Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

The origin of this case lies in some detailed submissions to WP:AE. In order to prevent information overload, parties to the case may if they wish confine their evidence to pointing to their previous AE submissions, adding on this page only any supplementary information that they feel necessary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, if you believe that your evidence here sufficiently covers all the points you raised at AE, such that you feel reading your AE comments would be redundant, please point that out to save us some time. Thanks. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 1498; diff count: 100.

Given word constraints, I’m presenting only a limited amount of recent diffs as evidence. I believe they are largely representative of these editors’ behavior across the namespace over the last year.

Ohconfucius edit wars

Breaks 3RR at Bo Xilai. Editor deleted reliably sourced information that Bo was found liable for torture and indicted on allegations of genocide against Falun Gong. Makes reverts without engaging on talk page discussion, where uninvolved editors expressed support for the material.

Reverts: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Editor was warned about 3RR breach, [5] responded by calling it “droll”.[6] Refused to explain rationale for reverts when asked.[7] He was asked to self-revert,[8] and refused.[9] Thereafter he continued edit warring.[10][11]

One week later, editor breaks 3RR again while trying to include claim that Falun Gong engages in “cult suicide” (a claim asserted by no reliable source): [12][13] [14][15][16][17] (He was temporarily blocked for this[18]). These edits are also likely breaches of WP:OR and WP:SOAP.

On learning that Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident would become TFA on April 3, Ohconfucius made over 100 edits to the page without discussion (starting March 30 [19]), undoing numerous changes that had been discussed at length and agreed upon in early 2011. Ohconfucius characterized the talk page discussions as “moans” from “suspected Falun Gong meatpuppets,” concluding that he was therefore justified in ignoring them [20]. While rewriting the page, he made no attempt to explain the edits or build consensus. He failed to answer substantive questions and concerns raised by increasingly exasperated editors on the talk page (eg. [21][22][23][24][25][26]), insulted other editors,[27][28][29] and edit warred.

Here is just a sample of the reverts and cumulative reverts:[30] [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]

Ohconfucius is uncivil and makes personal attacks

(Note: All three editors persistently accuse perceived opponents of being Falun Gong adherents, sometimes using a negative epithets. This is done as a form of ad hominem attack meant to discredit editors who disagree with them, rather than discussing content. This is a violation of WP:NPA, which forbids “Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views.” In the context where none of the other editors have identified as Falun Gong members, it also seems to be a misplaced attempt at “outing” and harassment.)

• [40] Describes other editors as Falun Gong devotees in order to discredit their ideas and contributions.

• [41] On being asked to clearly articulate perceived content problems, instead calls other editors “the assembled Falun Gong sympathisers,” etc.

• [42] [43] Belittling comments in edit summaries

• [44] Responded to a suggestion of dispute resolution by making ad hominem attacks against other editor. Adds ‘opponents’ to a his lists of “falun gong editors" to whom he ascribes a variety of undesirable traits.[45]. This list appears to be in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC.

• [46] Profanity

• [47] Taunting to “come out of the closet”

• [48][49] Declares opponents “Falun Gong meatpuppets,” “Falun Gongsters.”

• [50] Declares former Falun Gong editors to be “sockpuppets.” (There is no evidence of this).

Colipon displays battleground mentality, fails to assume good faith, makes personal attacks

• [51] In content discussion, complains of “Falun Gong users” harming the project. No discussion of actual content.

• [52] Enters into a (non-ideological) discussion of sourcing and content only to declare it an “ideological war” and suggest everyone give up.

• [53] Use of talk page as a forum to complain about other editors. No discussion of content.

• [54] After being asked to discuss content, not contributors, says good faith content discussions a “waste of time.”

• [55] In response to an editor pointing out a content issue, makes accusations of bad faith and POV-pushing.

• [56] Insults other editors

• [57] Accusation of tag-teaming in response to an explanation of content changes

• [58] Maintains a subpage where, among other things, account is kept of other editors’ perceived faults, expresses the belief that Falun Gong pages are an ideological battleground, calls two respected Canadian politicians and lawyers “clueless,” etc.

• [59] This is old though indicative: Colipon solicits help from another (now banned) editor to conduct and promote original research for the purpose of dealing “a big blow” to the Falun Gong’s founder.

Colipon uses talk pages as forums / soapboxes

Concerning the Falun Gong-affiliated Shen Yun Performing Arts, Colipon uses talk page as a forum to express his dislike of Falun Gong and Shen Yun, in the process misattributing his opinions to reliable sources.

• [60] “Shen Yun is not an artistic performance. It is a propaganda organ of Falun Gong”

• [61] “The reason for Shen Yun’s existence is propaganda.”

• [62]) “Shen Yun is not a bona fide arts troupe.”

• [63][64] Argues repeatedly that Shen Yun “tries to mislead people into thinking that it has nothing to do with Falun Gong.”

• [65] Attempts to source above allegation to the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Toronto Star. (None of these sources make that claim).[66]

Shrigley makes personal attacks, displays battleground mentality

• [67] Complains that “a bunch of Falun Gong-focused editors” and “Falun Gong followers” are damaging Wikipedia.

• [68] Calls the impeccably sourced paragraph about Falun Gong “slanderous,” suggests that editors arguing for its inclusion are “followers of small religiopolitical movements.”

• [69] Defends a series of seemingly POV edits by the topic-banned user PCPP at the page Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. Uses pejorative epithets (“cult”) to refer to Falun Gong (in violation of WP:CIVIL). Marginalizes reports of human rights abuses by Chinese government.

Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley fail to adhere to NPOV

The three editors place excessive emphasis on highlighting negative portrayals of Falun Gong, and expunging or marginalizing criticisms of the Chinese government. Virtually none of their edits to this namespace diverge from this pattern, and they express little to no interest in developing neutral or non-ideological aspects of Falun Gong pages. In one instance at Shen Yun Performing Arts, editors deleted every section of the article that did not mention Falun Gong or involve some potentially “controversial” dimension. This is the opposite of building an encyclopedia. The diffs here are far from exhaustive.

• [70] [71] Ohconfucius deletes all information on Shen Yun performers, calls it “rubbish”, cites WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (The list of performers here employed the same format and criteria as is used on other pages about dance and ballet companies, and is not a violation of that policy).
• [72] Adds a collection of references to exclusively negative reviews of Shen Yun into lede
• [73] Highlights more negative reviews in the reception
• [74] Deletes sourced content about the content and nature of the performances
• [75] Erroneously writes that depictions of Falun Gong in the performances received only negative reviews

• [76] Ohconfucius deletes paragraph about the censorship of a Falun Gong art exhibit in Tel Aviv against consensus.

• [77] Ohconfucius opines that Falun Gong victims of torture are merely engaged in a “propaganda war….to gain publicity and cause maximum embarrassment” to the PRC.

• [78] Colipon deletes a well-sourced paragraph about Bo Xilai’s involvement in the anti-Falun Gong campaign. On talk page, declares that anyone who would restore the material is tendentious.[79] Later erroneously claims lawsuits against Bo Xilai were dismissed as frivolous.[80]

• [81] Shrigley marginalizes reliably sourced reports about the large-scale detention, disappearance and torture of Falun Gong practitioners in connection with the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai. Calls “the misadventures of Falun Gong” a “fringe concern.”

• [82] [83] [84] Shrigley deletes information on persecution of Falun Gong

Shrigley, Colipon and Ohconfucius fail to exercise independent judgment, and defend disruptive behavior

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the three editors express divergence in opinion on the Falun Gong namespace. They perform essentially the same unconstructive edits (examples: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] | [94] [95] [96]), and express the same opinions in FLG-related disputes. More worryingly, they reinforce and defend problematic behavior—including edit warring, incivility, and harassment—by editors who share their point of view.

• [97] Colipon defends Ohconfucius’s radical refactoring of a page and refusal to partake in content discussions.

• [98] In response to an editor who raised a concern about Ohconfucius’s misrepresentation of a source and original synthesis, Colipon accuses editor of bad faith, wikilawyering.

• [99] Ohconfucius defends alleged hounding behavior by PCPP (now banned from FLG content)

• [100] Shrigley defends alleged hounding behavior by PCPP. (Note, the “other users” he refers to here is Colipon).

• [101] Shrigley defends edit warring by PCPP, seems to imply that other editors are part of a Falun Gong plot involving U.S. government subsidies (?).

• [102] Shrigley defends PCPP, asserts that “Falun Gongers” have utilized “unsavory” tactics to insert reference to Falun Gong on Wikipedia, thereby trapping PCPP into breaking his topic ban (info was added by people who don’t even edit FLG pages).

• [103] Ohconfucius describes the enforcement of a topic ban against PCPP as a “tactical victory by those who sought to oppose him.” (seems to think this is a war)
• [104] Colipon defends (or does not recognize) profanity, sexual innuendo, other abusive comments by Antilived, who holds similar views on FLG

• [105] Colipon concludes in his AE case that Shrigley and Ohconfucius should be “strongly 'exonerated' from any sanctions, charges, to signal Wikipedia's iron will to crack down on Falun Gong ligitation in wiki form.”

Response

I am not a "Falun Gong activist." I used to be called neutral by Ohconfucius and Colipon - when I was moderating and tempering the views of Falun Gong editors. When I moderate their views after the FG editors are banned, I'm labeled a FG activist and meatpuppet. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not agitate for a cause. The claims presented amount to a conspiratorial narrative that does not have discernible criteria of falsification. The effect appears to be an attempt to delegitimize and marginalize me. We disagree on content. The way to deal with that is discussion, principled negotiation, and consensus building. The fixation displayed is unhealthy and makes me highly uncomfortable.

Current word length: 928; diff count: 30.

Personal attacks by Homunculus

Against Ohconfucius

• [106] "The interests of pro-Falun Gong sources... are certainly no more nefarious than those of editors like Ohconfucius, who for whatever reason seem to want to marginalize these claims"
• [107] "Rem frivolous...harassment"
• [108] "OhConfucius, you're making a series of edits to the page that do not appear to be neutral, representative, or helpful."
• [109] "[Your] behavior [is the kind] that has led to endless conflict on the page. Each side can and has presented the reviews that most closely align with their opinions and sought to highlight them."

Against PCPP

• [110] "Seeing as you are now well past debating the facts at hand, I am going to leave this discussion."
• [111] "PCPP, you are being disruptive.... You would be a much better member of this community if... you contributed original research."
• [112] "I cannot but wonder what your intention is... the level of aggression and persistent POV-pushing that you display derails any substantive conservation and leads other editors to turn on you.... [Civil debates seem] quite impossible when you are around... you cannot be taken at your word"
• [113] "[G]iven your editing history in this article, you are probably not the ideal candidate [to improve the article]."
• [114] "When he [PCPP] is around, the pages become a battle ground that is extremely unpleasant to work in.... I can imagine that cognitive dissonance is a difficult thing to live with. It’s hard to accept that Mao Zedong is not a saint, and that innocent people are victimized by the Communist Party. But I would recommend that the best way to cope is to try accepting facts, rather than deleting them from wikipedia in a vain and annoying attempt to shape the world to accord with one’s personal beliefs."
• [115] "[Some of these edits] strike me as fairly obvious attempts to defend CIs and marginalize or delete critical views."
• [116] "He has a historical propensity to edit from a clear pro-PRC perspective"

Against Shrigley

• [117] "So, you are essentially protesting an attempt to use the highest quality sources... That's not very helpful.... This is not a question of pro- or anti- Falun Gong sources for me as it is for you."
• [118] "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."
• [119] "I wondered how you even found this [source].... I imagine he might be frustrated to learn his research is being appropriated and misused to promote the anti-Shen Yun agenda of the Communist Party.... Pardon me for speculating on your motives, but you seem to want to shift the blame: that is, make it appear that Falun Gong is the aggressor, not the Chinese state."

Against Colipon

• [120] "Colipon should be viewed on the same terms he [asdfg12345, a topic-banned FLG editor] is viewed: that is, as an editor with strong views on the subject, and the desire to have those views represented on the encyclopedia"
• [121] "Colipon... you don't seem to have the ability to evaluate this from a neutral point of view.... believe it or not, most people are not offended by Falun Gong's efforts to call attention to their plight in China."
• [122] "[T]wo editors whose sentiments you recently echoed at Talk:Falun Gong were summarily banned... I think leniency has been applied to you (at least by me)"

Against new/uninvolved editors

• [123] (Gw2005) "Your edit[s]... reflect pervasive if subtle attempts at POV-pushing.... I could not identify a single edit that improved the quality of the article"
• [124] (Agstf, Jsw663) "I'm not sure my edits would assuage the concerns other editors have expressed, however, because none of them have provided... [anything] other than vague (and somewhat facile) arguments to moderation."
• [125] (130.126.209.90, Benjwong) "I noticed that someone (or perhaps several people) appear to have engaged in an effort to remove any information on the controversies surrounding the event, and otherwise scrub the page of "negative" content."
• [126] (Enric Naval) "I don't suppose you would argue that Jews whose hair was used in the manufacture of pillows were not victims of a genocide?"
• [127] (HXL49) "[O]ur job here is not to describe Xinhua in the way that [Communist Party publicity chief] Li Changchun might find fitting."
• [128] (Destynova) "[I]t seems you have failed to understand what the other editor was attempting to illustrate with the parallel between the Falun Gong/CCP dynamic to Jews under Nazism.... it is both absurd and facile to argue that neutrality is achieved by giving equal representation to the unsubstantiated propagandizing... I exhort you to actually read up on the Falun Gong in the scholarly literature, or read human rights reports"
• [129] (188.29.19.85) "Editor in questions seems more interested in vandalism than helpful contributions."
• [130] (Bailong52) "Reverting nonsense vandalism."
• [131] (AgadaUrbanit) "My belief is that we are not simply monkeys quoting any and all scholars—regardless of expertise or notability—at will.... I meant no offense in removing some of your research"
• [132] (AgadaUrbanit) "The only reason to delete the Gutmann reference would be for the purpose of appeasement [of AgadaUrbanit]."
• [133] (SH9002) "[Y]ou are neither familiar with the scholarly literature on Falun Gong, nor with immigration processes."

Vague insinuations

• [134] "[I]t does seem there are a handful of disruptive individuals who edit from that [pro-Communist Party] POV (though in my personal opinion, I think they're motivated by nationalism and sport, rather than money."
• [135] "I can believe that the page has been subject to attempted censorship before... Your warnings may turn out to be prescient"
• [136] "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."
• [137] "[Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley] seem to care little about the development of these articles unless it involves criticisms of Falun Gong or deletions of information pertaining to the suppression."

Current word length: 349; diff count: 27.

Falun Gong topic ban violations by PCPP

• In February 2011 User:PCPP was topic banned for four months [138] per this AE thread.

• In November 2011 he was topic banned again for at least eight months [139] per another AE discussion.

• In January 2012 he was blocked for violation of his topic ban [140] by editing article Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes [141] - AE thread here -(see comment by OhConfucius about this: [142])

• Later in January 2012 he was admonished on AE for continuing topic ban violations [143] [144]. This is related to edit wars in Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes in January-February 2012: PCPP, Shrigley, OhConfucius, Shtigley, OhConfucious.

• Despite being warned and sanctioned many times, PCPP continued edit warring in the same article in May [145] [146] (OhConfucius tells this about it).

• An AE administrator warned him about this last violation [147]. PCPP tells this is not a violation [148]. How come? He is “banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed". Here is the obvious connection: Confucius Institutes is an organization funded by Chinese government and allegedly engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China, including Falun Gong. The allegations are documented in multiple RS, and words “Falun Gong” appear in this article several times.

• Despite being warned, PCPP continue editing this page [149].

• PCPP started mediation about the same article [150]. (I think this was probably inspired by a similar story with TLAM and Igny [151].) And he did the same before [152], in January 2012, also in violation of his ban.

Now PCPP has mediators on his side; they convinced the AE administrator to compromise on the issue of ban [153] (he previously thought otherwise [154]). They even reverted "Controversies" to the version preferred by PCPP [155]. Note that it was a unilateral removal of well sourced text by PCPP [156] without discussion: his last edit on talk page was made 20 days before [157].

I think this mediation started by PCPP represents not only another topic ban violation, but also a successful attempt to exercise pressure on AE administrators by mobilizing mediators on his side. Is it? Only Arbcom can answer. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• User notified.

Current word length: 328; diff count: 0.

FG topic status

I am uninvolved editor who learned about the FG topic from Wikipedia and by reviewing the independent reliable sources found on the Internet. After reviewing the sources and reading the Falun Gong article I have found that the article is far from being neutral. In many cases, while the subject of FG was popular among schoolars, the content of the article is often appears as a paraphrase of FG primary sources, like Falun Info Information center, appearing without attribution to FG and in neutral Wikipedia voice. Examples:

• Number of followers in 1999 discussion
• Central teachings discussion
• Categorization discussion

It is interesting to note that Falun Info content appears as supported by reliable sources, it reads almost as Wikipedia. From other hand, there is a "consensus" on the article talk page that neutral scholar sources, like Gallagher and Ashcraft, are not reliable in FG context. With that the source is being widely cited by Wikipedia, and cited for instance in "western" religion article Bahá'í Faith. All the citations of this source I've added were removed from the article. See discussion about the source:

• Gallagher and Ashcraft source discussion

I have not found a collaboration driven environment on the article talk page. Just as I've started editing in the topic I was accused of being "involved". Frankly, it appears to me that while following editors:

• User:Homunculus
• User:TheSoundAndTheFury
• User:Zujine

are great human beings, their editing in the FG topic could be described as POV pushing. It is hard to prove though. For proper due diligence, I've already expressed my opinion on WP:AE about Homunculus and TheSoundAndTheFury. I am not sure this is a correct format for evidence, probably not. Please do not judge me and remember my pay grade in this project. With that I hope my evidence provides some useful information to the arbitrators. Anyway, I do not give a fuck about a FG topic and stopped editing it, since it appears as a waste of time. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 18; diff count: 0.

Convenience link to AE archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive115#Request_concerning_Ohconfucius.2C_Colipon.2C_Shrigley

Note, three sections below that there's another thread on Homunculus, that one should probably be reviewed as well.

Current word length: 925; diff count: 58.

I've edited Wikipedia for nine years.

I'm confident non-involved editors would testify that, apart from complaints from Falun Gong activists, my editorial record is spotless, including on very controversial topics. ( [158] [159] [160] [161] [162].) TSTF and H acknowledge that I am a reasonable editor in other areas.

In light of TSTF's case, apart from acknowledging that I regret my more strongly-worded talk page commentary, I don't feel the need to defend myself. I'll let the record speak for itself, and I stand behind my content-related edits. Of course, ArbCom is welcome to scrutinize it.

What makes Falun Gong different?

This is not a two-sided content war. Editors on the 'sides' evidently have differing motivations and editing patterns.

On the 'FLG-critical' side, there are worn out, reactive users who would prefer to stay away from FLG content. Yet on the 'FLG activist' side, we see proactive ownership of articles and endless devotion. The stakes for the Falun Gong activists is thus much higher. A topic ban for a Falun Gong activist is a death sentence ([163] [164]), remedied only by sock- and meat-puppetry.

Since becoming disillusioned over FLG-articles in early 2010, I voluntarily stopped editing them, and limited my FLG participation to talk pages – and very sparingly at that. Too intimidated to 'intrude' upon the territory of Falun Gong advocates, I often voluntarily step back. I saw POV-pushing edits occur in broad daylight: [165] [166] [167], but stopped short of intervening to avoid drama. This state of affairs is truly sad: veteran editors are being pushed to their limits, and new editors quit after experiencing the poisoned ambiance.

Homunculus and TSTF

Homunculus and TSTF are Falun Gong activists. H is a single-purpose account. TSTF makes edits in other subject areas, though the vast majority of his substantive edits are FLG-related; he may amount to an SPA in practice. These users edit to:

• Advocate for Falun Gong
• Criticize the CCP
• Support dissident groups that carry a grievance with the CCP (Terrorism in the PRC, 'Protest and dissent')

My AE case against Homunculus should be read in full to make sense out of the activists' modus operandi. Other users are welcome to buy into their bogus claims of good faith, but my patience with these users expired at Bo Xilai. I firmly believe that only activists extremely invested in Falun Gong would push for the inclusion of FRINGE material on FLG lawsuits on articles about Chinese officials. These materials are not taken seriously by the vast majority of sources, except, of course, The Epoch Times: [168].

Falun Gong editors fit the descriptions of WP:ACTIVIST perfectly; H exemplifies the best in WP:CRUSH. Much like their real-life counterparts (described by Ownby here), the editors aim to present the movement favourably, stamp out criticism, and disparage their critics, the most prominent of which is the CCP. Its media outlets are unmistakeably politically motivated to destroy the CCP.

