• Colipon believes that some of the Falun Gong lawsuits were dismissed because they were "frivolous." He presented this opinion as a fact on the talk page[95], even though no reliable sources endorse this position. The reliable sources do say that some cases were dismissed on technicalities such as jurisdiction, diplomatic immunity, and so on. Colipon rejects these as the causes for dismissal. I wonder whether it is simply because the reliable sources do not confirm to his opinions.[96] Creating arbitrary standards for content inclusion and making untrue assertions on the talk page presented as fact makes consensus-building difficult.

Quigley/Shrigley

As far as I’ve seen, all of Shrigley’s edits on this topic reflects a strong POV, and very few of his comments are collegial. Most of his edits to this namespace involve either deleting information about the persecution of Falun Gong, disparaging Falun Gong, defending editors who share his POV (regardless of how plainly disruptive they may be), making religious slurs against Falun Gong, and leveling accusations of bad faith against editors with whom he disagrees.

One of my concerns with Shrigley is that he very frequently tries to discredit other editors by claiming they are Falun Gong practitioners (whom he likes to call “cult members”). He does this as a means of ad hominem attack instead of discussing content, as though he believes that it is appropriate to discriminate against particular users because of their religion. To my knowledge, none of the editors regularly involved on these pages at present has ever declared their religious affiliations—Falun Gong or otherwise—on Wikipedia. Aside from that, editors should be evaluated on the quality of their contributions, not their ethnicity, gender, creed, or nationality. On other religion-related pages, it’s my understanding that participation from believers is encouraged. A number of these pages would benefit from the presence of a (responsible) Falun Gong practitioner who can assist in ensuring accurate representations of the doctrine and practices. Users like Shrigley, unfortunately, create a climate that is hostile towards this class of people.

As Shrigley’s edits are more disparate than others, I’ve sorted them chronologically.

June 22 2011: [97] defends User:PCPP’s edit warring at Expo 2010. At issue is whether the page should contain information about how the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai was directly linked to the abduction, disappearance, or torture of about 100 Falun Gong practitioners (according to reports from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and Amnesty International). Quigley writes that “the misadventures of Falun Gong seem to be a fringe concern, meriting a brief mention on the dedicated controversies article if at all.” This fits a broader pattern of trying to downplay or delete information on human rights abuses by the PRC government.

October 24, 2011: [98] Again, Quigley defends edit warring by PCPP, and suggests that other editors are part of a sinister Falun Gong plot. Declared that “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.” (I’ve never found a reliable source claim that Falun Gong is funded by U.S. government subsidies. The Chinese government has made this claim as part of its media campaign against the group, however). This amounts to a fairly serious accusation of bad faith (and paid advocacy?)

Jan 7 2012: [99] Defends a series of seemingly POV edits by the topic-banned user PCPP at the page Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. Uses pejorative epithets (“cult”) to refer to Falun Gong (in violation of WP:CIVIL). Argues with one of the sources in order to downplay the severity of human rights abuses by the Chinese government.

Jan 7 2012: [100] Defends user:PCPP in an arbitration enforcement case (PCPP had violated a topic ban by deleting Falun Gong-related content from the Confucius institute article). Claims that “Falun Gongers” have utilized “unsavory” tactics to covertly insert reference to Falun Gong on Wikipedia, thereby trapping PCPP into breaking his topic ban. The implication here is that the editor who had previously worked on that page, and who supported the inclusion of information on Falun Gong, were all Falun Gong followers acting in bad faith. None of the editors who had supported that material have identified themselves as Falun Gong practitioners (a few of them had never edited on Falun Gong pages as far as I’ve seen)

Jan 8, 2012 [101] During a dispute resolution process where editors are supposed to discuss content, Shrigley instead complains that “a bunch of Falun Gong-focused editors” are damaging Wikipedia with their POV pushing. Suggests the blame lies with unnamed “Falun Gong followers”. This amounts to ad hominem attacks, whereby Shrigley is trying to diminish the quality of other editor’s contributions by “outing” them or attacking their presumed religion (whether real or imagined).

March 21 - 23 Bo Xilai:

[102]: Deletes large amount of well sourced material. Editorializes that lawsuits brought against Bo were “unsuccessful” (not true: the cases resulted in a finding of guilt for torture, and an indictment for genocide).

[103] : Repeats same edit as above.

[104] : same again.

[105] : Much the same as above, but this time editorializes that lawsuits against Bo were “ineffectual.”

[106] : On talk page, Shrigley calls the impeccably sourced paragraph about Falun Gong “slanderous,” suggests that editors arguing for its inclusion are “followers of small religiopolitical movements adding large amounts of poorly-sourced protest material to the biographies of provincial Chinese officials.”

April 4 2012:

[107] Deletes all mention of Falun Gong from the biography of Jiang Zemin (the campaign against the group was a major feature of Jiang’s tenure).

[108] : Again deletes sourced information on the suppression of Falun Gong

April 5, 2012:

[109] – Deletes sourced information on the scope and nature of the persecution of Falun Gong. In an act of historical revisionism, Shrigley confuses the causality of the suppression by describing Falun Gong as a “dissident sect” (implication seems to be that it is suppressed because they’re dissidents. It was the other way around). Scholars also note that Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a ‘sect.’ Not to mention that the term is often used pejoratively.

April 4 / 5, 2012:

[110] inexplicably deletes Falun Gong from a comprehensive list of religion topic by arguing that it is not a religion but a new religious movement. This is a strange argument to begin with, but also, numerous scholars say simply that Falun Gong is a religion. The Chicago University Press published a book last month called “The Religion of Falun Gong”. This appears to be an attempt to try to delegitimize the group.

[111] : Does same again after being reverted

April 23, 2012

[112] – deletes list of performers, remarking that someone (me) “managed to sneak this in.” Hardly snuck it in – I started a talk page discussion, and Shrigley did not answer it.

[113] : Deletes legitimate content about the Shen Yun company. Editorializes in Wikipedia’s voice that the performance is “antigovernment.” Elevates position of negative reviews. Wrongly identifies the source of accusations of Chinese government interference as coming from Falun Gong sources alone (actual source was the U.S. State Department, which in turn drew on multiple media and NGO reports). Removes defense of Shen Yun from a prominent Hong Kong politician. Deletes sourced content about how a relative of a Shen Yun performer was reportedly kidnapped by Chinese authorities. Adds content that misattributes quotes to a Falun Gong organization.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Briefly on my background in this topic: I joined Wikipedia and later began editing these pages, among many others, at a time when Falun Gong editors were still around but slowly being banished. I am a person who abjures extreme opinions, and consider myself skeptical towards religion in general, and I carried these perspectives into my work here. I exchanged emails with Ohconfucius and Colipon in that vein early on. None of the editors involved seemed too bad at the time, and I initially found a comfortable role trying to mediate on contentious issues.

