My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
Homunculus (talk | contribs) →Bad faith assumptions: clarify |
||
Line 584: | Line 584: | ||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
||
::I'm not entirely sure what was meant by that statement. My reading of it was that the first part of the statement was directed at me, but the latter part of the comment was directed at Falun Gong |
::I'm not entirely sure what was meant by that statement. My reading of it was that the first part of the statement was directed at me, but the latter part of the comment was directed at what Shrigley called "Falun Gong activists." I have only very recently been assigned that label, so I assume that he was referring to other editors involved in the thread, and/or that this was a general statement about Falun Gong editors. The suggestion was that "Falun Gong and its NGOs allies of convenience" are engaged in a campaign to "suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia" in order to procure or maintain U.S. government subsidies. I do not know what U.S. government subsidies are being referred to, but this does seem like a very unproductive and rather serious accusation of bad faith, whoever the target was. [[User:Homunculus|Homunculus]] ([[User talk:Homunculus|duihua]]) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
Revision as of 19:31, 18 June 2012
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Caution within FG articles
1) I'd like to suggest that we consider imposing a temporary injunction on the Falun Gong namespace pending the outcome of this case. Perhaps something to the effect that editors should exercise caution with major or potentially contentious changes, and seek to discuss them on talk pages first? This seems consistent with the editing policy. Homunculus (duihua) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Sorry, I didn't realize you'd posted a proposal here until now; I've updated the header for this section so it's a little more obvious by simply glancing at the page. In any event, I don't see that such an injunction would achieve much; as you point out, the editing policy asks editors to discuss such edits first anyway. One hopes also that the simple fact that this case is open would serve as warning enough - an editor, particularly one who is party to this case, that engages in disruptive conduct in the Falun Gong topic area would be doing so at their own peril. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Hersfold: I would hope so too. That the named parties would be on their best behavior and discuss controversial edits, that is. But I've been disappointed on an almost daily basis. Shall I give examples? Homunculus (duihua) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:Homunculus
Proposed principles
Conduct
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Wikipedia is not a battleground
2) Wikipedia is a serious intellectual project. The objective of the project is to build a free, high-quality reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Editing policy
3) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Editors are strongly encouraged to adhere to editing policy on talking and editing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Upholding community standards
4) It is the responsibility of every member of the community to uphold the core pillars of Wikipedia and minimize disruptions, edit warring, or incivility. Editors should take care to apply Wikipedia policies and standards in a fair manner. Users should not defend or reinforce disruptive behavior by others on the basis of shared philosophical or ideological inclinations.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Accusations of impropriety
5) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. The misrepresentation of another editor’s behavior for the purpose of making it appear improper or sanctionable is considered a form of gaming the system. Assertions of improper conduct—including though not limited to claims of sockpuppety, wikilawyering, POV-pushing, or gaming the system—should be made with caution and supported by evidence, rather than offered as insults. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
User space
6) Pages in user space intended to memorialize conflicts or document other editors’ perceived faults without a clear and immediate purpose is considered unproductive, as it may serve to perpetuate a dispute. Longstanding consensus at WP:Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Assuming good faith
7) Editors who find that they are unwilling or unable to assume good faith or behave in a professional, cordial manner are encouraged to recuse themselves. Persistent, misplaced accusations of bad faith against other users are demoralizing and counterproductive.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- There must be reasonable limits to the WP:AGF principle, particularly after very consistent patterns of behavior that can be clearly identified as being POV-pushing and advocacy. I quote WP:CRUSH: "The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended to editors who are continually shown to be acting in a manner that is detrimental to the growth and improvement of the encyclopedia. Nor is AGF defined as doublespeak for urging all editors to agree with a particular viewpoint and accept any changes that are advocated." Colipon+(Talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes there are naturally limits, and editors should not abuse the AGF clause. A user who has a clear and demonstrable history of behavioral problems, or who has been blocked or banned in the past, might reasonably expect that they are not accorded quite the same level of good faith and credulity as others. Even so, all editors should be treated with dignity, and their ideas and contributions must always be assessed on their individual merits, rather than on the basis of who is making them.
- One of the other principles I proposed relates to accusations of impropriety. If an editor displays behavioral problems which cannot be addressed in a constructive manner, then these problems should be raised in the appropriate forum with evidence, if at all.
- Non-specific accusations of POV-pushing and advocacy are problematic in that they may be highly subjective. For example, you wrote on the evidence page, "I firmly believe that only activists extremely invested in Falun Gong would push for the inclusion of FRINGE material on FLG lawsuits on articles about Chinese officials." You're referring to this content. WP:FRINGE applies to theories of course; well sourced, notable, and factual information is not fringe. (Ironically, one of the definitions of WP:ACTIVIST is editors who try to remove legitimate material by erroneously claiming it's synthesis, undue, or fringe—all things Colipon did at Talk:Bo Xilai#Falun Gong.) You have defined as an activist anyone who disagreed with you on this content question—including, presumably, these people[1][2][3]. And in this forum, it seems you might be saying that activists are not entitled to good faith (is that right, or did I misread you?). Disagreements on content issues, or divergent points of view, is not a legitimate basis for failing to assume good faith.Homunculus (duihua) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't buy that at all. The evidence is so overwhelming on the SPA and POV-push charges, I'll let it speak for itself. As for myself, my record is there for everyone to scrutinize. Unlike your edit history, mine does not have any sort of pattern of being 'pro-' or 'anti-' anything, and I've worked on many controversial articles. ArbCom is welcome to scrutinize what I've written in any article. Colipon+(Talk) 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Support. Poorly substantiated COI accusations is a serious problem in many cases. Yes, everyone must make every effort to AGF, especially while editing in contentious areas like this one. Unproven personal accusations must be avoided. Speaking about this, Evidence section by Colipon makes a claim that "Homunculus and TSTF are Falun Gong activists". This is serious accusation. But unfortunately, I do not see any real proof that they are members of Falun Gong or engaged in paid advocacy. Yes, they are interested in editing these subjects and may have certain POV, but so is everyone else in many subject areas. Now, let's take a look at AE request by Colipon. First two parts ("Background" and "Homunculus is an SPA") include a lot of personal accusations and links to policies, but exactly zero diffs that can prove anything. That AE request by Colipon is advocacy, or at least it looks like advocacy to me. If anything, this AE statement proves lack of willingness to assume good faith on the part of Colipon. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Users background and neutrality
8) Editors espousing a religious or national background relevant to the topic area are welcome to participate, but must strive to edit from a Neutral Point of View and behave collaboratively and in good faith toward editors with whom they may disagree.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Religious and national epithets
9) The use of slurs and derogatory references to groups such as religions, social classes or nationalities, is prohibited. It is unacceptable to use an editor's religious or national affiliation (whether real or presumed) as an ad hominem means or dismissing or discrediting their contributions. Fixation or speculation on another editor's off-wikipedia orientations, national or religious background, behaviors or lifestyle is unacceptable. Editors should discuss content, not contributors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Yes, agree with everything, except (partly) 2nd phrase. If an editor has any real (as opposed to imaginary) official affiliation with an outside organization, and this can lead to problems with editing in "difficult" areas, they must disclose their COI for the good of the project. But yes, the existence of COI per se should not be a reason for ad hominem attacks or dismissing or discrediting their contributions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by Colipon
Proposed principles
POV-pushing not acceptable, no matter what form
1) Editors are encouraged to assume good faith, particularly for new users. However, if behavior and editorial patterns reveal over a lengthy period of time that they are interested in POV-pushing and not the improvement of the encyclopedia according to the Five Pillars, the accounts should be summarily sanctioned at the discretion of presiding administrators.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
No-tolerance policy towards SPAs
2) Single purpose accounts dedicated to advocacy should not be tolerated in any way and summarily banned.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- No, WP:SPA and WP:ACTIVIST are questionable essays, not a policy. In fact, telling to other contributors that they are "SPA" and "activists" does not help to maintain the collegial atmosphere and must be avoided. Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that this principle may have been used in the past before. The fact that things are merely essays does not mean that they might include material which is potentially useful and relevant in particular cases. And I find the above comment, seeking to tell people how to behave, apparently specifically clearly instructing them that they cannot comment about individual editors in a situation which was specifically begun to address problematic behavior of specific editors, basically irrational and under the circumstances almost incomprehensible. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Homunculus is an SPA
1) Homunculus is a single-purpose account dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- User who edited 500+ different pages [4] (as Homunculus) can not be considered an SPA. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, Homunculus and TSTF edit-warred
2) Ohconfucius, Homunculus, and TSTF have engaged in edit-warring
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Falun Gong articles on revert parole
1) Place all Falun Gong articles on revert parole indefinitely, including 'partial reverts', and 're-organization' of articles that removes recently added material.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- No, do not blame subjects. They can be neutrally written. The problem are always contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The articles are already under discretionary sanctions, as per earlier. Also, adding such a requirement would potentially make it such that editors would be afraid to remove some clearly disruptive edits, for fear of violating the sanction.John Carter (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. In a way, I'm trying to strike a balance here, because even a bit of 'tolerance' for disruptive behavior can be an open invite for gaming the system. So I am definitely open to the refinement of such proposals. Colipon+(Talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussions should be summarized and closed by uninvolved users
2) Discussions over Falun Gong material outside of Falun Gong article space, if they reach an 'impasse', should be closed by uninvolved users, preferably admins, who will decisively summarize consensus much like they are summarized in a 'move' or 'deletion' request.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- There is an existing process for this, which is WP:RFC. While, in a sense, I would not necessarily object to this regarding some articles related to this topic, this is a current and developing topic and making such a process obligatory might create some BLP problems in certain instances. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK, having participated at a few FLG-related RFCs, they have been woefully inefficient at solving any content related disputes, and rarely is a discussion conclusively 'closed'. Basically, any user can just continue to wiki-lawyer their way out of consensus with any type of rationale they see fit, and act as a sort of filibuster. I've learned this approach from recent discussions at removing recurring items of In The News; an admin, hopefully somewhat knowledgeable in the area, will just have to boldly come in and establish consensus, particularly when one side (or both) is reluctant to even move an inch. Colipon+(Talk) 19:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is an existing process for this, which is WP:RFC. While, in a sense, I would not necessarily object to this regarding some articles related to this topic, this is a current and developing topic and making such a process obligatory might create some BLP problems in certain instances. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Homunculus indefinite ban
1) Homunculus topic-banned indefinitely from Falun Gong articles, widely construed, including anti-CCP advocacy.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- No comment on the proposal just yet, but if I may be pedantic this belongs in Remedies. Enforcement provisions are "this is what to do if an editor violates a remedy", and with the Committee's recent motions custom provisions are essentially deprecated anyway. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- As overwhelming evidence from my AE case and the 'user analysis' by Ohconfucius reveal, Homunculus is an SPA dedicated to Falun Gong advocacy, including all manners of criticism against the CCP, and this pattern is consistent in the vast majority of articles edited by this user. Colipon+(Talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Moved here by arb, please keep the format consistent. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
TSTF narrowly-construed ban
2) TSTF banned from Falun Gong articles, narrowly construed, for a year. Depending on behavior off-FLG space, the ban may be lifted subject to admin discretion. The ban is narrowly construed as such: 1) that articles related to the CCP or Chinese governance in general should not be part of this ban 2) editing Falun Gong material on the same articles, however, is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- No comment on the proposal just yet, but if I may be pedantic this belongs in Remedies. Enforcement provisions are "this is what to do if an editor violates a remedy", and with the Committee's recent motions custom provisions are essentially deprecated anyway. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- While the majority of this user's substantive edits are Falun Gong-related and his editing patterns reflect persistent pro-Falun Gong advocacy, he has made constructive edits consistent with the goals of Wikipedia to articles about philosophers, and as such this can be seen as a 'mitigating circumstance'. It does not harm the encyclopedia for this user to continue his work in areas unrelated to Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Moved here by arb, please keep the format consistent. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
No-tolerance policy
1) [Still in development]: Topic bans lasting thirty calendar days be levied to any user who edit-wars, refuses to adhere to admin-sponsored consensus, or otherwise attempts to POV-push in any form whatsoever; to be reported at first instance of abuse.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This is an enforcement proposal still under development; I am thinking about the greater context... previous ARBFLG ruling has failed to maintain NPOV and a constructive editing environment at Falun Gong articles, and problematic editing will likely continue despite targeted bans of certain users; sockpuppets and meatpuppets are bound to appear, since, much like other NRMs such as Scientology, real-world stakes for Falun Gong's polished image on Wikipedia is extremely high. I will do some more research on previous arbitration cases to see what remedies are available in this regard. Colipon+(Talk) 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Analysis of My very best wishes' evidence
Confucius Institutes edits were not an "edit war"
User:My very best wishes, in bullet point four, portrays a series of edits as an "edit-war". In fact, they were part of deliberative discussion and consensus-building, which My very best wishes obscures by omitting links to other users' reverts and talk page discussion. Here were his diffs:
- PCPP (6 January 2012),
- Shrigley (7 January 2012),
- OhConfucius (11 January 2012),
- Shtigley (10 February 2012),
- OhConfucious (13 February 2012).
January edits
PCPP made a series of changes on 5-6 January, ending with diff 1, which were criticized by Homunculus and reverted by TheSoundAndTheFury largely because both users distrusted PCPP. After a multiparty talk page discussion here, in which we discussed all points of content, I was able to build trust between both sides and reinstate most of PCPP's edits on 7 January, diff 2. (TheSoundAndTheFury acknowledges that we reached consensus through discussion, rather than edit-warred). Ohconfucius's edit on 11 January, diff 3, did shorten some text but did not directly relate to the content in dispute.
February edits
One month later, from 8-10 February, User:Keahapana made a flurry of 17 edits without discussion, which both reverted PCPP's changes (against the consensus of H, me, TSTF, and PCPP) and reverted Ohconfucius's subsequent changes. (Keahapana acknowledges that his edits were "a response to the numerous changes made in January"). I revert him and ask him to discuss before making major changes, as has been expected of PCPP (diff 4). Keahapana reverts me, saying his changes were "fully explained", although Homunculus notes that there was no recent discussion in which Keahapana could have justified his changes. Ohconfucius reverts Keahapana back to consensus version (diff 5). And then, through discussion Ohconfucius, Homunculus, I, and Keahapana were able to come to a consensus on the changes to the page. Therefore My very best wishes' attempt to portray the editing there as "war" rings totally false.
- A more holistic analysis of the evidence
The exact users who MVBW tries to frame as "edit-warriors" (me, Ohconfucius) were those users who edited and reverted in accordance with consensus-building norms, while the users who we reverted (TheSoundAndTheFury, Keahapana) wholly or partially violated those norms. The latest dispute erupted after I stopped editing that page, but PCPP basically alleges, credibly considering Keahapana's past behavior, that Keahapana disregarded our consensus and pushed through his personally desired changes. We have this problem with TheSoundAndTheFury and Homunculus flagrantly disregarding consensus that they themselves help formulate (Homunculus acknowledges one such self-made breach at Bo Xilai).
To stretch a topic ban beyond credulity
My very best wishes' portrayal of the Confucius Institutes as "engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China" in bullet point five is a true mischaracterization. It's a language learning center and has no political curriculum, yet opponents fault the teachers for not pushing an anti-Chinese government line. The teachers are recruited from China and Falun Gong is banned in China (so surprise, no employees are openly Falun Gong); if a nationwide Chinese law makes the Institutes a "Falun Gong article", then a topic ban on Falun Gong is effectively a topic ban on all China-related articles. Shrigley (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- @Here is diff by Shrigley. It tells : "engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions about human rights violations in China". Here is my text (the diff). It tells: "... is an organization funded by Chinese government and allegedly engaged in world-wide suppression of discussions ... The allegations are documented in multiple RS, and words “Falun Gong” appear in this article several times." Hence Shrigley starts his quotation of me directly after word "allegedly". Such selective quotation to "prove" something is totally inappropriate. I do not know anything about Shrigley, but I can only imagine what kind of "evidence" he provided to Arbcom. Please note that whole his Evidence section consists of selective quotations out of context. I probably would not even bother to read it. As about his another point, there is plenty of edits here which can be qualified as edit warring. But edit warring was not my point. My point was topic bans violations by PCPP, and this is not my conclusion. That was conclusion by several uninvolved AE administrators, as follows from the diffs in my Evidence section. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Analysis of TheSoundAndTheFury's evidence against Shrigley
Confucius Institutes dispute resolution
TSTF cites as evidence [5] this diff on the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which I apparently refer to "Falun Gong-focused editors". It has been established in the Ohconfucius's and Colipon's evidence, particularly by link to Ohconfucius's quantitative analysis, that H and TSTF are single-purpose accounts dedicated to editing Falun Gong subjects. Colipon noted in his evidence how H and TSTF have a pattern of going to non-Falun Gong related articles, including biographies of high-ranking Chinese officials, and adding copious amounts of Falun Gong-related material.[6][7][8]
In this diff, I was participating in dispute resolution, where it is more common and even expected to comment on users' behavior, including patterns of editing, rather than simply content. Two months before the PCPP case came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, somebody [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Header&diff=453758395&oldid=450414925 changed] the header to refocus the DRN towards content and not conduct disputes. I didn't notice this change and was perhaps operating under false assumptions, since I had used DRN to successfully mediate conduct disputes in the past.
The remarks to which TSTF took offense were demarcated under a section I wrote to establish the context of the article to a mediator. This included a reference to "Falun Gong followers" and a link to ARBFLG, where the pro-Falun Gong parties disclosed their membership. [9][10][11] Perhaps it was unwise to suggest a continuity between these now-banned editors and H and TSTF, but it should be understood within the context of a current AE case and talk page sniping in which TSTF made personal remarks about PCPP[12] and accused him of "pro-Chinese government editing".[13]
Ultimately, this edit was not an indication of battleground mentality, because they were focused on a narrow audience within a dispute resolution context. Such a mentality would also preclude civil cooperation towards building that article, but TSTF, Homunculus, Ohconfucius and I were able to repeatedly ratify compromises on the Confucius Institutes content.[14][15]
Bo Xilai mountain of a molehill
TSTF links to [16] this diff on Talk:Bo Xilai, in which I supposedly "[suggest] that [certain] editors... are “followers of small religiopolitical movements.”" The actual text shows that my message was a rejoinder to a personal attack by Homunculus against me: "I'm seriously tired of editors (always the same ones) deleting credible reports of human rights abuses.... Shrigley has... [made] an edit that is patently misleading."
Although TSTF wrote a threatening message on my talk page,[17] I replied[18] to clarify that I was not referring to Homunculus as TSTF had assumed. While Homunculus attacked me by name, I mentioned no name in my diff, and actually linked to a section([19] specifically) of the Bo Xilai talk page where a self-identified FLG member[20] and recognizably disruptive editor[21] advocated for the same "look how bad he treated Falun Gong" material in this man's biography as H and TSTF do now. Although H indicated in his evidence that he resents being connected to the ghosts of bad FLG editors, he makes exactly the same arguments and behaves in the same way.
TSTF describes what I shortened as an "impeccably sourced paragraph", which contrasts to what I supposedly called such material ("poorly sourced"). The sources cited included a little-known human rights litigation group, brief newswire accounts (with no followup) of completed lawsuits, and a Wikileaks cable. The first two weak sources were used to support the fact that Falun Gong filed lawsuits against Bo in the incorrect jurisdiction (anyone can file lawsuits and make such headlines, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia). The third source was used to argue for the lawsuits as a significant part of Bo's biography. Aside from being a "primary source" and "possibly illegal" (H's own ironic words on Wikileaks, before he argued the opposite when it could advance the FLG viewpoint), Wikileaks cables are at their core based on the hearsay of diplomats.