Ownership of articles

Of special concern is the round-the-clock patrolling of 'sensitive' FLG material and removing any edits that potentially alter POV-balance: Revision time in ([Hour]:[Minutes])

• Falun Gong: 3:19: [169]; 0:33: [170]; 0:10: [171] 0:06: [172]; 0:11: [173]; Edit-war with PCPP: [174] [175]
• Shen Yun: 8:05: [176]; 7:24: [177] 7:17: [178]; 7:14: [179]; 4:34: [180]; 0:25: [181]; 0:15: [182]; 0:41: [183]; 0:38: [184]
• Jiang Zemin: 1:15: [185]

Other signature traits

• Scrub and downplay anything that can be construed as critical of Falun Gong
• Using emotionally-charged language and imagery, examples include "persecution", "electric baton", "genocide", "torture" ([186] vs. [187]), "labor camp", "brutally beaten" etc; playing up "organ harvesting"; invoking the Holocaust in talk page discussions
• Like other NRMs, inflating membership figures: (H lawyering)
• Portray the CCP as a totalitarian, brutal, big-brother like machine, and attacking it as a singular entity without any care for context.
  • [188]: (TSTF: "Villagers turned against the CCP[...] seeing it as autocratic, brutal, corrupt, and mean-spirited.")
  • [189]: (TSTF: "The Party thus destroyed 'much that gave meaning to Chinese lives.")
  • [190] (H: Attributed to FT: "Chinese Communist Party is destined to be destroyed by heaven")
• Inserting Falun Gong lawsuit material to BLP articles of Chinese politicians (Jiang; Bo Xilai by TSTF, by H)
• Obfuscating Falun Gong's more controversial teachings, such as race-based 'heavens', celestial eye, homosexuality, divine powers of Li Hongzhi [191] [192]
• Excessive use of quote farms: ([193]; [194])
• Arguing that 'some sources are more equal than others' (Gutmann good, Schecter good, Kavan bad, Chang bad [195], Ownby is good but only some of the time)
• Enlisting frivolous RfCs as a form of filibuster, and when intervening editors take a position against them, refusing to recognize it.
• Attempt to undermine the undue weight clause (TSTF H).
• Dig up and synthesize esoteric content to meet their ends. H: "There are reliable sources that elaborate on these allegations in more depth," Wikilawyering in favour of He-Luo conspiracy theory on "Several tourist accounts" Synthesizing for a CCP conspiracy

As long as Falun Gong activists remain on this website, I will not be editing Falun Gong articles. Content work is simply not productive when they are around: if I edit content, my changes are reverted; if I discuss content, I'm filibustered, litigated against, and otherwise intimidated. They are here to advance an agenda, not to build an encyclopedia. If these activists are not banned, I will also minimize my interactions with them to avoid stress; there are plenty of other articles that I want to edit.

The problem with Falun Gong articles have existed almost as long as this encyclopedia. Decisive action is due. I have faith that ArbCom can do what is necessary to halt the abuse on these articles, not only for the sake of cleaning up Falun Gong topics, but to signal to activists elsewhere that Wikipedia will not tolerate behavior that is counter to our mission.

Current word length: 998; diff count: 58.

Editing Falun Gong (FLG) articles can depress, drive you to distraction or insanity because you may be accused of being a member of the 50 Cent Party[196][197], if only for daring to appear to take sides with Beijing than Falun Dafa. I do a lot of work on articles on Chinese politics and current affairs.(Examples:[198][199][200][201][202]). My own work has been accorded GA or FA status. When editing articles, I leave my personal opinions at the threshold, E&OE. Only in Falun Gong has there been systematic accusal of my bias despite coming on record with my personal views on occasions[203][204].

My philosophy

My foremost interest is cleanups, whether form or content. Talk pages don't bother me, but in-article promotion bugs me bigtime[205]; I have had numerous articles prodded, deleted, #G11. When I started in mid 2006, FLG articles were attractive because they needed help. I made this series of edits[206] to Li Hongzhi. A year and several hundred edits later, I edit the main article[207]; this became this.

The world isn't binary, and NPOV for each article can never be formulaic or dichotomous like the FLG world view. I take account of all relevant information, and write for the opponent; I take advice when doubt[208][209].

There is no crime in being a Falun Gong adherent, but we have policies that attempt to ensure neutrality by prohibiting soapboxing and conflicts of interest. Those policies fail us as activists game the system: witness Israeli/Palestine, Scientology, climate change etc.etc. For me, NPOV's always a delicate balance in considering a broad base of information, and avoidance of close paraphrasing. However, I often see sources misrepresented or articles biased by employing emotive language[210] inconsistent with sources. Wikipedia's army of unpaid volunteers is easily overwhelmed by rich and powerful politico-commercial interests; good contributors get frustrated and quit.

I edit a wide range and large number of articles, unlike my accuser. When I was active in FLGverse, my sparring partner was asdfg, an avowed practitioner and gentleman with whom I took 'Self immolation' towards FA. Although occasionally strained, mutual respect existed. He even wrote me a pleasant email on his departure. Although Homunculus and TSTF were around at the time, they weren't on my radar. Thing is, we personally believe in advancing human rights[211]; TSTF and I [212] cooperated on an article in 2010.

Back in 2009, full of optimism from having taken one FLG article to FA status, I declared my intention of doing the same for the others.[213] However, events transpired that made me stop making substantial edits to these for the best part of 2010 and all of 2011. As at March 2012, I notice the tenor of 'strategic articles'– including 'Shen Yun', 'Self-immolation' – is radically different. TSTF and Homunculus, whose primary interest is Falun Gong, filled the vacuum left by "retirements"[214].

Wikipedia and the Falun Gong mindset

I've no problem with Falun Gong. I have issues with advocacy, exclusion of negative material and critical sources, and the near-impenetrable ringfencing of articles by my accuser and cohort(s). The evidence already filed[215][216] shows on-article collaboration of Homunculus and TSTF. They cover articles related to FLG and the Chinese Communist Party. They opportunistically weight articles in favour of Falun Dafa and against its enemies[217][218][219]. The pattern also clearly emerges on article talk pages that they systematically bite newbies and oldies alike, and make comments to generate appearance of consensus. They "remind", admonish[220][221], intimidate[222] or bludgeon[223] other non-aligned editors, or challenge every addition[224], removal[225][226] or change[227][228][229] away from their 'authorised version'.

The defensive comportment of two editors particularly active about Falun Gong is notable –they interpret consensuses in ways that suit them, saying "some editors agree.." and arguing for/against sources in the same way, allied in a pincer movement with all the aggression of Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) but considerably greater EQ; their talkpage lawyering[230] like a pair of Olafs.[231][232] They time their edits to make it look less like they are jumping into topics at the same time. Like HappyInGeneral–who never denied his allegiance– they learned to improve their non-FLG bytecount; they are also more sophisticated and cunning.

FLG editors attempt to create an initial antipathy towards the CPC using a boilerplate background section synthesising a link between the subject and the persecution suffered at the hands of the Communist Party– 'Kilgour-Matas report'[233], 'Self-immolation'[234], '6–10 Office'[235], 'Protest and dissent in the People's Republic of China'[236]. I complain, but then get accused of bad faith.[237]

They editorialise[238], selectively archive a hostile thread[239] with a derogatory edit summary, or seek to have it deleted outright[240]. Transparency of their edits is also a problem: they use cleanups to purge material that could reflect negatively on FLG[241][242][243]. They strongly dislike tags on Falun Gong articles[244]– most are removed as "no issue" within days if not hours.[245][246][247] Their defensive and paranoid comportment is consistent with Ownby's observation[248].

Me? "Defensive of the PRC government"? If TSTF had done better homework, he'd realise I put many of the 'pro-FLG' assertions into the various articles myself.[249] OTOH, I'm not a saint. I sometimes breach the rules, as do they. (slow edit war against consensus)[250][251][252]. Slow edit war with IP at Shen Yun[253][254][255][256]. Only they aggressively bait and switch[257][258][259][260], are relentless, and vengeful.

The MO of Homunculus and TSTF can be checklisted against WP:Activist. Antilived (talk · contribs) spotted the hypocrisy[261]. Freudian slip in edit summary: [262] Homunculus incorporates dubious sources to support contentious points.[263]

Conclusion

Labelling me as "POV pushing[264]" is an objectionable smear, but TSTF was true to promise[265]. Wikipedia should be fun, but am sick and tired because of civil filibustering. The Wikipedia model's too vulnerable to political activism without eternal vigilance.[266] 'Normal' editors tire of the constant stress caused by not listening aggressive reverting intimidating walls of text haranguing and relentless lawyering by those opposite.[267] I know I've reacted adversely to this 'provocation in some respects and prepared to face the consequences. In addition, at the conclusion of this case, I will not edit Falun Gong articles for an indefinite time. But I'm also hopeful that Arbcom will act decisively to end the rot.

Current word length: 934; diff count: 24.

Response to Shrigley

This comment, [268] which I made in November 2010, was inappropriate. I was still quite new to the project, and I stepped out of line. SilkTork pointed out the problem, [269] and I retracted my comment in response[270].

Since that time, I have tried extremely hard to refrain from making personal comments that would lower the quality of our discourse. In a space as contentious as Falun Gong, this is difficult; antagonistic attitudes are easily endemic. But I thought I had been successful. Actually, I think I have demonstrated a good deal of patience and a commitment to discussing content in a collegial and substantive way. If the other diffs that Shrigley presented against me are indeed personal attacks, then I have clearly misunderstood the policy WP:NPA. I would ask the arbitrators reviewing this case to please let me know if they consider any of my other comments to be inappropriate, or if clarification is necessary; maybe I’m just lacking in self-awareness.

Other responses

I’ve offered disclosure of my interest in Falun Gong and some general observations here:[271]

In response to statements by Ohconfucius, Colipon, and AgadaUrbanit: Their assertions do not seem to contain any evidence of behavioral problems or non-compliance with policies. AgadaUrbanit's statement concerns the neutrality of content. User has been asked on numerous occasions on Talk:Falun Gong to give actionable and specific explanations of the problems he perceives, but failed to do so. As to Ohconfucius and Colipon, they present narratives about their protracted conflicts on the Falun Gong namespace—which predate my involvement by many years—and then try to cast perceive opponents as Falun Gong activists (or, as they've claimed repeatedly in the AE and elsewhere, sockpuppets or meatpuppets). These are exceptional claims, and they require exceptional evidence.

They also presented some specific evidence against me that is problematic. For example, in his AE, Colipon wrote that I engaged in "numerous instances of edit warring at Tiananmen Square Self-immolation[272] [273]" with an astounding "dedication to altering the balance of this article prior to its TFA." This is a serious claim not supported by the evidence. The two diffs provided as were good-faith reverts accompanied by a civil talk page discussion. More importantly, they occurred two days after TFA. In fact, I didn't touch this page for ten months prior to the day it became the TFA. This is an unambiguous misrepresentation of my actions in order to make them appear sanctionable.

I didn't have a chance to respond to the AE before it was closed, so I hope it's okay if I link to my full response here. This isn't required reading. Clerks may delete this if it's against the rules.

Response to Ohconfucius/Colipon's 'user analysis'

Ohconfucius (together with Colipon) constructed and linked to a quantitative analysis of my editing history based on bytes added or deleted.[274] (I won't delve into the accuracy of this table, but I know it's incomplete). They then attempted to identify which pages are related to the Communist Party of China and/or are of interest to the Epoch Times newspaper, and used this to conclude I am a Falun Gong activist or SPA.

From a methodological perspective, this is most unsound. The same method would produce a very similar-looking table anyone else whose interests center on 20th-century or contemporary China. To be compelling, their argument would have demanded a qualitative approach. They would have to show that my edits consistently advance the views of the Falun Gong in a manner that is not supported by or representative of reliable sources. If they could demonstrate that, it could potentially be used as evidence that I have a trouble adhering to WP:NPOV. But it would be very difficult to demonstrate that; I try to follow reliable sources scrupulously.

As an example of why their methodology is ill-suited, they identify my edits to Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes as being somehow related to my interest in Falun Gong. Here are all my edits to that page:[275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282]. There is no connection between these comments and Falun Gong. They similarly identify my contributions to Bo Xilai as being related to Falun Gong. I wrote more than half of that article. The only new content that I introduced related to Falun Gong was two reliable sources. This is what most of my contributions looked like:[283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292] Ohconfucius even sought to connect my creation of pages on David Shambaugh and Arthur Waldron to Falun Gong. He does this by pointing out an Epoch Times article about a roundtable in which both men’s names were mentioned. I created those pages because these are China scholars who have made notable contributions in their fields. I had no knowledge of the Epoch Times article Ohconfucius pointed to. Ohconfucius seems fixated on the Epoch Times, but I almost never read it. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times also report on the topics related to Chinese politics. Those are the journals I read regularly, and those are the kinds of sources I cite in articles. There is a conspiratorial undertone to all of this, and it's offensive.

On the talk page[293], Ohconfucius makes personal attacks against me and the TSTF, and possibly violates WP:BLP by calling Gail Rachlin a "paid lobbyist" for Falun Gong (she's identified in reliable sources, and here, as a volunteer spokesperson). Saying that someone is paid to espouse particular views is an ill-founded accusation of impropriety.

As an aside, I'm not sure about the appropriateness of constructing this kind of exhaustive analysis of another user's byte count. I didn't even know it was possible to run a script to collect this data. What possible value does this have?

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.