As my involvement deepened, I read more on Falun Gong, watched the debates, and continued to observe the interactions among editors. Over time I have come to view more dimly the approach of the editors named in this case. As I have read more academic literature on this topic, it has become apparent that the views these editors hold in general fall quite far outside of the spectrum of mainstream academic opinion. These editors do not recognize this, of course, and they tend to reject the authority of experts on the topic. They seem to believe that they alone are neutral and unbiased when it comes to Falun Gong. In the last six months or so, I’ve found trying to edit these pages in the context of their entrenched antagonism against Falun Gong increasingly difficult. I have been repeatedly personally insulted, had my motivations questioned regularly, and have to deal with constant WP:FORUM-ing and personal remarks.

To illustrate the problem further, Ohconfucius writes on his user page, “I am not interested in partisan bickering of whether Falun Gong was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party or whether ‘Falun Gong is a Cult’.” But these are not the debate. Scholars on Falun Gong uniformly dismiss the idea that it is a cult (in the pejorative sense, which is how Ohconfucius intended it). And there is no question among reliable sources that Falun Gong is persecuted—and severely at that. The literature on this topic is replete with references to “brutal persecution” on a scale that is “unrivaled” in recent decades. The Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong is described in serious literature as being the largest mass mobilization since the Cultural Revolution, one that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of extrajudicial imprisonments, and state-sanctioned torture. Books dedicated to this topic are published in academic presses. And yet in various places, Ohconfucius has expressed doubt that Falun Gong practitioners are mistreated or tortured in custody. He and the other editors here insist—without support from reliable sources—that the persecution is merely alleged, and that Falun Gong practitioners claim torture simply as a means of gaining publicity. It is very difficult to have sophisticated conversations or reach consensus with editors who don’t accept the essential facts.

There is a spectrum of scholarly opinions on Falun Gong, and that’s healthy and productive. Ideally, our goal on Wikipedia should be to reflect the range of views present in the highest quality scholarly literature available—ideas that transcend sensational tropes and ideological battles.

It is also fine to have editors with personal opinions outside this range. We all have personal biases that color our views, and I would defend any editor’s right to hold views outside the mainstream. This is not about suppressing particular viewpoints. The key is that editors should strive to be self-aware in terms of their points of view. All should be able to work in good faith with editors who hold divergent views, should adhere to relevant content policies and editing procedures, and should refrain from accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, incivility, or from using Wikipedia as a forum or platform for advocacy. Users Colipon, Shrigley and Ohconfucius unfortunately have shown themselves unable to do this in this namespace, and they simply do not contribute constructively here. Their appearance on talk pages invariably turns otherwise normal exchanges into entrenched ideological battlegrounds where consensus is all but impossible. They regularly disregard normal editing processes, ignore requests to discuss changes, issue thinly veiled personal attacks, make paranoiac accusations about Falun Gong plots, and use talk pages as forums to complain about Falun Gong or other editors.

A final note about these pages in general: as a whole, the collection of Falun Gong-related articles appears to be in fairly good shape, they are relatively stable, and the trajectory is towards constant improvement. These pages are watched by many interested parties—some of whom are very knowledgeable on the subject—and overt attempts at disruption are therefore normally dealt with easily. Where substantive changes are made, they are generally proposed and discussed in a fairly normal way on talk pages. These editors are, in my opinion, the most persistent threat to the further positive development of these articles. They do not contribute constructively, and the project would not suffer as a result of them being topic banned. Indeed, they were largely inactive on these pages for a long period of time, and the pages did not go to hell—to the contrary, they progressed substantially. Their return to active editing has merely heralded the return of regular edit wars and polarizing ideological battles.

Although the evidence I’ve presented here is only partial, I believe it is sufficient to show a pattern of disruptive editing. Note that this is not intended as an indictment of these users as a whole, merely of their involvement in this namespace.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Shrigley:[114] Colipon: [115] Ohconfucius: [116] (Acknowledgement:[117] (deleted soon after))

Update

On today's recriminations: I have done my best to stay away from ad hominem or polemical discourse and won't engage in it now. The key is the behavorial evidence presented, not the other distractions or meta-discussion.

Other items:

• On T-Square immolation: the behaviorial problem was Ohconfucius making ~100 edits, refactoring the page while declining to answer questions and concerns on the talk page. Along with failing to discuss, he reverted changes that were discussed on talk, sometimes with edit summaries like “don’t make me laugh.” (Yes, the nature of his edits is a content issue). He and Colipon insulted other editors and when told to focus on content, not contributors, Colipon said that would be a “waste of time.”
• On Shen Yun Performing Arts: the problem is not that Colipon pointed out the troupe is “linked to Falun Gong”; that connection was already clear in the article. The problem was repeatedly using the talk page as a forum to say that Shen Yun is “not an artistic performance” and is solely a propaganda organ. Foruming and soapboxing like this makes editing and discussion difficult.
• I'm sorry that Colipon feels "extremely intimidated" by all this. I would not resort to these mechanisms unless I felt there was no recourse. (Admins should check the diffs that Colipon’s claims to show intimidation against him or others. I don't see it.)
• Ohconfucius has broken 3RR twice in the last week.
• On actual intimidation: Consider the creation of bad-editor lists, the portrayal of myself and Homunculus as "Falun Gongsters," Falun Gong meatpuppets and other terms, the taunting, the supposed "outing," etc. [118]

It is apparent that the editing and attitudes of Colipon and Ohconfucius has been profoundly shaped by their past experiences with actual Falun Gong practitioner editors. They have both indicated that these experiences have soured them to no longer being interested in good faith discussion and work on the articles. This AE complaint isn't a meta-issue about the Falun Gong namespace or the tangled history of editing in it, though. It is about the violation of Wikipedia editing and behavioral principles, as documented in the diffs above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of May 26

Response to Ferox Seneca and Jayen466: Please note that the complaint relates specifically to the Falun Gong namespace and the violation of ARBFLG editing and behavioral injunctions, as documented in the diffs provided. I am sympathetic with the statement that these are generally reasonable editors. This is not a judgement of the work of these editors on other topics, nor would any remedial action affect their work on other topics.

Response to Enric Naval: I am sorry that you have gained such an unfortunate impression of me. I do not really recall many (if any?) editing interactions on these or other pages, let alone negative ones that would inspire such a remark, so I am not sure where this comes from. I'm not sure if you looked at the diffs above. One point, though: right now, this is about the behavior of the three editors in this namespace as documented in the diffs. If you think there is a cause for administrative action against myself or anyone else, I can only suggest that you gather whatever behavioral evidence you believe is present and bring it to the attention of admins in a separate AE action. I do not envy the people who have to pick through this and identify what is actionable and should be sanctioned and what is not. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ohconfucius's recent post

Ohconfucius posted a content disagreement from a year ago. I was not involved. It seems to be an attempt to explain or justify the problematic and disruptive behavior documented above. Ohconfucius shows that while he was not editing the page, other editors made changes to content that he did not agree with. I did not spend long looking over the page, but it appears that those edits were accompanied by robust talk page discussion. In the diff Ohc provided where Homunculus replaced a RS with a primary source, the change was apparently explained here: [119]. Agree or disagree - that is a content issue, and reasonable people can disagree about most of these things. An administrator who was overseeing that discussion and those changes wrote at the time: “I am very much encouraged by what I have seen so far. I think people are on the whole working well, and listening to each other. Well done.”

If Ohconfucius disagreed with those changes, he should have gone to the talk page to present his concerns. He didn't. Then, a year later, he came back and made over 100 edits without discussion (I was around for that part). He also insulted and edit sparred with other editors. He was asked not to. This is in contrast to the attempt by other editors to engage him in discussion, obvious by looking at the talk page. It is also in contrast to the standard practice that I have seen by Homunculus (and myself, usually, though I have not done serious editing on this namespace for a while), where before making potentially controversial changes on a page, one announces one's reasoning and intentions on the talk page, and invites discussion. Ohconfucius spurned discussion and attacked other editors as having a hidden agenda, political goals, and later as "Falun Gong meatpuppets." People have been banned for similar behavior.

To John Carter: This filing includes all disruptive behavior by Ohc, Colipon, and Quigley. The 3RR filing was for a specific instance of edit warring. It went "stale" because no admin acted on it promptly. I would also rather not be doing this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley

Statement by Colipon

• I acknowledge this AE from User TheSoundandtheFury. I did a preliminary reading, and believe the case is fairly weak. I will let the administrator pore over this file, and also invite other editors to comment. Colipon+(Talk) 23:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Within the 'evidence' presented against me, Bo Xilai and Sima Nan are very clearly content disputes. That Shen Yun is propaganda is clearly stated in RS, [120] [121], [122], though you will note that such criticism has since been obfuscated and weaseled away. In any case, this is still just a content dispute. Colipon+(Talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Shen Yun: What TheSound conveniently fails to mention are the edits I have made on that article. My only foray into it are seen here and here. In the latter case, I actually edit much in favour of Shen Yun. I realized that any slight tipping of the balance against what is considered acceptable by Falun Gong-focused users would result in filibustering, became disillusioned, and left.
  • To highlight the extreme heightened sensitivities on even peripheral Falun Gong pages such as Shen Yun, you can see an edit by Shrigley was reverted a mere 40 minutes (!) later by TheSound.
• Distancing myself from Falun Gong: Since about two years ago, I removed all but a few Falun Gong pages from my watchlist and stopped editing them altogether. So it is telling that much of the evidence presented against me is based on articles that ordinarily has very little to do with Falun Gong, and on talk page diffs. Colipon+(Talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above 'Shen Yun' edits constitute the only edits I have made at any Falun Gong article in the last year. One would think that an "anti-Falun Gong editor" would feel somwhat more committed.
• I find it ironic that some of the diffs listed by TheSound speak well to the poisoned ambiance of the articles, to the point that it reduces the need for me to put up a lengthy defense here. The admin may well treat them as a good 'primer' on Falun Gong-related articles and the POV-pushing that routinely takes place there. Colipon+(Talk) 14:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Bo Xilai: I have been involved at the Bo Xilai article since 2007. My editing interest there revolves around Bo Xilai, not Falun Gong. I did not expect Falun Gong to emerge as a point of contention.
  • User Homunculus and myself took the article to GA after months of extensive discussions, editing, and consensus building. Knowing Bo is a controversial figure, we carefully balanced the article for neutral presentation.
  • Prior to the scandal this year, Falun Gong was mentioned on the talk page only once: when banned Falun Gong User ASDFG posted this comment.

    User Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and I hashed out a compromise over Falun Gong on March 26, which still evidently was not good enough for theSound. We revisited Falun Gong only after Homunculus disrupted the consensus version on May 15 - stating that because the article was now longer, undue weight was no longer a problem. My point was that no RS elaborates on the significance of Falun Gong to the man's life, even if they make passing mention of it. Homunculus, responding to this in tandem with TSTF, produced only one substantive piece elaborating on significance: the same document previously mentioned by ASDFG.

• Pro-PRC vs Pro-Falun Gong. This is a false dichotomy; Homunculus also acknowledges this. But to be clear: I've identified very few pro-Communist Party editors on Wikipedia, and their views are always dismissed by the community anyway. There may be some Chinese nationalists (mostly Chinese living in the West) with strong POVs, but they don't stick around for long and have little 'dedication' to any specific cause. In response to John Carter's statement, to the best of my knowledge, Sam Luo and Tomanada, banned 'anti-FLG' users, were actually gay activists from San Francisco who have no affiliation with the CCP. After their ban, and with the exception of the sanctions on user PCPP, the problematic editing in this space came entirely from Falun Gong adherents and supporters.
• I feel intimidated and harrassed: Despite their civil facade, I feel extremely intimidated by Falun Gong-focused users. My contributions to article and talk space are always scrutinized to the teeth with argumentative and obstructive paeans (Most tellingly, here: [123]), and that the sharks were circling to capture each and every diff that they can collect for use in wiki-litigation such as this very AE filing. TheSound, for example, goes all the way back to 2007 to hunt for a user talk page diff. In my ten years of editing, I have never felt this way with any other subject area I have edited, including on other controversial articles.
  • Regrettably I have gone great lengths to engage in self-censorship to get them off my back, which has occasionally impeded my ability to contribute in a fair way, and discouraging me from touching any controversy in which they are involved. It feels like being suffocated because I can no longer approach any China-related controversy with boldness, lest they mischaracterize my intentions at an AE case.
  • Their intimidating actions can be seen recently in their interactions with a previously non-involved user, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs): Here TSTF reverts tags even though disputes are being hashed out on the talk page; following this any and all of the user's concerns that hint at skepticism of the Falun Gong narrative is promptly shut down: [124] [125] [126], and also on the user's talk page.
  • To me, there is not a doubt in my mind that this AE request is a continuation of that intimidation.

Response to Homunculus's latest addition

For example, he accuses me of not engaging in content discussions, when I have done this at great length here and here. Both he and TSTF were major participants at these discussions, I don't understand how they could have conveniently forgotten about this when they egregiously engage in my character assassination on this page.

My jadedness about Falun Gong can be understood in the context of how little exhaustive lengths of 'content discussions' can achieve when one side is so bent on colouring everything with their POV, and I would advise any uninvolved admins to read those discussions to get a feel of it themselves. Most of my 'forum'-like comments took place after the obstructive nature of so-called content discussions were made clear.

Homunculus also does not mention that prior to his re-insertion of Falun Gong content on the Bo Xilai page, we had worked together closely for several months as the Bo scandal unfolded, during which we had very friendly exchanges [127] [128] [129] [130]. We were lead authors on that controversial page, took it to GA, and worked in a cooperative, friendly manner. These facts make his statement seem very disingenuous. Colipon+(Talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to T Caenens suggestion about Arbcom

• I strongly support this, because it will finally bring about the necessary level of attention to the sorry state of the Falun Gong family of articles to the highest level of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hierarchy, something that I have been calling for years. While Arbcom takes up this case they can hopefully come up with some permanent remedies to the serious abuses in the Falun Gong namespace, which have a history dating back to 2006. ARBFLG evidently has not solved any substantive problems on those pages, and merely serves to add up the bytes of wiki-litigation without targeting the root of the problem: the editors. Each involved editor, including myself, should be scrutinized, sanctioned and restricted where appropriate. A no-tolerance policy is due. Delivering a strong message is key. Colipon+(Talk) 05:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

• Whilst it's true the complaint is voluminous, a better course of action may be to remove material that relates to pure content dispute, and edits outside the scope of the Arbcom ruling. It should clearly focus on advocacy, POV-pushing, and to a lesser extent COI editing which is what the case has always been about. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Having struggled past the initial wall of text, I would invite the presiding admin to carefully examine in particular:
  1. weasely-phrased constructions above such as "several journalists and scholars, argued that the event was staged",
  2. ditto "several other editors knowledgeable on the subject".
  3. ditto "more scrutiny from outside parties, and resulted in the wholesale reversion of nearly all of Ohconfuciu’s changes"

     --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cult suicide – Edit warring, allegations of stalking and tag team

As the filer has brought up the AN3 case he brought against me, which I have demonstrated was rather contrived, I suggest that the complaint may be politically motivated to stop me from stepping up the opposition to 'Falun Gongsters'. He already issued this thinly veiled threat warning me not to continue editing in Falun Gong space on 30 March 2012. Notice how in both cases, I was transgressed in mainspace by Homunculus (and Zujine), and by TSTF in userspace. Add this complaint, it seems rather obvious to me that the two of them are acting in tandem. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Addendum to the above point: Note that neither Homunculus nor TSTF have, before yesterday, made a single edit at Cult suicide (searches for Homunculus; TSTF), for which I was reported for 3RR. Before yesterday, they have not made a single edit to its talk page (searches for Homunculus; TSTF) either. That one or other or both should have this on their watchlists is peculiar because it is seemingly so far from their areas of interest of Chinese human rights, but not so if you consider the sensitivity of Falun Gong to the "cult" label. So for Homunculus to rush to revert me one hour later is yet another strong pointer to their affiliation to Falun Gong. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In reply to a point that was mentioned in this post by TSTF: yes, I deeply dislike its propaganda and their "down your throat" politics, but I still wish the PRC would legalise Falun Gong. Personal feelings about them apart, I have proven I can walk away from the topic, I have walked away, and I will in the future walk away. But I will not do so at a time of the choosing of any Falun Gong meatpuppet or similar. The only caveat is that, like any editor who has toiled to take an article to GA and then FA, there is the inevitable personal attachment to the article. Ironic thing is that I now find it embarrassing to have such a Featured Article to my credit and wish it could be delisted. That would give me closure for me if I walked away for good. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(You're wondering why Cult suicide was on my watchlist? It wasn't until yesterday. I've been keeping an eye on your contributions since filing this case.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I make around 300 edits a day. It's amazing that you would find anything in there amongst them all. ;-) Or you care very deeply that I don't make any objectionable edits about the Dafa. Anyway, why don't you just come out of the closet? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very McCarthyist. I think the presiding admins will look rather dimly upon these new insinuations. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Colipon mentioned above regarding the tactics ordinary users now face and newfound aggression of Falun Gongers –for even Dilip rajeev was never so reactive. Firstly being reverted by Homunculus at an obscure article within approximately 60 minutes, your preparedness to comb through my 300+ edits the moment you wake up, and the rapidity of your response in reverting me, to your filing at AN3 twenty minutes from your revert scares the shit out of me, because it means you [both] are breathing down my neck. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now could you kindly go back to your own section, please. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's not just me TSTF is aggressive to. He seems to take exception to certain material being inserted without his approval, and reacts very quickly then too by removing it repeatedly. Here, whilst supposedly "explaining" his rationale, he disparages the efforts of an IP editor by suggesting that said IP took material from facts.org.cn, a site of the Chinese Center for Cultic Studies (viewed by Falun Gongsters as propaganda). Note that although there was the unexplained removal of one paragraph, the material inserted was relevant and properly sourced. One piece in particular was of a tenor very unfavourable to Falun Gong; another piece was potentially embarrassing for the organisers to be shown to be giving away free tickets in an attempt to influence local decision-makers. Homunculus argued was "not sufficiently notable, per WP:N and WP:DUE". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @My very best wishes: By consensus, do you mean Homunculus opposed me? No editor other than a Falun Gong meatpuppet had previously opposed having a Falun Gong section in the Cult suicide article. It was only when another editor section had posted a suggestion that it belonged did I realise that it had been removed some months previously. Also, I already mentioned above that the action by TSTF is highly curious; I believe he has failed to demonstrate that he was not acting in tandem with Homunculus: he had sprung a trap on me after Homunculus had set it, long after I had stopped editing that article. Not satisfied that I wasn't sanctioned – not that AN3 is a place for sanctioning people – TSTF resurrected unarchived his request. It was simply a bad block, and Bwilkins strangely acted on it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

As soon as I learnt that it was up for TFA, for I saw the nomination, I got working on it immediately and frantically. I suppose that I could have nominated it for FAR instead, but I thought it could be cleaned up. I shepherded the article through FA with the help of asdfg12345, Jayen466 and SilkTork. Once that was done, I had set out to improve the other Falun Gong articles but soon felt frustrated by the endless wikilawyering and insistence on cherrypicking of sources – they would repeatedly insist that certain sources that they called "high quality scholarly sources", generally favourable to Falun Gong, to be used. Bytheir apparent definition, such sources include Porter, Ownby, Schechter, Gutman, Amnesty International (I have no problem with the former two, but please note that the latter three do not enjoy the same status as serious research – Schechter is a journalist who is staunchly pro-Falun Gong, and Gutman works for Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a political lobbyist). They also fond of quoting from Divid Kilgour, a Canadian parliamentarian who has made a name for himself for "exposing" alleged atrocities committed against Falun Gong practitioners, and will often use his website for information. Of course, they will also quote from various websites affiliated with Falun Gong. As I will demonstrate below, they would also systematically seek to remove critical mentions of Falun Gong, and seek to marginalise those sources (even those that can be defined as truly scholarly) that indicated scepticism of the movement. I had already grown disillusioned by the constant attacks, abuse and tendentiousness from some parties whom I had identified as Falun Gong SPAs and who are all now effectively banned from the project for advocacy and POV-pushing. I stopped editing Falun Gong articles towards the end of December 2009, and took the articles off my watchlist in approximately after the 'self-immolation' article incurred a bout of attacks from an obvious Falun Gong sockpuppet. I performed a number of reverts and then stopped editing.

The filer of this AE noted that "several other editors knowledgeable on the subject discussed and implemented further improvements" to the article since I walked away. An analysis of the edits to the article shows that the list of illustrious names includes, in decreasing order of number of edits, PCPP (no edits after 29 January 2011), AnnaInDC, Homunculus, Zujine, Asdfg12345, Ohconfucius, Jayen466, SilkTork, Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos. As we all know, Asdfg12345, Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos were given indefinite topic bans as Falun Gong SPAs in 10 November 2011, whilst PCPP was given a topic ban for edit-warring. Here, SilkTork and Jayen only made formatting changes.

As soon as PCPP was "out of the way" four days later, Homunculus seized the opportunity of ratcheting the POV in favour of Falun Gong thus: In the first of three edits, he performed a radical shift in the article's balance. This is a rearranged version of version 417037166 by Homunculus of 05:55 (UTC), 4 March 2011

The complexity of the edit as well as the one referred to below, and the existence of material undescribed changes such as deletions of adequately sourced text unfavourable to Falun Gong make for a highy opaque edit; it could be contended that the edit summary is misleading. Observe how the NPOV balance has been radically shifted compared with the previous version:

1. "Liu's neighbours" was changed to "neighbors and those acquainted with Liu", although none of the latter were mentioned in the source
2. Mention in Time that 'four of the self-immolators were seen in flames, with their hands held "in a classic Falun Gong meditation pose", drawing a complaint from the Falun Gong movement' was cleanly excised
3. Removed Sisci's comment that "the sect first tried to deny the episode and then argued that it was staged by the government "
4. Removed Time's criticism that the movement had been caught off-guard, and its leadership's damage control proved to be inadequate
5. added quote that: "there are desperate people in China (and elsewhere) who will do anything for money"
6. attributed quote which according to reliable source said " "certain disciples had some extreme interpretations [and thought] we are going to resort to violence", swapped in unsourced or possibly primarysourced material.
7. removed NY Times' mention that "one of the self-immolators was able to "fluidly perform" Falun Gong's signature slow-motion exercises in front of Western media."
8. excised all mention of Jensen and Weston's criticism of the Falun Gong in their scholarly work.

In a later edit, the last one in the above table, Homunculus further radically shifted the balance of the article. this is a rearranged version of version 436986484 by Homunculus of 04:37 (UTC), 30 June 2011.

Observe how the NPOV balance has been radically shifted compared with the previous version

1. Neutral media caption lengthened and biased in favour of hypothesis
2. advanced a hypothesis that the self-immolation participants were paid actors, without attribution and without sourcing
3. upwards ratchet in weight given to the False Fire analysis
4. excised unfavourable mention by Hong Kong NGO Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy and Xinhua News Agency report.
5. Downplayed "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" to the degree that there's only one mention of it, and excised view of Østergaard

In preparing the article for the TFA, I performed approximately 100 edits. In order to limit controversy and to provide for a highly transparent audit trail, my edits were accompanied by appropriately detailed edit summaries, in marked contrast to what has been seen hitherto. Using a previous 'good' version as a reference, I made changes to restore some deleted material and address the obvious NPOV failings of the version extant.

How an article on such a polemic topic managed to become a Featured Article has to be somewhat unique case in the annals of Wikipedia, and I believe I have a right to be proud of this achievement. In my eagerness to have the article cleaned up in time for TFA, I only paid cursory attention to their moans on the talk page, knowing that to do so would only bog me down with further lawyering – I ploughed on believing that, after all, the version of an article that has reached FA status has to be somewhat defendable, especially from those determined to undermine its equilibrium for their own agendas. However, an eleventh hour struggle by another suspected Falun Gong meatpuppet somewhat frustrated my effort, and the version that appeared on the front page was, for me, an embarrassment. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Copied from user talk page per request. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Shrigley

Describing Falun Gong is notoriously tricky; on our best articles we simply provide a wikilink, but this "pass the buck" approach does not work everywhere. Various reliable sources, from the popular press to scholarly monographs, have described Falun Gong as a "spiritual movement", "sect", "new religious movement", and indeed, a "cult". Writers' preference for one of the terms may indicate their level of sympathy for the group, but my usage on articles has run the gamut—except that I studiously avoid using "cult" in article-space, and only distantly mention the classification controversy on talk pages.

For reasons of practicality and courtesy, I usually don't change the positive existing classifications of Falun Gong on their articles. By contrast, whenever User:TheSoundAndTheFury and User:Homunculus edit articles, they impose emotionally evocative language (such as "torture", "persecution", and "abuse") as the only way of describing events. Their edits do not necessarily comport with the language of human rights groups: On Gao Zhisheng, Homunculus misleadingly implies that a prominent dissident-lawyer was punished only for one Falun Gong letter, whereas the cited Human Rights Watch report describes years of "corruption, land seizures, police abuse" and recently, "religious and Falun Gong" advocacy. In the same edit, Homunculus describes as "torture" what HRW would only call "assault" and "beat[ing]". Could this distortion come from intense personal beliefs about the subject? Ask Homunculus, who will gladly tell you about how the ban against Falun Gong is exactly like the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.

Speaking of offensive comparisons, pointing out that certain editors are "Falun Gong-focused" is not the same as attacking some user's religion. Very few of my edits (and those of my fellow accused editors; contrast the accusers) relate to Falun Gong. Unfortunately, Falun Gong, like many small activist groups, has a tendency to disruptively insert itself into the larger articles; here on Chinese politics. The former Chinese president Jiang Zemin and the prominent politician Bo Xilai are important, hated figures to Falun Gong devotees, but the overwhelming majority of articles and books written about these men don't mention Falun Gong. The politicians' articles are generally stable until the arrival of the Falun Gong SPAs with little sense of perspective and balance, and so come the unnecessary edit wars and pages of discussion about how much Falun Gong material is appropriate.

In addition to fighting tooth and nail to keep and expand Falun Gong coverage on all conceivable China-related articles, not an insignificant portion of TheSoundAndTheFury's editing involves the radical trimming and removal of Falun Gong-critical material. It's pretty clear that TheSoundAndTheFury's false outrage about a "hostile climate" towards editor-practitioners reflects a battleground mentality, where you're either a defender of the faith or a "paid Communist Party agent". Even after I personally assuaged his concerns about discourse, and he promised not to escalate matters, he springs a surprise AE case upon what appears to be a disjointed list of editors with whom he has had content disputes in the past.

There is less consensus in the "serious literature" on Falun Gong than the filer asserts. In fact, one of the obfuscatory tactics of TheSoundAndTheFury and Homunculus is to argue that on "complex theological issue[s] on which there is no scholarly consensus", we should exclusively use their preferred sources—usually anthropologists who have embedded themselves within Falun Gong communities and developed a rapport with the group and their aims. The duo's claim to be the sole purveyors of "seriously" sourced material totally breaks down when they've shown themselves to use blogs, Falun Gong advocacy websites, and partisan think tanks as sources wherever they aid the anti-PRC and pro-Falun Gong cause.

It is difficult to engage constructively with a user who considers me a "threat" to the development of these articles, and who further makes false conjectures about my political views. However, I'm leaving the door open to future collaboration. I have managed conflicts with Ohconfucius and Colipon over this area because we all have shown respect for the diversity of views and sensitivities around this topic. Because of our wide editing scope, we also have a perspective that some editors who imagine themselves to be our adversaries may lack. Not every removal is a "persecution"; not every attribution is "discrediting"; not every criticism is "disparagement". We must balance the sensitivities of Falun Gong practitioners with those of our policies about biographies of living persons and due weight; to do this, we need both practitioners and non-practitioners as editors. Shrigley (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley

Statement by potentially involved John Carter

I have previously been involved a bit more actively in the Falun Gong related content, so I believe some might consider me perhaps biased, hence my disclaimer in my section title. I have not at this point reviewed the entirety of the complaint above. Having said that, I believe I can make a few statements which might be useful. One, it is worth noting that Ohconfucius was the individual primarily responsible for the Tianenmen square self-immolation article achieving FA in the first place. There was extensive discussion, as per the talk page history, prior to the nomination and during the FA approval process. Several of the points made above were addressed at the time, although I am not sure that the filer of this complaint has reviewed them. However, I believe that at least a few of the complaints above are basically content complaints about matters which had received substantial discussion at that time, and I have no particular reason to believe that there has been any new information on the subject since then.

Also, I note that, having reviewed myself all the material on Shen Yun available on the databanks I have access to, I saw at that time that the majority of the reviews of the performances by individuals who were not perhaps FG supporters were generally at least a bit negative. I should clarify. Several individuals who were indicated as being tied to FG spoke very highly of Shen Yun. New Tang Dynasty TV, which has ties to FG, produced several interviews with individuals who spoke highly of it. And, of course, the material in newspapers before the show is often based on press releases, rather than direct knowledge, and favorable. After performances, however, I found that for the most part, almost overwhelmingly in fact, the reviews from arts columnists, who are generally considered most knowledgable on the subject, were not particularly positive, and often moderately to very negative. I believe our policies and guidelines make it clear that it is the latter type of review we should give most prominence to.

Some of the other comments which the filer finds unacceptable are also pretty clearly purely content related, not behavior related. Also, some of the behavior criticized, like Colipon's saying some groups were linked to Falun Gong, are extremely strongly implied in some of the independent reliable sources, if not explicitly stated, and I would see such minor errors as being just that. We are not bound on talk pages to necessarily cite a source for a fact which has been discussed at some length before, particularly not when the discussion becomes inflamed, which seems to have happened fairly regularly here, and at least sometimes, as per the above, more or less directly due to TSTF.

The filer seems to be a comparatively new editor who may not have been active when almost all the obvious Western practitioners of FG were banned from the content some time ago. It should be noted that, at the time, Ohconfucius and I think others supported at least one of those editors, HappyInGeneral, not be banned, but SilkTork who made the decision disagreed. I say this to indicate that Ohconfucius is not necessarily driven by POV, as he wouldn't have agreed with me on this if he was. The specific comments I have reviewed to date made by that editor are very strongly reminiscent of the complaints made by those now banned POV pushers. I do not necessarily see any of the subjects of this complaint being necessarily free from bias of any sort. I don't think anyone necessarily qualifies as such, particularly after one has reviewed a lot of material and had a lot of interaction with editors who have been, rather often in this case, misbehaving very badly, as Dilip and Olaf did rather habitually. I do however think that, based on my quick review, that I personally think that the case is a rather weak one, and that there might potentially be perhaps at least as serious a complaint for POV pushing against the filer as against the individuals whom he has filed a complaint against. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I further want to express my profound regrets that Ohconfucius now regrets having expended as much work on the Tianenmen square article as he did. Based on his comments, it seems to me that this is at least in part due to what he says as unacceptable behavior from others. If Sound is, as some of the evidence presented above indicates, operating from a clear POV himself, then he should also adhere to WP:POV, and not so quickly accuse and insult others. I very much hope that whoever decides this discussion reviews all the information presented from Sound and the others, as I believe it is all, including that apparently critical of Sound himself, relevant to this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Homonculus: A few points come to mind. First, I am very grateful to have any academics who work with the field involved. Thank you for being willing to put up with some of the unfortunate behavior which, for better or worse, are unavoidable in this sort of situation. A few other responses come to mind.

One, it should be noted that the first appearance of Falun Gong before the ArbCom , before I first appeared, involved in the banning of several editors who were actively taking the side of the PRC. So, in this instance, people from both sides have been banned, and the obvious supporters of the PRC have been banned longer. Of course, it is possible that they have found replacements, but the same could be said about FG supporters as well. I am not accusing anyone on either side here myself, by the way.

Two, it should also be noted that the Falun Gong practitioners most scholars have had the most contact with are Westerners. It is understandably hard for Western scholars to make real contact with practitioners within China, for various obvious reasons, and even harder for them to be certain that there may not have been some degree of "selection" of people to contact. A book I am currently reading on Richard Feynman going to Tuva makes similar points to those. That being said, it is hard for them to be sure that what they are presented is completely accurate.

Lastly, I believe we in the West, possibly including academics, have an innate bias toward Western freedoms. To an extent, that includes myself. However, that bias itself, understandable and unavoidable as it is, is also probably problematic as per WP:POV. Also, and I very sincerely hope you do not think this is specifically addressed at you, because I do not myself at this point know your identity, I have to acknowledge that at least some academics have produced populist, even sensationalist, material to get their name out there. I even remember a statement by Bart Ehrman, in I think Newsweek, saying something to the effect that today academics produce sensationalist works initially, for that reason, at least in part for the accompanying media coverage. I myself do not know how widespread that is, but it seems to be a reality to some degree.

I cannot myself directly address some of the points you make. But I have seen several editors keeping in userspace material for potential ANI or other complaints, sometimes for good reasons. And, yes, people are often a bit less "politically correct" in userspace.

Of all the things I could say here, the one thing I think most important is that I myself see an almost obsessive interest in a few main articles related to FG, and much less interest in developing some subarticles. Jan Becker is an Australian Olympic medalist and FG practitioner, but I see no article on her. Several other figures and events are notable as well. There is also good basis to believe that there could be several articles on FG in the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, and other areas. If there were more of an effort to work on these subarticles, and find the relevant sources, I think some of the contentiousness related to the major articles might fade a little. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - It seems that User:Ohconfucius has recently been blocked at the request of TheSoundAndTheFury at WP:AN3 and subsequently had the block overturned on the grounds that it was a stale request. Considering that the editor who filed the request had already filed the request here, I think that there may possibly be a concern over excessive litiginous and possibly forum-shopping on the part of TSATF? John Carter (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferox Seneca

I do not edit articles directly related to FG, but the three users who the filer has identified are possibly the most research-oriented, content-focused, collaborative editors that I have worked with on articles related to modern Chinese history. There might be a case that the identified editors should be more careful about how they express their personal opinions in some situations; but, based on the precedent of their long-term editing style and the quality of their work, I believe it would be a mistake to take these claims against them at face value without considering the context of each individual claim. Many of the claims against them seem related to content disputes, and might be better addressed by arbitrating each individual case of content dispute.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

(I have edited Falun Gong articles once in a while). This is like the wolf raising a complaint against the sheep.

Meanwhile, civil POV pushers User:TheSoundAndTheFury, User:Homunculus and User:Zujine keep twisting the Falun Gong articles, and scaring away neutral editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes

This is "too long, did not read". But there is obviously a conflict. After looking at the articles in question, one can see obvious edit warring [131][132]. Looking at any particular revert, one can see removal of relevant and reliably sourced information (2nd paragraph) or here. After looking at article talk pages [133][134], it is not at all obvious why this information must be removed. This is not the first time when the same people appear on AE. It always takes two or more to tango. Several people on another side of the dispute were recently topic-banned, but it did not help. And it does not really matter if they practice Yoga, Falun Gong, or communist ideology.My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, one of the editors, PCPP, who was topic banned from editing Falun Gong subjects for 8 months, edit war over the article that mentioned Falun Gong three times. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter [135]. Yes, edit warring in yet another article [136] shows a serious conflict. Unfortunately, in this example OhConfucius fought against WP:Consensus two other editors, which led to his 3RR violation, and was blocked by an uninvolved administrator [137]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens. Yes, I agree: sending this to Arbcom is probably the only option. They should also look at the previous AE case about the same. This is all related.My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

I helped Ohconfucius get the Tiananmen Square incident article to FA, and he did a tremendous job. I've also in the past helped out with mentoring User:Dilip rajeev, a Falun Gong editor who clashed with Ohconfucius and others and at the time was threatened with sanctions. Ohconfucius is well aware of that. Even so, Ohconfucius has from time to time asked me on my talk page to look in on contentious questions (including, recently, the Bo Xilai article) and give an outside opinion, knowing full well that I may not necessarily see things the same way as he. That's the mark of a good-faith, above-board editor. I would therefore oppose sanctions against Ohconfucius, as I believe he edits with the best interests of the project in mind. (I am not familiar enough with any of the other editors' editing in this topic area to comment.) --JN466 19:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Homunculus

Disclaimer: what follows is almost certainly TLTR, but I would like to share it. Bottom line: I just encourage admins to just look at the talk pages and the behavioral evidence presented. So far only one person — User:My very best wishes — appears to have done that (this is the only user who is truly uninvolved).

I didn’t want to get involved in this case for a few reasons. I don’t like the idea of coming here and throwing accusations at people, and would prefer to be collegial if possible. But since my name has been mentioned several times,  I should respond.  

• I am not a Falun Gong member, and everything I have ever written here is of my own volition. But some of the discourse here about “Falun Gongsters,” “Falun Gong meatpuppets,” and "Falun Gong POV-pushers" is deeply troubling. Anyone should feel comfortable and welcome participating, so long as they adhere to wikipedia policies and are able to work in good faith with people who hold different views. No one should feel harassed on account of their religious or other group identity on this encyclopedia.  No one should be taunted to disclose their ethnic, political, religious, sexual, or other affiliations, as Ohconfucius has done here with the “come out of the closet” comment.  And no one should use another user's religion (or presumed religion) as grounds for ad hominem attacks in lieu of discussing content—something that users Shrigley, Colipon, and Ohconfucius have done regularly.

• I filed an 3RR violation ANI against Ohconfucius about a week ago. He had deleted sourced information about Bo Xilai’s genocide indictment four times in 24 hours with minimal discussion, even though it was material that several editors on talk page said they favored for inclusion. I filed a case only after he declined a suggestion to self-revert. He retaliated by trying to “out” me,  adding me to his list of “Falun Gong editors” that he maintains on a polemic subpage,[138] and telling other editors that dispute resolution would be of no use with me (actually, I would welcome it) because I am proselytizing Falun Gong editor who can’t be reasoned with, and so on.[139]  Whatever one thinks of Ohconfucius’ contributions elsewhere on this encyclopedia, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior, and there is no benefit for the project. TSTF has been subject to similar ad hominem attacks as retaliation for filing this AE (and a second 3RR case). Actual Falun Gong editors have been banned for much less.

