User:Colipon/Falun Gong/Response to TheSoundAndTheFury

Analysis of claims of being an SPA
I have been accused of editing Falun Gong articles only from the perspective of Falun Gong, and against the Chinese government. I looked through my contributions recently; the evidence does not support this assertion. Below are a sampling of edits that do not fit this narrative. The purpose of presenting these diffs is to debunk the idea that I am somehow a "Falun Gong activist," SPA, meatpuppet, or . The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - seems neutral
 * ,, , , , - dissections of content on the page. This is the kind of work I do.
 * - delete praise for Falun Gong.
 * - delete Li Hongzhi defense of FLG
 * - question source, chastise FLG guy
 * - add a coercive treatment section.
 * - Ask how Falun Gong uses information about the persecution publicly in the West
 * - add the word "reportedly"
 * - delete praise
 * - neutrality
 * - question criticism of Falun Gong.
 * - defend reduction of persecution information
 * - chastise FLG editor
 * - again
 * - again
 * - try to mediate between parties
 * - remove assertion of fact favored by FLG
 * - soften FLG statements
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * TSTF's edits show a consistent pattern of pro-Falun Gong advocacy. Whether we want to call this "SPA" or not is entirely a matter of semantics and in any case irrelevant. What matters is the damage it has done to the encyclopedia.I fully acknowledge very collegial exchanges between TSTF and myself in the 'early life' of his account, when the previous Falun Gong cabal was still around. At the time, it was favourable for him to set himself apart from the FLG practitioners on the pages, who were all stained with topic bans of one form or another. Under those circumstances, any inkling of a pro-FLG POV would have gotten TSTF sanctioned without fail, as would have exclusively Falun Gong-focused editing. So he carefully treaded the minefield.
 * TSTF fully 'spread his wings' once the Falun Gong cabal were handed indefinite bans as a result of the PCPP arbitration case in 2011; with the previous cohort of FLG SPAs gone, no one was left to 'defend the Fa' and the articles risked losing the 'balance' that the cabal had worked so hard to engender over the years, so TSTF showed his true colours by stepping into the fray.
 * Even if we ignore the extenuating circumstances, TSTF's defense falls apart when we examine his diffs more closely. Along with his more recent content contributions in 2012, everything unmistakably paints the picture of a Falun Gong activist.
 * TSTF makes substantive edits and non-substantive edits to Falun Gong articles. Most of the diffs he presents as 'neutral' were very insignificant, compared to his apparent POV-pushing diffs, which were lengthy, argumentative, and weaselly.


 * Non-substantive edits:
 * For example, this non-substantive edit removed some Falun Gong fluff, which is easy to identify even to a totally uninvolved user. Plus, removing it cannot be considered unfavourable to FLG, as the flowery praise makes it very obvious that the page is written by FLG practitioners.
 * The explanation of removing a quote from Li is also relatively insignificant, and this also cannot be construed as unfavourable to FLG, since Li's quotation has been used by some scholars critical of Falun Gong while dissecting the politicized nature of the movement.
 * This is a neutralizing-style edit. It's somewhat of a low-hanging fruit though. Again, fairly unsubstantive.
 * Ditto, this is a good edit at the time, and it would help his claims of 'neutrality' were he consistent, because inexplicably, TSTF forcefully argues for the He-Luo familial relationship's inclusion here, in tandem with Homunculus. So what exactly did he want?
 * When we look at substantive edits, a clearer picture emerges:
 * Like Falun Gong's "official narrative", TSTF launches into an extremely lengthy wikilawyering session to argue for removal of content critical of Falun Gong: the edit seeks to obfuscate the idea that Falun Gong was 'controversial' prior to the Chinese government ban and isolate all criticism of the practice as a conspiracy by the CCP.
 * Here TSTF says he encounters "sourcing irregularities", but if one reads the general discussion surrounding those edits, it is very clear that all of these 'irregular sources' discuss content critical of Falun Gong.
 * Another lengthy lawyering session that argues for excising Ostergaard's analysis, which is only mildly skeptical of Falun Gong (you can tell the extreme sensitivities to criticism.)
 * Again lawyers to argue, in effect, that Oostergaard is not a great source (see "some sources are more equal than others"), as compared to sources which were somewhat more sympathetic to Falun Gong.
 * This comment challenges edits that apparently reduced the emphasis on emotive imagery, a central part of FLG advocacy.
 * This edit argues for the term "propaganda" to be used for information that comes out of Chinese government sources.
 * Very obviously trying to downplay Falun Gong's more 'controversial' teachings, such as homophobia, race-based heavens, and apocalypse. The same arguments from Falun Gong's official source is seen here. The similarities are striking.
 * Looking back, even in the diffs he had selectively chosen for the sake of combating his SPA accusations, his POV-pushing comes off as extremely obvious, if perhaps somewhat civil in tone.


 * Of course, the vast majority of his substantive edits to Falun Gong were omitted in his defense above. These edits uniformly fit the editing patterns of a Falun Gong activist. Not only does he remove information that can be considered critical of Falun Gong, he is sensitive to even minor alterations to Falun Gong's "preferred narrative". Most alarmingly, his argumentation is effectively identical to those presented by Falun Gong's official website. Where applicable below, I provide the link to Falun Gong's official position to show similarities with TSTF's argumentation.
 * This edit says 'activist' left and right: it dresses up esoteric Falun Gong doctrine much in the same way as Falun Gong promotional pamphlets, expounding on its 'moral code'. Note that the majority of these edits directly cite Falun Gong's official website.
 * Tag-revert-warring with AgadaUrbanit without even hearing out the user's concerns. (FLG SPAs in the past were extremely sensitive to neutrality tags being placed on articles)
 * Edit-warring with what seemed like a student doing a Wikipedia-based project for school on Chinese propaganda. Here again. Notice how the material written by the new user is actually very critical of the Chinese government, but it was still basically removed wholesale because it did not fit Falun Gong's "preferred narrative".
 * Despite its 'reliable source', This edit basically acts to inflate Falun Gong's membership figures to an implausible 70 million, a trait typical of NRMs
 * Removes reliably sourced apocalyptic teachings of Falun Gong's founder (wikilawyering seen in above diffs), to fit Falun Gong's "preferred narrative". (Elsewhere TSTF has lobbied in favour of Penny as a source, but apparently when the information cited is unfavourable to Falun Gong, suddenly Penny is no longer acceptable)
 * Wholesale revert of Falun Gong's politicized nature (something that is an open secret but FLG activists emphatically deny).


 * From the analysis above, the fact that TheSound is a Falun Gong activist should be very clear. Given the weight of this evidence, speculation on his real-life identity is irrelevant. He may be a Falun Gong practitioner, a paid lobbyist, an opinionated human rights researcher, a mutinous CCP member looking to defect the regime, or even just an ordinary investment banker with no affiliation at all. All of that is irrelevant if his presence on Wikipedia is detrimental to our project and does not serve our five pillars. I would be extremely surprised if even the most innocent bystander do not see the obvious POV-pushing nature of his edits.  Since his primary purpose on Wikipedia is to advocate on behalf of Falun Gong, a topic ban would effectively amount to a site ban.
 * Colipon+ (Talk) 01:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: