who was consistently editing against consensus and refusing to participate in a normal collaborative process.
When this user first appeared on this page, I attempted to engage with them in good faith, understand their concerns, and propose solutions. My attempts at collaboration were met with escalating sarcasm and threats, and I never understood why. Ultimately, when Agada’s contributions and ideas were not accepted, he sought to hold the page hostage by repeatedly and disruptively tag-bombing it, always with little to no explanation of the actual content problems he perceived. When editors removed those tags per consensus, Agada decided to escalate to AE.
I’ll quickly address the three specific issues Agada raised against me.
- [12], Agada says my edit summary was misleading. I certainly did not intend to mislead, though it’s true that I didn’t describe all the changes in the edit summary. In my defense, this was not an "unexplained" removal of sourced content. I did describe those changes on the talk page, both before and after making them, and I believe that most of the editors involved supported those changes.
- [13] With this edit, I sought to clean up and condense some material. Agada said I misrepresented a source. I didn’t think I did, and I asked for clarification on the talk page. No further explanation was provided by Agada.
- Agada said I did not follow normal editing process regarding Talk:Falun Gong#Number of followers in 1999. I think I did. I discussed the issue at length and in good faith with Agada and attempted to understand his ideas. I was polite throughout, even as Agada became sarcastic, rude, and started tag-bombing the page without explanation. I devised a proposal to improve the presentation of this subject on the page. Agada responded to my proposal with snarky comments I didn’t understand. I asked for him to clearly state his concerns, or suggest ways for improvement. Agada did not respond, and I implemented that proposal. I don’t know how I could have behaved any better.
For interested admins to wrap their minds around this chain of events, my best advice would be to read the relevant discussion threads on the talk page in their entirety. A warning: they are very long, convoluted, and even I frequently was at a loss for understanding what was going on. See Talk:Falun Gong#Number of followers in 1999, Talk:Falun Gong#Gallagher and Ashcraft source, and Talk:Falun Gong#Multiple issues.
I’ve already wasted a considerable amount of time trying to engage with this editor (for instance, I’ve had to explain why the New York Times is not original research, or why reputable magazines and periodicals are not ‘self-published’). Ultimately I believe this case to be frivolous. However, if the admins believe that there are serious issues here, I will happily provide a more thorough account of my actions. Please let me know if that will be required. Homunculus (duihua) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
General comments Regarding my involvement in Falun Gong topics
Another editor (who does not exactly have clean hands with respect to this namespace—blocks for edit warring, warnings for outside canvassing...) has commented that I am merely another “tiresome pro-Falun Gong” editor who likes to “nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC.” I assume that the disciplinary admins reviewing this case have the judgment and experience necessary to determine that comments like this—which are completely devoid of substance or evidence—should be ignored. But just in case, I shall address the points raised:
- I am not a “pro-Falun Gong” editor. Nor am I am not an “anti-Falun Gong” editor. I furthermore reject that dichotomous paradigm as silly and childish. My interest in editing the Falun Gong namespace is academic; I am an expert in comparative Chinese politics, state-society relations and human rights. I publish on these topics in reliable sources and peer-reviewed journals (I don't cite myself, if anyone is wondering). The objective of my edits to this namespace and others has never been either to antagonize the government of the PRC or to promote Falun Gong, and a look through my editing history would turn up edits that might be construed as favorable to either “side”. Also, in case it wasn't clear, I edit a broad range of subjects related to Chinese politics and history.
- For several years, Falun Gong-related pages have been the scene of highly contentious edit wars, with nearly all the editors identifying along pro- or anti- Falun Gong battle lines. I have sought to move beyond this by ensuring that content is neutral, complete, and well sourced. I don't resort to personal attacks, or attempt to impugn the motives of other editors, as I believe this would damage the quality of discourse. I believe my presence (and that of a few others) has resulted in these pages becoming better and more stable. I also believe that if I were topic banned, the battleground would probably be resurrected, with few editors left capable of mediating.
- A representative example of my contributions to this namespace: Here’s a before[14] and after[15] on the page Tuidang movement. I do similar things on other namespaces, of course, such as Terrorism in the People's Republic of China (see before[16] and after[17]). I’ll note that after I made these changes to the Tuidang movement, an admin familiar with the literature praised these efforts.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATuidang_movement&diff=458012826&oldid=449050976] Yet Mrund/Martin Rundkvist (who commented below) took exception. I can’t recall having any prior interactions with this user, or any interaction since, but he went to my talk page, left a note asking if I was a “Falun gong practitioner or sympathiser,” and told me to stop editing these articles.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHomunculus&diff=453757261&oldid=450869808] This was quite extraordinary, and seemed to be an attempt to intimidate an editor based solely on a presumed religious affiliation or "sympathy" —the quality of their edits be damned! Imagine if Falun Gong were replaced with “Jew” or “homosexual.”
It is my observation that some of the partisan editors who frequent these pages don’t appreciate my presence. Presumably, having unaligned, knowledgable editors involved detracts from their ability to advance their respective points of view. It is also true that, because I try to watch over the Falun Gong page and engage with editors who make comments there, I sometimes end up offending the sensibilities of random interlocutors. Yet with very few exceptions, I get alone with and can work well with everyone (here’s a recent example[18]). 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. That’s all for now. Homunculus (duihua) 19:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The Sound and The Fury
I've got to say, this is really strange. Anyone who looks at the diffs and the course of discussion will end up scratching their heads. Agada placed a series of tags on the page after a discussion with Homunculus broke down (he stopped answering questions/discussing about the sense of his ideas for improving the page; there was an odd disagreement about whether the State General Administration of Sports' estimate for the number of people doing qigong in China was representative of the Chinese government's estimate, or something like that). That discussion failed to make progress, so he tag-bombed. I removed the tags a couple of times, explaining why, including on his talk page. He didn't really answer. He went away for a week or so each time. I think at one point I got a bit annoyed and called the process "silly." I didn't attack him personally. I have no idea why this case is being brought. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- update
I think this guy had the right idea [19] (on the factual matters; I wouldn't adopt the sarcastic tone), but since he was reverted, I'll repeat. To each of AU's points:
- [20] I did engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page, and even apologized for the revert (I had misread the chronology of events)
- [21] AU says my edit summary was a personal attack. The summary was "Pls don't put tags etc. to make a point." I don't think that's a personal attack.
- [22] AU says I was edit warring by removing these tags. My edits were more than a week apart, there was no clear reason for tagging, and involved editors were puzzled about them and appeared to agree with their removal. So I really don't think that could be classified as edit warring. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
From my perspective, Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury are members of the current crop of tiresome pro-Falun Gong editors that nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC. I would greatly welcome any measure that directed their considerable wiki energies towards other subjects. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- ^ Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Nick Couldry and James Curran (ed.). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc. pp. 209–223. ISBN 9780742523852.
the most dramatic episode in the contestation over media power in the Chinese language symbolic universe.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help)