Chiappoloni (talk | contribs) |
OneClickArchiver archived Bloodofox to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive266 |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
**No objections here, and I was in the "update to modern practice" camp. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
**No objections here, and I was in the "update to modern practice" camp. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{hatb}} |
{{hatb}} |
||
==Bloodofox== |
|||
{{hat|[[Falun Gong]] placed under ECP for 1 year and logged. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 11:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
===Request concerning Bloodofox=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Cleopatran Apocalypse}} 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Bloodofox}}<p>{{ds/log|Bloodofox}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#May_2014]] : |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
'''Edits/revert warring''' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957482965 May 19] Changes definition of subject in first sentence, adds new second paragraph (with misspelling of subject) drawing attention to media companies associated with subject. At least one of these sentences contained material not in the source (i.e. that FLG's Shen Yun contains "anti-[[LGBTQ]] messaging"). These changes are then discussed on talk page. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957639438 May 19] Revert of the above (included misstatement of New Yorker source) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957648249 May 19] Revert of above. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957655411 May 19] Revert again. Note that dispute less about the categorization of subject as a new religious movement, but about whether there's a scholarly consensus on this (apparently not) and whether it should be the single authoritative definition. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957663089 May 19] Revert (4th or more now) of the same content. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957651781 May 19] Preempts previous careful/nuanced discussion of the different ways FLG has been categorized with "Scholars overwhelmingly describe Falun Gong as a NRM." Whether this is a consensus seems to be a matter of dispute. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shen_Yun&diff=prev&oldid=957481993 May 19] Coatracking? In any case the New Yorker article does not say The Epoch Times promotes conspiracy theories (other RS say so, I believe; but in the Shen Yun page I think the combination would be original research anyway. Point is it misrepresents the cited source again.) |
|||
'''Aspersions, insults, soapboxing''' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957640046 May 19] Effectively accuses users who disagree of trying to censor wikipedia. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957643355 May 19] User who disagrees is "parroting the organization's talking points" |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957649930 May 19] Implies users who disagree are attempting to promote the subject. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957657710 May 19] Accuses users who disagree of attempting to censor wikipedia. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957699037 May 19] Again accuses those who disagree with the emphasis that the new religious movement categorization should have in the article of "scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points." My read of the discussion on talk page is one of emphasis: some saying NRM is one of the several appellations, Bloodofox saying it is the dominant and should be emphasized above all others, then accusing those who disagree or provide alternate sources of censorship and doing propaganda for the FLG. For instance, another user notes that one of the leading scholars of FLG says it "makes no sense" to call FLG an NRM ; other user also put NRM in the section on categorization [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&type=revision&diff=957655084&oldid=957653071]. Thus, a question of emphasis, not scrubbing. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=957702454 May 20] An editor who reverted the disputed changes is described as an adherent. (It does not appear they identify themselves as such.) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=957700740 May 20] "Adherents crawling out of the woodwork", "another Falun Gong-talking-point-promoting editor". He was called out for this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=957708770] as unfounded and ad hominem. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=957700740 May 20] Again those who disagree are adherents doing propaganda, not other editors who simply disagree with his personal view of emphasis, weight, etc. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=957705040 May 20] More. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=957546569&oldid=956702329] (Note: not clear if before or after the edit warring.) |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
[[User:Bloodofox]] recently began editing the article [[Falun Gong]], as well as several other related articles that are also subject to discretionary sanctions. This complaint mostly focuses on his edits to [[Falun Gong]], with a few other examples shown to demonstrate the pattern. I watch the page and take some interest in it and related topics. |
|||
The user's edits appear to be tendentious. He has violated the 3RR in an attempt to enforce his revisions to the page, even while a (what I found fruitful and interesting) discussion about the merits of those changes was ongoing. The discussion is a bit lengthy, but I felt he often mischaracterized his interlocutors' positions, and by implication seemed to repeatedly claim they were trying to censor him or the encyclopedia. |
|||
In terms of content, I think the main problem is neutrality and weight. His edits to the lede of the article seem to be a case of a) [[WP:coatracking]]; b) not consistent with requirements for neutrality and [[WP:WEIGHT]], and c) not even supported by the sources given (as another user pointed out[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=957658439&oldid=957657987]. Indeed the excursion to the fringe noticeboard could be seen as an attempt at rather targeted forum shopping. |
|||
The user has accused other editors of acting in bad faith, including by interrogating them about their religious beliefs. This is just such an obvious form of ad hominem argument, and it doesn't contribute to a productive editing climate. |
|||
The central point of contention appears to be Bloodofox's attempt to give a master definition of Falun Gong as a [[New Religious Movement]]. (The previous version of the page, which seems to have been a stable consensus, called it a religious practice). It appears that other editors do not object to noting it has been categorized as a new religious movement, as one of several contested labels and categories that have been used to describe Falun Gong. They appear to disagree that it should be used as the authoritative, master definition, given the disputes among experts on it. |
|||
This is a controversial and difficult topic area. It doesn't appear that other editors disagree that the Falun Gong page include info on the media properties and performing troupes operated by adherents, or of discussion of how FLG is categorized by scholars. They seem concerned with weight, neutrality, tone. Bloodofox does not seem capable of or willing to contribute productively to these pages via reasonable discussion with other editors. In just one day or so he has adopted an aggressive approach, made accusations against other editors, repeatedly misrepresented sources, engaged in forum shopping, and edit warred. And anyone who disagrees with him is doing propaganda for the Falun Gong. |
|||
; Additional additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
On the forum shopping, sorry that I neglected the diffs. Here the editor takes the issue to the RS noticeboard [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Repeated_scrubbing,_sanitizing,_and_censorship_of_Falun_Gong], and to the Fringe Theories noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=957642261&oldid=957482784]. Maybe that is not a problem? The posts there however appear quite prejudicial and they seem to misrepresent the nature of the dispute. Per [[WP:forum shopping]], "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Accusing people who raised legitimate objections to his edits of being Falun Gong adherents, or suggesting that they're engaged in a conspiracy to censor him, does not seem like a neutral solicitation of input. |
|||
On my own revert to the page: I saw that Bloodofox made substantial changes to the lede section, edit warred to enforce his changes, and did so over the (seemingly reasonable) objections of editors on the talk page. I didn't understand my action as edit warring: it was a single revert back to a version of the page prior to the dispute, done because the proposed changes proved highly contentious, and it seemed improper that mere force be substituted for discussion and persuasion. But if I'm wrong please let me know, and happy to change back as this debate proceeds. |
|||
My read was that it was not the content as such that was being objected to, but cramming it in the lead in such a peculiar way. Why doesn't the article open with "Falun Gong is a group which some scholars believe is a cult." or alternatively "Falun Gong is a peaceful practice that suffers persecution in its native China." One could presumably find plenty of references for either of those statements, but they would be very poor opening sentences for an encyclopedic article. My ideal experience when reading pages here is to encounter an authoritative tone, where you cannot tell what the editors actually think of the subject - neutral, considered, all relevant views. |
|||
I do anti-prejudice stuff in my professional practice and I guess that drives my approach. I mostly lurk on wikipedia and haven't edited these pages much yet. I saw what struck me as aggressive conduct driven by obvious disdain for the subject, and after looking up the arbitration proceedings thought it warranted reporting. Tighter restrictions to the pages sounds like a fine idea. In this case it was an apparently seasoned editor who immediately did multiple reverts (seems I had not grokked the three revert rule) to enforce his preferred version of the page, and who has repeatedly disparaged editors who voiced objections to his changes without addressing the substance of their objections. All in a day. |
|||
A solution may be to suggest that the editor limit himself to the talk page and/or chill out on the name-calling and aggression? |
|||
I see the anti-LBGTQ issue now - the New Yorker article refers to Falun Gong teachings that homosexuality is unnatural, and later refers in passing to homophobia in Shen Yun. It's not clear whether there was an act in Shen Yun that was meant to be anti-gay, or if this is a transposition error. In any case, I read the piece earlier but when preparing the diffs did ctrl+f for the term that was cited and did not find it, so I called that out. It seems more borderline now, but still - is that something noteworthy enough for the second paragraph of an article? Now we write the encyclopedia by just picking out any detail that is negative (positive) for the subject and putting it in the second paragraph? The entire predication of tertiary sources is a familiarity with the body of secondary sources and discussion about how to integrate them all. With this precedent, what is to stop those who are pro-Falun Gong now filling the lede with their preferred tidbits, "10,000 Falun Gong practitioners were tortured in 2020," or whatever it may be. It simply seems like this editor really doesn't like Falun Gong and wants the pages to conform to that view. It's a bit confusing, and yes, not a particularly welcoming area to stick one's nose in. [[User:Cleopatran Apocalypse|Cleopatran Apocalypse]] ([[User talk:Cleopatran Apocalypse|talk]]) 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=957815891&oldid=957610127 |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Bloodofox=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Bloodofox==== |
|||
This is such a gross misepresentation of the situation and specific targeting of yours truly that it's hard to know where to begin. |
|||
But let's start here: First and foremost, {{ping|Cleopatran Apocalypse}}, the user who has brought this complaint, neglects to mention that she is by no means a neutral party on this subject: She has herself engaging in edit-warring to scrub the article of mention of the phrase ''new religious movement''. For example, before bringing this complaint, she performed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&type=revision&diff=957781898&oldid=957711215 this edit], reverting {{ping|Helloimahumanbeing}} and therefore removing a dozen of the highest possible quality academic sources available on this topic spanning over a decade, all flatly referring to Falung Gong as a ''new religious movement''. |
|||
And that is really what this is about. Like most new religious movements, Falun Gong doesn't like to be referred to as a ''new religious movement'', instead preferring to be thought of as an 'ancient spiritual practice', academics be damned. |
|||
This complaint is a waste of time. What we really need is more eyes on the [[Falun Gong]] article so that it doesn't simply read as a propaganda piece, as it currently does, alongside our ''[[The Epoch Times|Epoch Times]]'' and [[Shen Yun]] articles (both extensions of the new religious group). For readers unfamiliar with these propaganda extensions of the Falun Gong, [https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe read this], [https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 this], or [https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into-the-uncanny-unsettling-world-of-shen-yun this]. |
|||
Finally, while this really goes without saying, at the fringe theories noticeboard, we talk about fringe theories. I'm a regular. The editor who has brought this complaint has attempted to frame this as lobbying while, I remind you, attempting to scrub the article. She neglects to mention that the Falun Gong extensions consistently and aggressively push fringe theories, such as anti-vaccination propaganda, anti-evolution propaganda anti-LGBTQ propaganda—you name it—all the while spending over a million dollars in promoting the Donald Trump campaign and, for example, extreme right wing groups in Germany. |
|||
It ain't a pretty situation, and the aggressive pushback myself and other editors are experiencing here is undoubtedly in no small part due to the presence of certain editors revert-warring to make sure that English Wikipedia's [[Falun Gong]] article parrots the new religious movement's talking points, while hiding what its media extensions are up. And therefore scrubbing anything 'controversial' about the group. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Adding to this: Notably, when requested to provide more sources (framed above as "misrepresenting") on the Falun Gong's propaganda arms, I did so, eg.: |
|||
:*Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". ''The New Republic''. [https://newrepublic.com/article/155076/obscure-newspaper-fueling-far-right-europe Online]. |
|||
:*Junker, Andrew. 2019. ''Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora'', p. 99. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|9781108655897}} |
|||
:*Tolentino, Jia. 2019. ''Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun''. ''The New Yorker''. March 19, 2019. [https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into-the-uncanny-unsettling-world-of-shen-yun Online]. Last accessed May 18, 2020. |
|||
:*Zadronzy, Brandy & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". [https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 Online]. Last accessed May 19, 2020. |
|||
:However, the editor who has summoned us here has neglected to bring that to your attention—and in fact simply removed them. It is quite possible to rewrite this article from scratch with the hundreds of reliable secondary sources on this topic, both from recent media sources and from peer-reviewed academic sources spanning over decade. But then it would look quite different—it wouldn't agree with the organization's narrative. |
|||
:As as a result, when reasonable and accurate changes with reliable sources are introduced, they're historically reverted or lawyered away with "there's no consensus, people just don't understand the history". The sheer volume of academic sources say quite the opposite: The academics understand the new religious movement very well, and they overwhelmingly don't mince words about that classification, as demonstrated in just this small sample, consisting entirely of sources said editor and others have repeatedly removed from the article: |
|||
:*Barker, Eileen. 2016. ''Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements'', cf. 142-143. Taylor & Francis. {{ISBN|9781317063612}} |
|||
:*Clarke, Peter. 2004. ''Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements''. Taylor & Francis. {{ISBN|9781134499694}} |
|||
:*Hexham, Irving. 2009. ''Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements'', p. 49 & 71. InterVarsity Press. 9780830876525 |
|||
:*Oliver, Paul. 2012. ''New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed'', pp. 81-84. Bloomsbury Academic. {{ISBN|9781441125538}} |
|||
:*Partridge, Christopher. 2004. ''Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities'', 265-266. Lion. |
|||
:Personally, I write about new religious movements, fringe topics and pseudoscience quite frequently, and these sorts of responses are not at all unusual or even unexpected. But what is unusual here is the sheer volume of new accounts and long-term, specific-issue focused accounts hovering around this specific of articles. It's also worth noting that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shen_Yun&curid=22410688&diff=957850012&oldid=957847928 stuff like this regularly washes up on associated talk pages], as well. I certainly appreciate these articles getting more eyes and attention. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by PackMecEng==== |
|||
It does not appear they violated 3RR on [[Falun Gong]], but they did go right up against it. |
|||
:1 - {{tq|(Undid revision 957628151 by TheBlueCanoe (talk) This is fully reference to reliable sources, neutral, and indisputable. Wikipedia isn't censored.)}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=957639438&oldid=957628151] |
|||
:2 - {{tq|(- Revert: These are all exceptionally high quality sources, Wikipedia isn't censored)}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=957655411&oldid=957655084] |
|||
:3 - {{tq|(Undid revision 957662712 by TheBlueCanoe (talk) Take it to talk. We need discussion of these topics in the article, if not here. Wikipedia isn't censored. Finally, that was your third revert in the past 24 hours: Discuss more, add more quality sources, revert less.)}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=957663089&oldid=957662712] |
|||
Just for what it's worth. The forum shopping seems to come from posting it at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Repeated_scrubbing,_sanitizing,_and_censorship_of_Falun_Gong RSN] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Falun_Gong,_The_Epoch_Times,_and_Shen_Yun FTN]. If that qualifies as forum shopping? Eh I dunno. I have not looked into the misrepresenting sources comment yet. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Bstephens393==== |
|||
Oh boy, I had no idea that it would get to this point once again. I recently came back from a long PhD hiatus, but after going through the article's talk page I should probably make a few comments here. I don't wanted to get involved with any mudslinging. |
|||
First, I think Bloodofox is right in the sense that the New Religious Movement label is backed up by several reliable sources, and it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the article and given due weight. I have little tolerance for those who're trying to scrub it. The core of the debate is whether the different characterizations and definitions found in the mainstream academic sources ought to be described per WP:NPOV and WP:V, or if we should stick to one "master definition" (whether it's NRM, spiritual practice, or whatever suits your fancy.) Personally I think the former approach is better. Why would it be a ''bad'' thing to explain that there are various characterizations in reputable third-party sources? I really haven't seen a lot of opposition to that, with the exception of some random editors who just don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, or who simply don't care. |
|||
One thing to keep in mind is that the FLG articles are under discretionary sanctions because there have been several attempts by both sides of this discursive struggle to take control. Several editors were dragged to arbitration and banned over the years for propagandizing either with a pro-FLG/anti-CCP ''or'' an anti-FLG/pro-CCP agenda. The status quo of the articles was extensively scrutinized in previous arbitration and mediation cases, and there must be a few books worth of back-and-forth discussions about the complexities involved. From what I was able to tell, everyone (including admins) decided a few years ago that major edits to these articles should be done by obtaining support and having good faith discussions on the talk page, as well as avoiding all ''ad hominem'' attacks. The discretionary sanctions were put in place to enforce that. To me it seems that Bloodofox has been quite eager to make a large number of significant changes in a short period of time and wield major definitional power without addressing the substance of some eminent concerns. It is unfortunate that this should escalate into edit warring and such; is it because of impatience or frustration with the discussion process that's inherently involved in these kinds of cases? |
|||
Furthermore, there does seem to be some bad faith involved, as a number of people who disagreed with the wordings, placements and structure (but who were basically in agreement about the reliability/notability of the sources) were accused of tendentiousness, and worse. I don't see that as being essentially very different from those crazies who think that everybody who's critical of FLG must be a CCP agent. I've experienced that myself in some situations. Real world doesn't operate like that. Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history. [[User:Bstephens393|Bstephens393]] ([[User talk:Bstephens393|talk]]) 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by fiveby==== |
|||
I took issue with the anti-evolution/anti-LGBT edit, thought the sourcing was weak but it wasn't a "misrepresentation" and {{u|Bloodofox}} was perfectly reasonable[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=957659468][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=957668005] about taking another look. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Ian.thomson==== |
|||
Calling any and all users bringing in Falun Gong's favored version "adherents" is technically aspersions, but let's face it, at least some of them undoubtedly are. It would take a [[WP:CIR|special kind of dedicated ignorance]] to insist that Falun Gong is not an NRM unless one is a follower who believes as a matter of faith that Li Hongzhi was merely preserving/reviving ancient traditions. {{small|On that note, [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] but Li's Zhuan Falun promises mystical powers but says that any identical results in any similar movement (e.g. [[Vajrayana]]) will be a demonic illusion -- extremely sectarian for a Buddhist-inspired movement.}} The loose organization parallels [[Transcendental Meditation movement]] (which lets casual members pretend they're doing enough while seeking out diehard adherents for more demanding activities) more than the Church of Scientology's hierarchy but [[The Epoch Times]] is a clear sign of an organization with a contagiously self-gaslighting membership akin to the CoS. Yes, yes, the Chinese gov't's persectution of them is absolutely unacceptable and should be condemned, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to push even harder in the opposite direction when it comes to propaganda. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Bloodofox=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*The OP doesn't understand [[WP:3RR|3RR]] (admittedly that's not surprising for a user with 337 edits) — consecutive edits count as one edit, so Bloodofox has not violated 3RR that I can see, or even come close. Altogether the OP's diffs (which look pretty harmless) and the accusations they level are curiously separate — for instance, the very serious accusations that Bloodofox has "repeatedly misrepresented sources [and] engaged in forum shopping" don't come with any evidence. Please give diffs for those statements, {{yo|Cleopatran Apocalypse}} or I'm very inclined towards a [[WP:boomerang|boomerang]] here. The report looks like an attempt to weaponize AE against an opponent. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 20:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC). |
|||
*{{ec}} On the subject of edit warring, the filer has actually continued doing so even after filing this request ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&type=revision&diff=957818165&oldid=957794734]) I'm also seeing some substantial problems with the filer's editing, including with what's presented here. {{u|Cleopatran Apocalypse}} states that Bloodofox misrepresented a reference by stating Shen Yun put forth anti-LGBTQ material, yet the cited source ([https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into-the-uncanny-unsettling-world-of-shen-yun]) clearly states that Shen Yun's performances contain "homophobia", so that particular accusation is flatly false and an [[WP:ASPERSION|aspersion]]. On the part of Bloodofox, referring to others who disagree with the edits as "adherents" and accusing them of involvement in a conspiracy is also casting aspersions, and that better stop too. Like Bishonen, I'm disposed, in terms of this particular request, to seeing a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] in the air here. However, given what I'm seeing on the article itself, there does indeed seem to be a substantial amount of [[WP:OWN|ownership]] behavior by some editors, and some editors who edit very infrequently seem to pop up awfully conveniently when there's a dispute. I'm inclined to put the article (talk included) under both 30/500 and 1RR, and if that can't resolve those issues, maybe it would then be time for ArbCom to take a fresh look at this. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* Agree with Bishonen and Seraphimblade. Also I note that when [[User:TheBlueCanoe]] reached 3RR, another editor [[User:Clara Branch]] (24 edits) popped up to remove all the materal again, and then when it was restored (not by Bloodofox), there was the OP (337 edits) with their first edit on the article since 2017 to wipe it all out again. ECP might be useful here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*:They are {{unrelated}}, BK --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]] 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**: That doesn't surprise me, but even if they're not the same editor I would say there's a very good chance of off-wiki collusion there. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* I agree with Seraphimblade and Bishonen. 1RR and ECP are good options --[[User:Guerillero|<span style="color: #0b0080">Guerillero</span>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]] 20:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* Per the above, I am placing {{la|Falun Gong}} under ECP for 1 year. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ceha== |
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ceha== |
Revision as of 17:22, 28 May 2020
cjwilky
No action at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning cjwilky
Cjwilky's edits fall into two classes: Doncaster Rovers, and problematic edits advocating fringe views. Cjwilky has acknowledged on-wiki his work as a homeopath, and his real-world identity is known but not I think linked to Wikipedia explicitly, so I won't give his full name. He is a homeopath in the UK. The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article, adding WP:COI tot he WP:FRINGE. Coleman is also squarely within the scope of the pseudoscience case. I'm not asking for a block, but I would ask for (a) a warning and (b) an explicit extension of the TBAN to cover the entire area of fringe/pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning cjwilkyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by cjwilkyI've just seen the note about 500 words max, and so tried to edit down, however, having seen the responses below, it appears explanation is just. An accusation is always easy to be succinct with, but to deal with the issue thoroughly and fairly, it surely has to be fair to fully respond. Yes, many egs of the pages I'd need to be banned from - however it makes the point of how ludicrous such ban as is suggested is. Edit on Vernon Coleman came from seeing a youtube vid I felt was a bit flakey and subsequently trying to get an overview on him having never come across him before. The wiki page didn't say a lot and the ASA section was confused at best. I would have spent more time if I had time, though deleting the chunk I did, it being repetition, was a no brainer. So regarding this, I didn't actually remove anything bar the repetition. The claim of: "Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman" is patently mistaken. That he has written books on homeopathy, I have no idea. As said, I was trying to find out who he is, and in any case the homeopathy angle has no relevance unless it has been deemed an edit of mine was deliberately changing the weight of the article in some way. It's attempting to use hypothetical circumstantial evidence - I'm aghast at the logic there? The edit on Artemisia annua came from researching the ingredients of the Madagascan medicine for covid - a significant topic at the moment, as can be seen from the page stats - sharply up from approx 500 views per day to 2000 over the last month. It had been very difficult to track down the ingredients of this medicine and I managed it, so added it to the section already in wiki, though a section that was missing some useful, crucial, info. Isn't this what wiki is about? Again, the relevance to homeopathy isn't there, certainly not from my part in it. The Covid Organics medicine is herbal, not homeopathy - maybe evidence of Guy's lack of understanding and comprehension on the issue and on what he refers to as pseudoscience in general. Given his accusations, I would be interested in what Guy has found regarding homeopathy, covid and artemisia? Many remedies treat the symptoms of covid, artemisia isn't one I've seen discussed in the professional forums. Further, herbalism is not fringe. Two edits done without problem, but there is a complaint and a statement of "problematic edits advocating fringe views." - yet I see no evidence of anything problematic for Wiki. If anyone is interested, check my edits. They are constructive and helpful. Even the breach of the topic ban on homeopathy was simply me observing how editors had no understanding of what they were talking about on a specific issue and so I tried to give them context and perspective - there was no trouble on my side, though there were some vile comments from other editors there - par for the course on the homeopathy page towards anyone not toeing a pseudoskeptic line, and ultimately why I was banned from there. Cjwilky (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article,..."
"Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman, whose books advocate homeopathy for a variety of diseases."
Statement by (username)Result concerning cjwilky
Moved comment to editor's section; please see it there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ceha
Appeal declined. Please apply for an appeal in 6 months showing how you have worked collaboratively in other areas of the encyclopedia. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Ceha< moderator sanctioned me for trying to stop deletion of sourced and quoted text> Statement by BradvTwo months ago I blocked Ceha from editing the article Kingdom of Bosnia for slow-motion edit warring – reverting to the same content once per week, typically with a misleading edit summary, and little to no effort to actually build consensus on the talk page. I warned Ceha that if they continued this disruptive editing on other articles the next step would be a topic ban. Following the partial block Ceha abandoned the talk page altogether, and instead focused their efforts on Bosnia (early medieval polity), employing the exact same method of weekly reverts, misleading edit summaries, and little to no discussion with other editors. At this point the choice was between a topic ban and an indefinite block for disruptive editing, and I chose the lesser restriction in the hopes that they would be able to edit productively in a topic area they are less passionate about. I would be happy to endorse loosening of this restriction once Ceha has demonstrated an ability to work collaboratively with other editors in another topic area. – bradv🍁 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CehaResult of the appeal by Ceha
|
Chiappoloni
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Chiappoloni
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Chiappoloni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBAPDS :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
- 23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
- 23 May Restores material removed by another editor in violation of "consensus required" restriction
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months - [2]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Chiappoloni
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Chiappoloni
In reference to:
Political donations for George Soros page
As it appears NorthBySouthBaranof has mentioned in a previous talk page which also applies here, "The material is not questionably or poorly sourced, is not a violation of BLP... You're welcome to discuss the issue on the article talk page or bring more viewpoints to that page, but mere disagreement with cited sources does not justify removal of sourced material."
Removing factual information, that better informs our readers or provides improved access to our readers, is not helpful, especially if it is presented in a data-oriented, fact-focused, manner. Removing facts is doing the opposite for our readers to understand all political donations. Editing or reverting any changes in wording seems understandable if taking a certain viewpoint or interpretation of a paragraph, but removing an entire paragraph, source, or new facts provided to an article, does not appear understandable, or justified. Why are Federal Elections more or less important than local US Elections as mentioned in the Los Angeles Times? These edits are adding factual information to a page and making a section easier-to-read by adding sub-headings and additional source information. Not sure how presenting published news articles and a full data-focused and fact-focused description is being removed or in violation. Legitimate news sources, e.g. Politico, the Los Angeles Times, and the Telegraph, are being referenced or added for readers’ ease-of-access. To remove these sources for referenced articles is decreasing the ease-of-access and factual information for articles.
Contested Edits - Incorrect removal of LA Times and other sourcing articles regarding political donations
I'm not sure how any of these edits are able to be 'contested' by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place? Being that the edits consisted of adding sub-headings for readability, sources for readability and reference-checking, public information, and published articles from news sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and the relevant and referred to donation funds' websites (- when NorthBySouthBaranof said that the sources were not legitimate? -) surrounding local political investment, without offering opinions on said donations. Specifically, these edits were added to the sub-heading titled, 'Political Involvement,' which appears appropriate. It is surprising that this added information to the said section would not be lauded versus 'contested?' Especially considering that this section appears lacking in organization, readability, comprehensiveness (no US-specific section while there has been substantial amounts of donations in this arena (in the billions of $s), and no separation of or information on the large amounts of local US donations versus federal-election-only US donations), and sourcing material.
Moreover, please can someone clarify, is only one person allowed to contest an article's changes to be considered 'consensus?' Whereas, reverting via an apparent incorrect contesting of an article's edits, out of disagreement with said factual information, is only needed by one person NorthBySouthBaranof?
Lastly, this user, NorthBySouthBaranof, appears to need to perhaps be placed on some sort of restriction themselves? Not only have they removed added sources helpful to our readers, but have also removed history and factual information for our readers. In addition, this user has filed an enforcement request 6 minutes after asking for the reverted edits to be removed. This not only seems overtly 'hasty,' in not giving an appropriate amount of time to myself to make said edits, but the fact that these edits were incorrectly placed by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place, makes it all the more moot.
This next section makes the Statement go over 500 word limit, unfortunately - However, I believe this section is necessary and significant to present a full picture of NorthBySouthBaranof's actions and claims:
User NorthBySouthBaranof has also provided incorrect or false information here on this filing, as I have in fact tried to discuss the issue on NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)'s talk page (as can be seen on their talk page), and they in fact 'snipped' or deleted my response. My now-'snipped' attempt at conversing with them can be seen on their talk page, and which I re-posted on mine after noticing NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) snipped my attempt.
In my initial Wikipedia-user-interface naivete I removed what I thought were notices on my talk page (#notices), but not attempts at conversation, and these appear to be from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I might be naive, as I am a beginner to the user-interface of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is possible to believe that I have 'removed' any conversation attempts, when I believe these were intended as 'notices' versus conversation from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I have recently tried to undo these edits due to me being a beginner, and they appear to be unable to be undone - but please redo them if possible, it will probably be more helpful to this case.
NorthBySouthBaranof, however, is an experienced user that I would imagine should know better than deleting my attempts at conversation on his talk page. He had in fact removed or 'snipped' all attempts at conversation. Hence, it appears surprising that he would then accused me of what he, NorthBySouthBaranof, has in fact done? His (and my) actions can easily be seen on these public webpages, and histories of these pages so I'm not sure why he would provide this false claim? Here is a copy of NorthBySouthBaranof's misdirected claim where not only do they only mention a 'consensus required' provision which refers to their Arbitration Request, but they also do not acknowledge their deletion of the sources and information or relevant and needed rationale therein, and then provide the misdirected, or false, claim regarding the removal of all attempts at communication (which NorthBySouthBaranof did, but I did not, funny enough): "Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)."
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Chiappoloni
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Chiappoloni, just state your case in your own section, please. You do not need a new report for that — a report which was malformed anyway. El_C 19:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Chiappoloni, these do indeed appear to be straightforward violations of the "consensus required" restriction, and you were clearly notified of that. I'll wait for a reasonable amount of time to hear what you have to say, but I suggest you respond as soon as you are able. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Aroma Stylish
Blocked for 48 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Aroma Stylish
The user has been repeatedly asked to abide by the 500/30 requirement, eg [3], [4],[5]. Doesnt seem to have had an effect.
Discussion concerning Aroma StylishStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aroma StylishStatement by (username)Result concerning Aroma Stylish
|