• In full disclosure: my real life sometimes overlaps with my editing interests on Falun Gong and other issues.  I work as a research analyst focused on China, and I sometimes publish in scholarly journals and newspapers on issues related Falun Gong, or on topics pertaining to human rights, access to justice, state-society relations, and so on. (I’ve resolved not to cite myself on wikipedia).  I have done more research on this in the last year and a half or so. A number of the scholars and the journalists whose names appear as reliable sources on Falun Gong and other contemporary China-related pages are people I know in real life. I also know (and like) both Falun Gong practitioners and Chinese government officials in real life.  My experiences bias me in certain ways, but my philosophy on these pages is just to be civil, edit based on the best reliable sources, and try to focus on the content in a holistic way.

• I’ve come to know several Falun Gong practitioners,  including some who have been imprisoned and tortured (as well as their lawyers). While I don’t personally approve of all their PR methods or espouse the same views,  I respect and even admire them, and respect their right to dignity and expression.  This is an impression I share with even the most skeptical scholars who have done fieldwork on Falun Gong.  For that reason,  when I’ve seen editors here (and a few others not listed here) use talk pages to refer to them as “cult members,”  suggest that reports of mass arbitrary imprisonment and torture is a “fringe concern,”  suggest that allegations of torture are “based on cream cheese” or entertain as a serious possibility the notion that Falun Gong adherents in China are not mistreated....well,  I find this unsettling at a personal level, and it certainly doesn’t make for very elevated discourse.

• I don’t let personal disagreements stop me from trying to collaborate with these editors, or prevent me from having civil discussions on the content. By contrast, these editors have repeatedly made clear that they are not interested in assuming good faith or in collaborative content discussions in this namespace. The diffs and talk page discussions make that clear.

• A couple people have tossed around talk of POV-pushing. Every editor has biases (editors who claim otherwise should be treated with caution). The question is about behavior.

• We need to be wary of argument to moderation, or the middle ground fallacy.  That is, when confronted with two extremes of opinions, the truth is not necessarily in the middle. Arguments to moderation are problematic because, in order to shift the middle ground,  one “side” need simply to adopt a more extreme position. I recently found an old AfD in which Ohconfucius stated that scholars on Falun Gong are either neutral or are “apologists.” In this discussion,  Shrigley similarly insinuates that scholars who have done fieldwork on Falun Gong are irrevocably biased in Falun Gong’s favor.  But these are the best sources available. The fact that these editors believe Falun Gong may not be persecuted, that its practitioners might not be mistreated, that they reject the corpus of scholarly literature as biased, and so on—this means that they move the “middle ground” to an extreme, and editors who attempt to moderate their edits may end up looking “pro-Falun Gong” (this is all the more since Falun Gong editors were banned, removing one extreme of the spectrum).

• In addition to my edits that might be construed as favorable to Falun Gong, I also make editors that could be considered unfavorable, or that soften criticisms of the Communist Party. I think the same can safely be said of TSTF. But the great majority of edits and content debates that I get into in these pages do not involve any ideological affiliation. Sometimes these debates get a little heated, but not because those involved are pro- or anti-Falun Gong.

• By contrast, the editors named seem to turn just about everything into a polarized dichotomy.  They wade into otherwise normal conversations for no discernible purpose other than to declare them ideological battlefields.  They impute political motives to editors involved in non-political discussions of the most appropriate reliable sources.  They seem to care little about the development of these articles unless it involves criticisms of Falun Gong or deletions of information pertaining to the suppression.

• Regarding the Tiananmen Square self-immolation page, if Ohconfucius believed that the page had been transformed into a “propaganda piece” and was no longer deserving of FA status, the appropriate recourse would have been to try to, first, understand why revisions were made (they were discussed, after all). Secondly, try to engage with the editors who made those revisions, or go to the talk page to point out the content problems he perceived. Third, file to get the page reassessed—not with the goal of having it delisted, but with the goal of working constructively to ensure that it retains that listing. He didn't do any of these things. I think the talk page makes a lot of this clear.

The admins here have their work cut out for them. I hope I haven’t made things more confusing. Homunculus (duihua) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don’t like the idea of coming here and hurling accusations, but I did want to just call attention to a couple things. With due respect to Blade (and TSTF), I think the length of the original filing may have obscured some things.

Regarding Colipon—who I have no problem with in other namespaces—the battleground mentality he displays on these pages is, I think, quite serious. Virtually every one of his comments and edits related to Falun Gong displays this mentality. On a regular basis, he actually goes to talk page discussions for no other purpose than to declare them battlegrounds (literally) and make accusations of bad faith against editors who are trying to discuss content(diffs:[140][141][142][143][144]) This is a user who has declared unapologetically that he will not assume good faith or discuss content.[145]. I think the diffs presented earlier demonstrate as well that the user's frequent, divisive use of talk pages as forums, the obstruction of consensus-formation, the misrepresentation of facts and of reliable sources on talk pages, the ad hominem accusations that opponents in content discussions are “Falun Gong users”[146] and so on.

In the case of Ohconfucius, his actions in the last two weeks alone seem sanctionable. He violated 3RR twice (first time: [[147][148][149][150] - done while ignoring talk page discussion. Second time: [151][152][153][154][155][156]). He then harassed opponents, tried to "out" them, added them to his "Falun Gong editor" list, called them meatpuppets (in this very AE), and taunted them to "come out of the closet." And this is just in the last couple weeks. As to Shrigley, same: user frequently employs ad hominem attacks against opponents, accusing people of being Falun Gong practitioners instead of discussing the merits of content.

Sorry, these are pretty unpleasant things to write about people, and I don't like doing this. This whole process—the "you're wrong—no, you're wrong"—is pretty unsavory. Whatever the outcome, I hope that the editors who've weighed in here can work together (on these pages or elsewhere) in good faith. Homunculus (duihua) 17:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ohconfucius, Colipon and Shrigley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• I'll try to have a look at this sometime in the next day or two. It probably would have been a better idea to chop this up into different threads focusing on each individual person, but I suppose it's here now so we might as well deal with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I've gotten through the section on Colipon, and while I do see some evidence of a battleground mentality in places, there's nothing I see so egregious that I'd sanction. However, it wasn't entirely without merit, and if similar issues recur it can be revisited. As it's 1:15 AM local time, I'll come back to this when I get a chance tomorrow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So yet another FLG megacase, huh? Sigh, I'll also try to take a look at this. From a quick look, I'm fairly certain that we'll need to look at the conduct of all parties here. T. Canens (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look at this, the less I'm convinced that AE has the capacity to resolve this. There are too many editors, too many diffs, too many articles involved for AE to work well. Honestly, I think we should send this to arbcom for either a review or a full case. T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'm thinking this is a bit above our pay grade here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]