Although TSTF acknowledged my explanation for why this diff was not a speculation on the affiliations of H, and said that he "[doesn't] want to turn a molehill into a mountain", he dregs up this discredited diff again at Arbcom as a core part of his evidence against me. Although we've had many such pleasant exchanges, including on consensus-building at Confucius Institutes, these vignettes of cooperation don't mediate overall the level of vitriol that comes out during dispute resolution. I'm therefore not inspired with confidence by H and TSTF's continued paeans to "discussion, principled negotiation, and consensus building" throughout these proceedings. Shrigley (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Bad faith assumptions
This is an unusually nasty personal attack. Author of the comment (Shrigley) calls another editor by name, but he means all editors who do not share his POV on the subject. He claims (without any evidence) that named editor and all others are paid governmental agents to spread propaganda on-wiki, or at least this is my understanding of the diff. I do not know if there are other similar claims on the Evidence page, but it does not seem unreasonable if Arbcom would ban all contributors who made such claims. And I do not mean just topic ban, but site ban. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Here is his response to request by Homunculus to AGF:
Well, Homunculus, conversations are bound to be stable and civil when everyone out of lockstep with the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" is driven away or banned at AE. Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war. (User:Shrigley)
If you think that was an appropriate comment, it means we have a significant difference in opinions. He tells about alleged '"U.S. government subsidies" "to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia." He also adds: "If only it were an ideological war." This is quite a battleground statement.My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I'm not sure how you can interpret a comment clearly directed at one person to be directed at people in general. The first sentence of Shrigley's comment does appear to be a veiled threat to get Homunculus banned, but I don't see that it's directed at anyone else, nor can I find a personal attack or any of the allegations you're claiming are there. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- To avoid confusing matters, could you post replies to comments in the "Comment by parties" section below rather than refactoring your original post? Thanks. And yes, I read the comment in the diff you posted, there's little need to repost it here. I'm not saying it was appropriate, you'll note I considered the first sentence to be a veiled threat. What I am saying is that I feel that your interpretation of the comment is not supported by what the comment actually says. How I interpret "Here's a horrifying excerpt..." onward is an explanation of why he feels Coliphon's idea won't work; to paraphrase, bad PR for Falun Gong == no money. I do not see this as an accusation that specific editors are receiving that money, and am somewhat confused how you'd come to that conclusion. I think the "idealogical war" comment is simply a continuation of those observations. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can interpret a comment clearly directed at one person to be directed at people in general. The first sentence of Shrigley's comment does appear to be a veiled threat to get Homunculus banned, but I don't see that it's directed at anyone else, nor can I find a personal attack or any of the allegations you're claiming are there. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- I'm not entirely sure what was meant by that statement. My reading of it was that the first part of the statement was directed at me, but the latter part of the comment was directed at what Shrigley called "Falun Gong activists." I have only very recently been assigned that label, so I assume that he was referring to other editors involved in the thread, and/or that this was a general statement about Falun Gong editors. The suggestion was that "Falun Gong and its NGOs allies of convenience" are engaged in a campaign to "suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia" in order to procure or maintain U.S. government subsidies. I do not know what U.S. government subsidies are being referred to, but this does seem like a very unproductive and rather serious accusation of bad faith, whoever the target was. Homunculus (duihua) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- This is an unusually poorly sourced comment. One, Shrigley does not directly comment on any other editors, despite that being the clear indication of the comment above. The evidence simply does not support the first claim. Also, the fact that MVBW makes a further conclusion (without any evidence) that the comment is directed at "all editors who do not share his POV" is one which I cannot believe can be necessarily reasonably supported by the evidence. This seems to me to be a possibly/probably concious example of misrepresentation of the comments of others, which seems to me to be itself perhaps more problematic than the edit he is introducing as evidence. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the part of the text that I think My very best wishes finds objectionable: "Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war." This seems to be saying that Shrigley believes that "Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience" are editing Wikipedia articles "in order to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings" so as to retain "U.S. government subsidies." This is in the context of other claims by Shrigley et al that Homunculus is a single purpose account and a Falun Gong activist or meatpuppet, so I assume that that is who Shrigley is referring to (or, who else? Shrigley may wish to clarify.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- At the very least, this is WP:SOAP by Shrigley. But I think this is also a personal attack, one that is constantly repeated by this group of users on numerous pages, and it seem to affect other people [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the part of the text that I think My very best wishes finds objectionable: "Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war." This seems to be saying that Shrigley believes that "Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience" are editing Wikipedia articles "in order to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings" so as to retain "U.S. government subsidies." This is in the context of other claims by Shrigley et al that Homunculus is a single purpose account and a Falun Gong activist or meatpuppet, so I assume that that is who Shrigley is referring to (or, who else? Shrigley may wish to clarify.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is an unusually poorly sourced comment. One, Shrigley does not directly comment on any other editors, despite that being the clear indication of the comment above. The evidence simply does not support the first claim. Also, the fact that MVBW makes a further conclusion (without any evidence) that the comment is directed at "all editors who do not share his POV" is one which I cannot believe can be necessarily reasonably supported by the evidence. This seems to me to be a possibly/probably concious example of misrepresentation of the comments of others, which seems to me to be itself perhaps more problematic than the edit he is introducing as evidence. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: