Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2

Arbitrators active on this case

 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Hersfold
 * 5) Jclemens
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) PhilKnight
 * 9) Risker
 * 10) Roger Davies
 * 11) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * AGK
 * 1) Elen of the Roads
 * 2) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) SilkTork

Statement by Moreschi
I had a look at the AE request and promptly ran away shrieking to hide in the corner. Ugh. Sorting that one out would probably require a decent-sized team of sysops all with large quantities of time we simply don't have. It would be definitely be nice if the AC could take this one on. Falun Gong has been a mess for years and it may be time to apply WP:TNT to a bunch of the active editors here. Could be wrong though. Moreschi (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I think most reasonable people could easily understand Moreschi's reaction to the AE request above. I also agree that Falun Gong related material has been problematic for years. One particular concern I have is the almost single-minded attention paid to the topic of Falun Gong in China, particularly the government's actions and other issues. I know some of the editors involved here work primarily if not exclusively on China related content, and I can easily understand why they would be unlikely to expand much effort in content about FG outside of China, as they deal with such subjects less often in general. I am less sure of the reason for similar almost single-minded attention by others. I regret that there is little attention, or even apparently interest, in developing content related to Falun Gong outside China. I also note that there have already been two rounds of banning of editors from this content, first of those who were Westerners who opposed Falun Gong, and the second time FG practicioners. I'm not sure how we deal with content where there is a history of, apparently, two groups, the Chinese government and the Falun Gong, who are actively engaged in a real-world conflict and which seem to be able to perhaps encourage their side to edit here. Falun Gong has both supporters and opponents outside the PRC, and I think that the dedication of both sides to this contentious topic is far greater than that of the majority of individuals who do not have some form of stake in the subject, and I don't think anyone other than ArbCom is necessarily in a position to make decisions in such a matter. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Falun Gong: review)

 * For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators, so 7 support votes are a majority.

2) The Arbitration Committee resolve by motion to open a Review of Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, in order to examine the behaviour of users Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley.


 * Support
 * Proposed per my comment in Motion 1. First choice. AGK  [•] 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, might make second choice later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * due to duration of time between cases, second choice (though feasible). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice; prefer motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I'm not convinced that a "review" of a case closed five years ago is in any substantive way different from a new case; and, given that, I think we should keep to standard procedure as much as possible. Kirill [talk] 22:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill, a review is not appropriate in this matter. Courcelles 23:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per above.  Roger Davies  talk 03:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still deciding on the case, but no, a review is probably not the right tool for tackling this. Jclemens-public (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot can change in three years. A review is not the appropriate venue to handle this. SirFozzie (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think too much time has passed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Kirill and Courcelles, my own thinking is that we have been asked to adjudicate a very complex enforcement request about the old Falun Gong case. We were never asked to re-examine the wider topic area, and so far as I can see no suggestion has been made that we need to do so now. An omnibus enforcement request was submitted that our enforcement team could not possible settle, but it certainly does not necessarily follow that enforcement itself has failed (and that a new case is therefore required). Perhaps the appropriate intermediary stage is to open a case named Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley, unless we disagree about the actual scope of this request for arbitration. AGK  [•] 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no objections to opening a named case on the conduct of the specific editors; that's essentially how I interpret the first motion anyways, albeit with a different case name. Kirill [talk] 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: ARBFLG2
Initiated by  Homunculus (duihua) at 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Homunculus
I was subject to a terminal topic ban on content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed, per ARBFLG2. I'd like to ask a couple questions concerning the scope of the topic ban, and ask for advice on how to handle a couple situations that have arisen over the last couple months. My understanding of the policy on WP:PROXYING is that the above two examples would be permissible, as long as the editors making changes are using independent judgement. Is that right? Assuming it is, I'm also wondering if there are any recommendations on who I should contact in cases like this to mitigate against any appearance of impropriety. Would it be preferable to ask editors who have minimal involvement in the FLG topic area, or neutral admins, as opposed to editors I've worked with on FLG before? And should those correspondences take place on-wiki or by email? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm working on taking a the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei through a GA review after its lead author went MIA.  The reviewer proposed a structural reorganization and consolidation of some sections on the article. One of these sections has a couple sentences that could very broadly be construed as related to Falun Gong. Specifically, it notes coverage that the event received in the Epoch Times newspaper, which was established by practitioners of Falun Gong. I have no intention of touching that content, but just to err on the side of caution, I wanted to ask whether it would be alright for me to pare down some of the other content contained in that section (it's a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM right now). Alternately, could I ask another editor to take a look at it?
 * 2) I recently revisited an article I wrote related to Falun Gong, and noticed I had made a small but non-trivial error concerning the title of a Chinese government official. What should I do in cases like this?  Can I contact another editor, alert them to the error, and let them decide how and whether to correct it?
 * 3) On a similar note, I created an article on the Shifang protest a couple months ago. After I started work on the article, I found news coverage that noted an interesting (if very tenuous) link between this event and Falun Gong. It's probably notable enough to be mentioned in one sentence. Could I send another editor a link to the relevant news coverage, and leave it to them to decide whether the information is worth including on the page?


 * @Hersfold, that all makes good sense. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Homunculus originally posted the first question to my talk page; I replied here but to reiterate, in general (note that underlined bits have since been added):
 * An edit re-ordering text without removing or deleting anything would probably fall under "uncontroversial corrections to [...] style" and thus acceptable to edit without following the restrictions outlined by WP:MER unless:
 * An editor has previously expressed opposition to the change or a similar one, or
 * The re-ordering may impact how the presented information is perceived by the reader (for example, mentioning a negative review before a positive one when it was previously the other way around)
 * Whenever any editor subject to restrictions is unsure if an edit falls within said restrictions, the editor should err on the side of caution and assume it does unless explicitly told otherwise by community consensus or the restricting authority (being the admin who levied the sanction or, as in this case, the Committee)
 * Although in hindsight I'd forgotten about the topic ban, so yes, you shouldn't be editing anything in the subject area yourself until the topic ban expires, regardless of triviality. I've added the underlined bit to clarify. To answer your specific questions, though...
 * I would consider anything noting coverage in the Epoch Times to fall under your topic ban. As long as you avoid that particular section, however, I would think it's fine for you to do whatever; it doesn't appear as though the vast majority of the article would fall under that umbrella. In this particular case, since the reviewer has left specific comments to be followed, asking another editor to handle that particular change would be fine and perhaps preferable just to avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety. Here, you haven't requested the changes directly, so I don't believe that WP:PROXYING would really be an issue.
 * Technically your topic ban forbids all discussion across all namespaces, but if there is indeed a simple error I see little value in allowing incorrect information to remain simply on a matter of bureaucracy. I would say yes, that would be fine in this limited circumstance, provided that your request is worded in such a way that it allows the editor to make their own judgment as to whether the edit is appropriate (per WP:PROXYING, they must take responsibility for the change), and that if they opt to discuss it with others you would not be able to participate in the discussion, and not continue to ask people if they determine the change should not be made.
 * This one I can't see any justification for; there's no incorrect information presently in the article, and presumably another editor could find the same news coverage and mention it themselves without your intervention.
 * To answer your closing questions, the best place to leave these requests would probably be on a relevant (non-Falun Gong-related) Wikiproject's talk page. This way anyone can pick it up, and it provides a starting point for discussion if needed. Wherever it is, definitely on-wiki; keep things in the open, where they can be easily seen by all editors, so if there are any issues, they can be easily addressed. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the cautious approach outlined by Hersfold. That said, Mandated External Review is a new process, and some fine tuning may be appropriate. Looking at the WP:MER page, there is already an exception for 'minor, uncontroversial corrections to spelling, grammar, and/or style' and it's possible this clause could be expanded slightly to allow fixing one own's edits, for example. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hersfold's and PhilKnight's positions. Risker (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Recuse.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the comments above. And since Homunculus has indicated he also agrees, this request can probably be closed soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I'm in broad agreement with the above, but have nothing specific to add. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment (May 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Ohc  ¡digame! at 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Ohconfucius
It has been more that 18 months since the case. Since then, I have performed tens of thousands of edits to align date formats, and have also made significant contributions to numerous articles, including developing many DYKs and several good articles. Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on that sect. The ban no longer serves any purpose except to potentially prevent me from contributing to China articles to the fullest extent and to the best of my expertise and ability, and also to edit a page in my own userspace. In addition, it would be important for me to once again to restored to an editor of good standing. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The great irony is that once the topic ban came into being, I couldn't do anything to that rant without being in breach of the ban. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that being deleted. I've long gotten over it and see no useful purpose in dwelling over the bitter past history of editors most of whom are no longer active in the project. Falun Gong isn't going to change as a result of my ranting about it, but I've been too lazy to do any housekeeping – not that I could have even mentioned it to anyone, let alone ask for it to be deleted due to the breadth of the TBAN. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The answer to that is easy. The TBAN states: "Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces." The typical Arbcom "broadly construed" provision is the killer. I am afraid to death of editing any China-related article because of that provision. Jiang Zemin, Bo Xilai are the obvious ones due to their unproven roles in the alleged persecution of FLG practitioners. However, the problem is not only China articles where there is mention of Falun Gong persecution, but any article where The Epoch Times or Shen Yun are mentioned; any article where ET is quoted or cited is technically off-limits to me. As an example, I am currently working through Category:CS1 errors: dates yet I cannot correct the cs1 date error in Shen Yun. More specifically and problematically, there are Robocop admins prowling, and I can see myself blocked and/or have my ban extended for technical breaches by making even minor changes to apparently innocuous or unrelated articles such as List of newspapers in Australia and Korkoro. I trust that you can see how the breadth of the TBAN is a restraint for me. I now seek to repair my reputation – and this is the most important reason for this appeal. But if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG.  --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Heim
For what it's worth, this ban barely passed in the first place, getting through by just one vote. And there's a good reason: It was an exceedingly ill-founded ban. As two arbitrators pointed out, the evidence for Ohconfucius's POV-pushing was weak. Frankly, the rest of the committee erred in forgetting that editing with a POV is not necessarily pushing a POV; sometimes, adding a POV to an article is balancing the article. (Frankly, Wikipedia has a serious systemic bias problem with these articles because of the unwillingness of Western editors to consider an anti-FG stance for fear of being seen as pro-PRC, and ArbCom fell into this trap hook, line and sinker.) Either way, if no one can show evidence of recent problematic behaviour, this appeal should be granted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Noting, that I changed the title of this request from Appeal request to Amendment request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No. And the existence of User:Ohconfucius/essay/rant about Falun Gong pages in the user space of a topic banned editor seems unwise, and I'm considering MFDing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can WP:CSD it if you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm interpreting your thanking me for the edit above as "Go ahead and delete it, Floq/" Let me know if that's wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Recuse. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have two questions here:
 * Could you give an example of a specific page that you are prevented from editing by this TBAN that you believe you should be able to edit in a productive manner?
 * Would you like the "rant" page in your userspace deleted? I'm not trying to put you over a barrel here, just giving you a  way to be rid of it without any chance of violating the topic ban by actually editing it. Say the word and I'll zap it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm liking the sound of Salvio's idea below, although I might like it better if it were six months instead of a full year. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to accept the amendment request, albeit in a slightly modified form. Instead of removing the topic ban entirely, I'd go for something along the lines of a "parole": Ohconfucius' topic ban is suspended but, for a year, any uninvolved admin may reimpose it in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. After a year of trouble-free editing, the topic ban will automatically expire. would this solution satisfy you?  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with SG's proposal of a year's provisional lifting, to be made a permanent removal if no problems occur and be revoked if any do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be reasonable support for the provisional suspension of the remedy, I'll propose a motion tonight. Would anyone else like to weigh in as to how long the probationary period should last? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like Salvio's idea of a provisional suspension. I personally feel like one year would make sense to ensure all is well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Motion
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.


 * Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth trying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weakly. AGK  [•] 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With the request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 07:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for amendment (June 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) at 00:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 / Motion


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 


 * Information about amendment request


 * Amendment request: Falun Gong 2
 * Lifting the misbehaving user's indefinite topic ban lead to disruptive behavior, despite promises.

Statement by TheSoundAndTheFury
Last month, User:Ohconfucius appealed to ArbCom to lift the indefinite topic ban that prevented him from editing Falun Gong-related articles.

In his request he stated "Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on [Falun Gong]." He added "if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG." Instead, Ohconfucius said he wanted the ban lifted so that he could return to good standing and stop walking on eggshells when it comes to China-related articles.

On the basis of these promises Arbcom agreed to provisionally lift the topic ban for a period of one year, provided Ohconfucius not relapse into problematic editing patterns. One arbitrator noted the "request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area."

Two weeks later, Ohconfucius returned to POV editing on a controversial Falun Gong article:
 * Deletes what appears to be verifiable information on the grounds that he didn't like the source, which he referred to as a Falun Gong "front-organisation." (The source cited was a major Israeli newspaper, but a translation of the article was hosted on a Falun Gong website).
 * Alters the source of torture allegations in apparent attempt to make them seem less credible (allegations were actually made by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and confirmed through extensive investigative reporting). Edit summary calls it a copy edit.
 * More of same. Edits article to (falsely) depict allegations from third party sources as coming from Falun Gong sources. Again, I imagine the intend was to make the reports seem less credible. Addition: I would specifically want to point out that the initial organ harvesting allegations came from two whistleblowers who have no connection to Falun Gong. After that, a significant amount of evidence has been amassed, including recorded phone calls to several Chinese transplant surgeons. Even the European Parliament has deemed the evidence credible in its resolution 2013/2981(RSP).

This is not the first time Ohconfucius has reneged on promises to refrain from editing on Falun Gong. He has on numerous occasions said he would stop editing in this area, and once even briefly "retired" with the apparent goal of trying to avoid sanctions (then promptly continued editing under another account). Given the opportunity he seems unable to avoid this subject, I suggest the topic ban be reinstated.


 * @John Carter: [edited] I would again like to bring to everyone's attention that Ohconfucius's topic ban was lifted on the provision that "[he] steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area". Indeed, it was his original suggestion that he refrain from editing the Falun Gong articles altogether. Cordially, TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @John Carter: I'm afraid your description of the FLG2 case is not entirely accurate. The three findings of fact against Ohconfucius in that case received overwhelming support; and I suspect support might have been even higher if a more complete and representative selection of diffs as evidence were presented. It is true that the indefinite ban passed only by a margin of 6-5, but this was mainly because several arbs wanted to first try an experimental 'Mandated external review' option. It failed — no one's fault. But eight out of nine Arbitrators voted for mandated external review for Ohconfucius.


 * I am also not sure what you mean when you say "there were clear indications that he could appeal...after only 6 months on good behavior." The closest statement to this effect was when the drafting Arbitrator noted: "The proposed topic ban against Ohconfucius is an indefinite topic ban. As currently worded, the ban could be appealed at any time, although I don't expect an appeal would be likely to be considered until at least six months to a year down the road." TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston: Thank you for the clarification. You are right and my comment was not well thought out, as there was no explicit provision in the decision. Let me rephrase: I thought it was implicitly understood that the ban was lifted based on Ohconfucius's promise to not return to editing in this area. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ohconfucius: We should all thank Ohconfucius for his honesty about his views. It would be very easy to write an equally long note rebutting and arguing against all the content-related points he makes. Some of them are interesting, some are quite incorrect. Overall, he demonstrates that he feels that he is on a mission to fight against the Falun Gong propaganda machine on Wikipedia. I have no connection with Falun Gong. I have edited the articles for some years, however. I remember when I first came to them, the forensic effort I made to clear up and expunge both pro- and anti-FLG propaganda. Those discussions are all in the edit history—though I don't suppose there is any point rehearsing them. I have always been interested in as close to a careful and meticulous referencing and sourcing methodology as possible. I have tried not to make accusations against others.


 * If Arbs would like me to provide a point-by-point discussion of my side of the story, like OhConfucius has, I can do so. If they would like me to defend the specific allegations against me, I can do so.


 * Most importantly, Ohconfucius's remarks have little to do with the accusations that were at hand here, which included the apparently deliberate, inaccurate modification of a reference to a Pulitzer-winning report. This isn't even a POV issue - it's just a modification of a source. Ohconfucius simply has nothing to answer for this, the substantive issue. Instead he presents a Falun Gong Theory of Everything and inserts himself on one side of a struggle for truth against a secretive and shadowy Chinese religious enemy. Give me a break. Determinations should be made on editing and behavior. My editing and behavior around this topic was thoroughly scrutinized during the last go-around.


 * Ohconfucius has said that Falun Gong topics are not so important to him, and that his only agenda is Wikipedia compliance. This seems difficult to believe. Look at the extraordinary analysis he conducted of certain alleged "covert FLG" people. That would have taken many, many hours. After being banned from Falun Gong topics, Ohconfucius retired from Wikipedia. Then he came back. Then, he requested his ban be lifted, stating that the request was to remove the blotch from his record, and because it hampered his editing on non-Falun Gong topics but which contain some mention of Falun Gong or Falun Gong-related organizations. And he further promised that he would not edit Falun Gong topics. Yet within a week he resumed the same pattern that he was banned for in the first place. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised evidence presentation (per Seraphimblade’s suggestion)
[deleted previous addition]

@Newyorkbrad, @Seraphimblade, @Floquenbeam, @GorillaWarfare, @NativeForeigner:

Thank you, Seraphimblade, for refocusing the conversation. I’ve rearranged my presentation of evidence to explain how Ohconfucius violated Wikipedia policies.

These are the edits in question:

I am not cherry-picking diffs. This is pretty much every edit I could find that Ohconfucius has made related to Falun Gong since the topic ban was lifted, and every one of them is problematic.

These are the policies and guidelines that I believe have been violated: WP:ATTACK, WP:NOT, WP:UP, WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONSENSUS. Reasons are explained below.

If these are the edits he’s making while he’s under a scrutiny, I don’t want to imagine what he’ll do once his one-year probationary period is over.

Userspace pages
Ohconfucius maintains two pages in his userspace related to Falun Gong.

One page includes some material that might be related to Wikipedia editing, but large swaths of it are nothing more than polemical attacks on the credibility of Falun Gong with no encyclopedic value. It also includes serious accusations – not backed up with evidence – about the affiliations and motives of other editors. Note that this page was created after his previous anti-Falun Gong rant was deleted by an Arbcom member in May.

The other page is a record apparently intended to prove that certain editors are Falun Gong SPAs. He recently edited it to remove a No Index tag, with an edit summary that read “who’s afraid of the big bad wolf.”

The creation and maintenance of these pages is a violation of the following policies and guidelines:


 * guideline on user pages states that they should not be used for “Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.” The guideline notes that such pages in userspace are generally removed, and that reintroducing them is considered disruptive.  Not only did Ohconfucius reintroduce an anti-Falun Gong rant after his previous one was deleted, but he insists this material be indexed by search engines.


 * The policy against Attack pages prohibits any page (including in userspace) that “exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.” This includes keeping lists of enemies or records of other editors’ supposed ill-deeds, both of which Ohconfucius does (in addition to more his general attacks on Falun Gong and its supporters).


 * Keeping lists of “Falun Gong editors” and maintaining records of their editing patterns may also violate the policy against harassment. The “big bad wolf” edit summary also appears intended to taunt, harass, or intimidate.


 * What Wikipedia is not states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or advocacy. Maintaining polemical essays against Falun Gong violates this policy.

The pages also speak to the editor’s state of mind, suggesting a battleground mentality relating to Falun Gong pages and a tendency to nurture long-standing grudges against other editors. It also shows that Ohconfucius has difficulty assuming good faith, as demonstrated by his labeling of established editors who disagree with him as “SPAs,” “clandestine Falun Gong advocates,” and “meatpuppets”.

Kilgour-Matas Report

 * Deletes what appears to be verifiable information on the grounds that he didn't like the source, which he referred to as a Falun Gong "front-organisation." (The source cited was a major Israeli newspaper, but a translation of the article was hosted on a Falun Gong website).


 * Alters the source of torture allegations in apparent attempt to make them seem less credible (allegations were actually made by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and confirmed through extensive investigative reporting). Edit summary misleadingly calls it a copy edit.


 * Edits article to depict organ harvesting allegations as originating from Falun Gong sources (the initial claims actually came from two individuals with no affiliation to Falun Gong). Again, I imagine the intent was to make the reports seem less credible.

These edits violate WP:NPOV by removing or misrepresenting information that could reflect poorly on the Chinese government’s human rights record.

Shen Yun Performing Arts
On June 13 Ohconfucius blanked a list of lead performers & artists from Shen Yun Performing Arts by claiming this content violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Shortly before being topic banned in 2012, Ohconfucius edit warred to remove the exact same content. His edits and rationale for deletion were contested by several different editors, all of whom pointed out that the list of lead performers has legitimate encyclopedic value, and that similar lists are found on pages for other performing arts companies. By repeating the same edit now with no discussion on the talk page, I believe he has violated WP:WAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and has also engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat superfluous, but I just want to briefly comment on Ohconfucius's latest statement, in case the inappropriateness of his user pages is lost on anyone. Here's an analogy: the equivalent action from the reverse POV would be to create a page decrying Chinese nationalists on Wikipedia. It could quote liberally from academic works talking about the "Chinese worldview" and arguing that it is incompatible with Wikipedia's values; describe how it's virtually impossible to find Chinese people who can approach Falun Gong in an objective manner (academics actually have written about this phenomenon); using racial epithets; keeping a list of Chinese editors, and calling editors who don't declare their nationality as such "clandestine" Chinese nationalists and "Chinese proxies."


 * If anyone did this they would and should be sanctioned severely. Yet there is no substantial difference between this and what Ohconfucius does to Falun Gong (except that we're maybe more sensitized to racial, rather than religious, stereotyping, and recognize it more easily).


 * Just like Ohconfucius has branded me as a "Falun Gong SPA" because of my interest in this topic, while I am not affiliated with Falun Gong, I could perceive anybody who disagrees with me as an enemy with a covert agenda. I just don't see the point of doing that at all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground. Thank you. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
The committee might decline this on the grounds that they are not usually the first resort for enforcement. I did examine [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kilgour%E2%80%93Matas_report&diff=609679258&oldid=608564519 one diff] of those submitted here and I agree that Ohconfucius's change was not a good idea. A Wall Street Journal reporter, Ian Johnson, got a Pulitzer in 2001 for a series of articles including this one about deaths of Falun Gong adherents in police custody. His statement that the people died was based on his own reporting. Changing the wording of this to say 'Falun Gong alleged..' seems ill advised. Also it was a bad idea to mark this in the edit summary as 'ce'. I hope that Ohconfucius will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @TheSoundAndTheFury: It is inaccurate to say that Ohconfucius's ban "was lifted on the provision that "[he] steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area". You are quoting from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=607117566&oldid=607088665 a comment by a single arb] who was simply making a request along with his vote. The motion itself didn't restrict Ohconfucius from areas of controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
The article and topic remain under discretionary sanctions, independent of the now-lifted sanctions against Ohconfucius. It is also unfortunate but true that the ArbCom having declared him as basically taking the side of the PRC in the last dispute is something which I can well imagine might leave a very bitter aftertaste for some time in someone accused in such a way. There has been, so far as I can tell from databanks, not much of a newsworthy nature on the topic in the past few years. I also agree that, unfortunately, it is possible for websites affiliated with organizations like FG to misrepresent/misquote sources in a prejudicial way. In such a case, I can reasonably say that it might well be reasonable to remove an alleged quote from a partisan source as being from a partisan source.

I have to say that it seems to me that reinstating the ban might well be ultimately counterproductive to the quality of the FG content here. The Sound and the Fury was not himself sanctioned in the FG2 case, but there was so far as I can remember a preponderence of evidence of he himself being a less than neutral and unbiased editor. That may also be worth considering here. And there is a very real chance that the existence of the discretionary sanctions, and the fact of there being two previous arbitrations on this matter, might well scare off many or most editors not previously invovled.

The edit summaries are and were problematic, and I cannot and will not attempt to defend them. But I do think Ohconfucius would be an invaluable editor to have around to help keep articles on this this highly contentious topic at a reasoanble level of quality. For all these reasons, I oppose the reinstatement of the ban. I think, on such potentially dubious potential misquotes (maybe?) from a group's internal propaganda opublications, such "questioning" of possible quotations is not unreasonable, and that there might also be a few rough spots in returning to edit such a contentious topic. These actions could well be accounted for on the basis of some lingering resentment as being labelled on the PRC side by ArbCom in the last case and "learning the ropes" about the topic again. Would there be, maybe, cause for discretionary sactions of some sort? Yes. A return to a full ban? So far as I can see, no. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zujnie's points below. First, I question how qualified he/she is to compare the situation before and after Ohconfucius' ban, considering, so far as I can remember, Zujine had not been involved with the content at all prior to Ohconfucius' ban. Second, that he thinks Ohconfucius requested the ban be lifted on the provision he would refrain from editing in the topic, that statement is supported neither by the actual comments made or, even, common sense. Who would go through the effort of requesting a ban be lifted on a topic they would have no interest in editing in? Lastly, at least part of the alleged improvement (which I have not myself actually verified) could well be do to things other than Ohconfucius's absence, such as the reduced number of strident pro-FG POV pushers and, from what I can see in the databanks, a significantly reduced level of news coverage and developments related to FG. Having the topic itself be comparatively stable can and would in and of itself make it easier for the improvement of articles. For compelling reasons for his return, I think the fact that he is the person who played the greatest role in bringing FG's only FA article up to that level of quality is I believe possibly compelling enough reason.John Carter (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply noting that the ruling offering an "indefinite" ban on Ohconfucius only passed 6-5 at the time as per here, and in this case there were clear indications that he could appeal the indefinite ban after only 6 months on good behavior, and that several of the opposes were based on their having not supported the findings of fact against Ohconfucius involved. I am certain the arbitrators involved will review the circumstances of the case before passing judgment, and honestly regret the fact that my saying this seems to perhaps imply that there would ever be any real doubt of that. And noting that Zujnie as per contribution history has been involved in the content relating to human rights in China, including Tibet, to a great degree for some time now, and that includes some involvement in FG related content for much of that time. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Having read Ohconfucius's comments below, I regret that he seems to be saying once again that he will refrain from editing the FG related content. I remember discussion with him and an arbitrator earlier regarding not banning HappyinGeneral from the topic, because both he and I thought HiG was perhaps the most reasonable of the then-extant FG proponents and we needed someone who had access to internal informtion, and on that basis HiG in our opinions should not be banned. I would also support in the strongest way possible rescinding of the onerous and I believe unwarrantedly judgmental finding of fact that he mentions below. I also wonder, possibly rhetorically, whether perhaps WP:BOOMERANG has ever been applied in a request for clarification or amendment before. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also like to support Colipon's request below regarding modifying the phrasing of the restriction. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

 * It is true that I have been editing, but I can only manage minor editing while my RL workload is quite heavy, but that does not mean I am choosing not to reply to this. I am currently preparing my response in private, so please bear with me for a few days. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank the Arbs for their patience. My response is being finalised, and I beg Arbcom's indulgence for another 24 hours. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would start off by apologising for the length of this response, and the time it has taken me to get my thoughts together on the matter.

Falun Gong does not exist in a vacuum, as its leadership is at loggerheads with the PRC regime. Although Falun Gong claim the moral high ground, neither side has the gospel truth on its side although both claim it. FLG is certainly more of the victim in this game, but you can expect a violent reaction if you poke a wild animal enough times. Disliking both in equal measure, I edit without pro-Falun Gong nor pro-PRC government agenda. Other than living in a freer part of the country, I have no interest to conflict with. And because of my political experience and coverage on Wikipedia, I know it's quite possible (and easy) to make both look bad while editing here, albeit to different degrees. I know that that displeases the Falun Gong advocates no end. Falun Gong dislikes looking bad, and dislikes it intensely. I accept that my poor behaviour at times and edit warring that resulted in my topic ban in FLG2 was as a reaction to relentless POV-pushing by FLG proxies. I remain rather upset that Arbcom accused me of pro-regime bias in their FOF. Arbs agreed that my edits have the result of improving the appearance of the Communist Party of China, its members, and attempts by the group to take action against Falun Gong and its practitioners; and to discredit the Falun Gong movement. In retrospect, I ought to have sought to remove this blotch against my name instead of getting the TBan lifted. Maybe there's still time. The blotch hurts me a lot more than not being able to clean up Falun Gong bullshit. Anyone who may continue to think that one makes PRC regime look "good" by making Falun Gong "bad" has fallen into a logic trap that Falun Gong intended. Pity the arbs didn't bother to find some diffs of mine outside Falun Gong articles, where I make the PRC regime plenty ugly – any of the China-related articles listed in my contributions section would have done the job (2010 Nobel Peace Prize, Death of Li Wangyang will do). I'm no more pro- or anti- Falun Gong than I am pro- or anti- Liu Xiaobo or Li Wangyang. As long as there remains the adversarial relationship, there is the tendency to treat NPOV as push-pull zero-sum game, which it is not.

The Falun Gong have a formidable propaganda machine in New York under Gail Rachlin which grew out of the same Cultural Revolution mindset as the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, otherwise known as the "Propaganda Department". In a small way, I'm happy to say Rachlin's operation now qualitatively surpasses the regime's – it's much more reactive, and imaginative on the attack, but it's still paranoid and highly sensitive to criticism, like its counterpart. Operating in exile against a regime that is as brutal as it is opaque, there are no party lines to follow. Shen Yun becomes the vanguard, and propaganda gets dressed up deceptively as art. Li Hongzhi ordered followers to pick fights with the regime while he himself is safely in the US. His footsoldiers irritate the monster and add to their statistics. Ever imaginative, Falun Gong rides on the PRC's abysmal human rights record, their propaganda machine, in addition to hiding behind glossy silky dance performances, generates and spreads stories of Nazi-like atrocities that only a brutal totalitarian regime could conceivably commit. Like all smears, plausibility is key; never let the lack of evidence get into the way of a good story. One anonymous informant hiding behind dark glasses and waiting political asylum, without documentary or photographic proof. A small number of fairly high-profile European and Canadian politicians have been persuaded to hitch themselves to their bandwagon. For western politicians, there's mileage to be had and Brownie points to be earned.

Pointing to their motto but being cagey about the true and kooky nature of some of their teachings, Falun Gong hold themselves up as virtuous; anyone who dares to utter any criticism is labelled "evil". Their declared primary objective is the overthrow of the Communist Party of China – as can be seen from any issue of Epoch Times. Falun Gong hold themselves up as champions of human rights but actually only care about themselves; they are wary of other human rights defenders who are not Falun Gong. Anyone who dares to criticise them is thus a human rights abuser. Their proselytism is a defining trait, and they seek to discredit anyone who is not totally in support of them. Although the term "enemy" is usually reserved for the any observer who isn't completely on board is considered "the enemy" or a collaborator. They discredited cult-buster Rick Ross, vilified the sceptics He Zuoxiu and Sima Nan; poured scorn over the work of respectable academics like Margaret Singer, Heather Kavan by tarring with guilt by association to the regime. Initially welcoming him, they have scorned Harry Wu – probably the world's foremost authority on Chinese forced labour camps – since he declared that he found no evidence of the organ harvesting allegations. They spread rumours about Wu turning collaborator after his swift release from PRC arrest. Falun Gong editors quote extensively from texts written by "investigative journalist" Danny Schechter, whose discourse concerning Falun Gong is disconcertingly similar in tone and content to Falun Gong propaganda. Another favourite is Ethan Gutman, who writes for the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, and whose storyline repeating FLG allegations of live organ harvesting on FLG practitioners marries well with the journal's US-centric/anti-PRC agenda and rhetoric.
 * 'For' or 'Against'

Professor David Ownby was given considerable access to the movement for many years, and is probably the foremost expert on Falun Gong. Ownby's writings are neutral tending to sympathetic, and these have been frequently used selectively as it suits the FLG. Ownby, who deserves much praise for his professionalism and integrity, speaks these words from the heart with the deep sense of frustration that I share:

A libertarian with a long track record of interest human rights in my country, I would have been a natural supporter of the movement when I started editing Falun Gong articles in about mid-2007. I am known for being without an agenda (except for compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), and for taking a stand for same, save for differences of interpretation. I have found myself caught in the middle of pro- and anti-Falun Gong factions, and had direct confrontations with self-declared FLG activists like and. But because of my continued research into the topic, and also the particularly bitter and long-running disputes I have had with these editors, I can see the FLG without the rose-coloured spectacles.

Latterly, since the aforementioned have been driven away by bans, more sophisticated undeclared/clandestine FLG advocates who are well versed in Wikipedia's policies appeared. The Homunculus and TSTF edit quite unlike the blunt hammer "must win" approach of Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos. They no tolerate overt untruths as their predecessors did, which is welcome. However, their high degree of sensitivity to criticism (even nuances) – a Falun Gong trait – remains, and their editing and tactics are highly coordinated. Falun Gong editors will almost always attempt to portray critics' views as "outside of the spectrum of mainstream discourse", but they edit little else outside this namespace. And once FLG2 was launched, these have been bust accumulating non-Falun Gong edits to disguise where their true editing interests lie.

In the course of editing the article family and bringing Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to Featured Article, I found many of their edits problematic: there were numerous factual inaccuracies, BLP policies violations, original research, dubious sourcing; they delete notable and reliably sourced information for unclear reasons (and accuse others of the same tactics for stuff they want keeping), misrepresent reliable sources, etc. The version that stands today is a cumulative effect of the two groups, but mainly the later group.

It's not likely that Arbcom need reminding that it's easy to edit a subject in isolation. Proper weight can often be achieved simply by counting the number of different sources for any given element. It's a lot tougher when one is wrestling with a polarised situation amidst information deficit and bullshit rhetoric from both sides – most of the conflict that ends here is a result of entrenched and opposite views. Even tougher is when, in this case, Falun Gong activists scrutinise each edit for wording or content that may be prejudicial to perception of the movement.
 * The NPOV premise

I do have a compulsion to raise red flags about NPOV wherever I happen to see it. TSTF is not a neutral party in this request – in the previous Arbcom case, I showed that my current accuser, TSTF, is a single purpose Falun Gong advocacy account (or rather there was only a very slim chance that TSTF was not a SPU Falun Gong advocate). We have had undeclared Epoch Times editors editing here before, and Wikipedia's openness makes this likely to continue. I'm not saying that TSTF is an ET writer, but his/her editing stance has all the hallmarks of one. As soon as the case was over, TSTF noindexed my user analysis. [He] uses three edits as evidence of my anti-Galun Gong bias without engaging me in discussion, and sought an immediate reinstatement of my topic ban. But we can exchange diffs about his alleged neutrality too – in one of the more recent edits, TSTF removed the assertion that the PRC government said that the movement is a cult, alleging "factual inaccuracy". But I don't see it. All I know is that the movement is hyper-sensitive to the "c-word".

Although I did not perform the analysis on the edits of Zujine, it is clear this user's main interest is also in Falun Gong. Over a period of time when I was not active on FLG, this "tag team" markedly shifted the balance of the 'Self-immolation' article which I took to FA as well as others; they overweighted with their pet sources and marginalised more mainstream sources that suggest more Falun Gong practitioners involvement in radical/extreme acts than perhaps they would wish. There is no denying the PRC regime may have attempted to propagandise every aspect of Falun Gong being an evil cult, but that does not mean practitioners were definitely involved; yet FLG try to deny Li Hongzhi ever said anything that could have incited the radicals. By the time of the Arbcom case and despite my efforts, most of the Falun Gong articles had reached a stage where the Falun Gong felt was acceptable and contained the propaganda damage. As in any hotly contested area, stability would be easily assured if one side had been left alone to edit them without any buttress or challenge, as has been in this case.

The organ harvesting allegations stem from the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong mouthpiece, when it published allegations of one anonymous "eyewitness" who would be seeking asylum. The fanciful smear against a Malaysian-owned hospital in the PRC specialised in treating thrombosis, Falun Gong spun this imaginative tale of clandestine human-parts factories, and furnaces to destroy physical evidence. There has never been a shred of evidence that this "factory exists" or that FLG practitioners were victims of same, yet the Falun Gong sources continue to bang the drum against the PRC regime which they despise.
 * Use of anonymous informants, often single, sources and synthesis

Another favourite trick is to credibilise and factualise their own by citing journals or news sites that cite or quote them. We tell our editors not to cite ourselves, yet it's the Falun Gong modus operandum. The circular referencing is dishonest, like money-laundering. How fortunate of them to be able to recruit David Kilgour and David Matas to lend credibility to their campaign to vilify the regime. The investigative report is a supreme act of synthesis even by the authors' own admission, and would have been removed on sight had it been written by Wikipedia the editors. Yet because it was compiled by two individuals with a modicum of credibility and fulfils the dual notions of WP:V and WP:GNG, it is allowed to stand.

Since the PRC regime suppresses critics, petitioners and activists and tortures them, they torture Falun Gong practitioners; since the PRC took organs from dead prisoners, it takes only a little stretch to accuse them of systematically harvesting organs from live FLG practitioners. The various extra-territorial court cases some practitioners mounted on Chinese leaders for torture and genocide, and the act of making them widely known, is intelligent propaganda coup against the regime. It's unheard of that world leaders would answer such allegations in foreign courts, so the default judgement makes them look guilty. Elements like this then get put into Wikipedia articles by Falun Gongsters or their proxies, and defended by heavy lawyering although such allegations would likely have been removed if it were any other Wikipedia biography. Ironically, Arbs accepted this diff to support their FOF that I was pro-PRC and anti-FLG. Humpf!
 * Logical inferences and synthesis:

It is a well-established that assertions stated as fact should be cited to relevant reliable sources. In this case, highly questionable sources removed are sites controlled by Falun Gong. Why bother to look any further? It's unacceptable, full stop. There is no obligation to allow citations that appear to be dubious irrespective of what underlies. We don't use Rick Ross' anti-cult archive, and we certainly should not use that of a Falun Gong front that selectively stores articles consistent with the Falun Gong discourse. The allegation at the heart is based on one anonymous witness. Even assuming that the document is bona fide and that it has been accurately translated, the single anonymous "witness" does not warrant the weight it was given. I could have trimmed it down to mention of the prohibition directly cited to a Hebrew source, but I decided out-right removal would be simpler.
 * The edits:

These three edits were drive-by edits based on old baggage. Although this edit summary was careless and lazy, the edit seeks to remove weasel words and synthesis that is too often used in Falun Gong articles, viz: "Authorities reportedly sanctioned the use of torture..." Falun Gong advocates constantly lay heavy background on how the movement (and not just petitioners and other non-Falun Gong activists who oppose the regime) is suppressed and its members tortured, as a prelude for the main article. The objective was not to make the torture allegations less credible, but more relevant; the live organ-harvesting allegations can be see for what they are so long as the facts are properly laid out.

This edit ought not to be controversial, for it is merely prudent to avoid weasel words, and be clear from whence "concerns" are arising. Until I corrected it, the lead remained unqualified. Perhaps TSTF is denying that Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFA) is a Falun Gong pressure group that lobbies on behalf of the Falun Gong... My edit summary is self-explanatory and I don't see anyone but hardened Falun Gong SPAs would have an issue with correction of such blatant problems. You make unusual claims, and it's only reasonable that you make full and frank disclosure of the key assumptions up front if you are trying to vaunt the claims' merits. K&M openly state that the evidence was all circumstantial and reiterate their findings in spite of it, so I think that detail is important enough for the lead.

Two of my challenged edits corrected obvious problems that are common in FLG articles. My edit could have motivated TSTF to improve the sourcing, but he has instead chose to run straight to Arbcom (well within his rights, you could say), whilst allowing my edits to stand for now. This course of action would suggest that [his] battleground mentality that existed previously still prevails.

TSTF and Zujine, both of whom did not oppose an appeal to lift the topic ban of their one truest and greatest Teflon foe (used advisedly) probably to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG, must now be rubbing their hands in glee at my apparent stupidity at not being able to keep my nose out. Yet it's plain they are both desperate to have the topic ban reinstated, making what appears to be bad faith accusations of broken promises and unmet expectations. Others commenting here have already drawn attention to these untruths. The Falun Gong SPAs are obviously upset now because of the threat I pose to the stranglehold of Falun Gong orthodoxy on Wikipedia. But retirement is not death. How many times have WP editors retired and come back? How many times have editors disappeared without a word and never come back? Plenty, in both cases. I retired several times from this topic area, and returned only after a relatively long period each time that nobody could reasonably accuse me of deception, yet it amuses me to be accused of breaching undertaking. Whilst I was foolish not to completely stay away from the topic, Arbcom never held me to my offer to stay away. TSTF implies there was a "proviso" to the lifting of the topic ban, but Arbcom never gives anything away, and I suspect TSTF knows it. The true proviso is that the ban can be reinstated immediately if there are transgressions. I failed to heed NYBrad's words of wisdom, and now I do have some regret. TSTF will probably feel he can adequately defend against "anti-Falun Gong" elements if I'm out of the picture indefinitely. With me on the loose, TSTF will never know when the next "unfavourable" change will be, and could feel the need to check on the FLG articles daily, instead of every two weeks, to ensure they retained their glossy veneer.
 * Conclusion

But in truth, and in summary, I now think having the topic ban reimposed would be a price worth paying in exchange for rescinding the finding of fact 2 (opposed by two arbs). I'm done with making Falun Gong articles compliant. Anyway, I have written much more than I intended, and would thank you for your patience. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 11:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right. It's a content dispute, pure and simple. The problem is how it's being conducted. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As further evidence of how the Falun Gong mindset differs from the Wikipedia mindset, and what any person potentially editing Falun Gong articles has to face, I offer the following quote from a scholar in communications:


 * And now, to specifically refute the "additional evidence":
 * 1) My latest FLG essay is no "resurrection" of my previous deleted article, but 3000+ words of "new material" based on my post hereinabove (as can be clearly identified in this diff), plus a bunch of relevant links I bookmarked. What I wrote is clearly marked as an essay, with relevant diffs (per WP:V). What I had written for ARCA encapsulates my experience and frustrations of editing in Falun Gong space, so I built upon it like many other user essays to share with others. I believe it is within the bounds of my freedom of expression, and that it is policy and guideline compliant. The onus would be on TSTF to prove that what I wrote was inappropriate or otherwise in breach of any Arbcom ruling. I am capable of leaving my personal feelings of subject matter at the door when I edit, and any attempt to cast editing based on my "antipathy" so expressed towards the Falun Gong in isolation is no evidence of malfeasance on my part.
 * 2) Soon after FLG2, TSTF took advantage of my inability to edit the topic to noindex my rant and on another page – both in my own user space (The latter page was submitted as evidence to FLG2). I reverted. Admittedly, the "vaguely menacing vibe" can be read in more than one way. It was actually meant as tongue-in-cheek advice to him not to be afraid of the "truth" [sic].
 * 3) Fancruft is fancruft, whether it's argued on a page of a J-pop idol or a Falun Gong frontspiece. I routinely perform such work across all namespaces, making between 5,000 and 10,000 edits a month – would Arbcom like 500 diffs to comb through?. I'm sure most editors know what I do around the place. Whether or not they agree with every little change I make is irrelevant. Yes, I sometimes get reverted.
 * The only thing my actions obviously offend is a Falun Gong believer's sensitivities, which I have demonstrated with scholarly quotes above; there may even be a little FLG orthodoxy that whatever I may do around FLG-space is "wrong" ;-). I am confident Arbcom would not be able to identify (on my part) any repeat of breaches of behavioural precepts that led to FLG2. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zujine
In my view this issue is simple. Ohconfucius stated in his appeal that he would not edit Falungong articles. Based on my reading of the case, it seems the ban against him was suspended on basis of that promise, which he promptly broke. In that sense, the fact his edits were not neutral or accurate almost seems beside the point.

If we want to discuss whether Ohconfucius should be allowed to return to editing Falungong articles, a much more compelling case needs to be made to show, first, that he has recognised his past errors and won't repeat them (not off to a good start); and second, to assess potential risks and benefits to the project. Based on his track record I believe that no benefits could be derived, but there would be real risk for the Falungong topic area to again devolve into a battle ground. Over the last two years since Ohconfucius was barred from editing it has been refreshingly stable. Article quality has continually improved, with some pages achieving GA status. I doubt this could have been accomplished if our collective energies were instead directed toward addressing Ohconfucius' behaviour.— Zujine |talk 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @John, I've been active in the falungong subject for the better part of five years. Ohconfucius has been banned for two. There was a period in which our editing on these pages overlapped. I was deeply unimpressed by what I witnessed from him in that time, especially his conduct on the FA you referred to. I understand you like this editor and have defended him at ArbCom on numerous occasions, but there was good reason for his indefinite topic ban. Besides, I'm guessing the Arbs are more concerned with recent events than with revisiting old evidence.— Zujine |talk 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be clear from his statement that Ohconfucius is not capable of editing Falungong topics in good faith or in a dispassionate way. That he would use even this forum to further his narrative against Falungong and make personal recriminations against other editors is evidence of why the ban on Ohconfucius should be reinstated.
 * Arbitrators may be interested to know that Colipon and Simonm223 are not neutral parties. Among other things they have both gone on record denying reliable reports of human rights abuses by the Chinese government, and encouraging other editors to "crack down" on and "fight" Falungong on Wikipedia. Colipon has already been sanctioned for his conduct on the topic and narrowly avoided an indefinite topic ban last time.
 * In his comments it looks like Colipon is trying to recast this as a problem of pseudoscience/NRM advocates. This is not an accurate depiction of the dynamics here. Instead, conflicts on Falungong articles often arise in relation to the Chinese government's human rights practices. The edits from Ohconfucius that prompted this case are pretty typical (but relatively mild) examples of this phenomenon.


 * ON A PROCEDURAL NOTE: This case started as a pretty simple request, but it looks like some editors want to expand the scope of the discussion. Maybe we could get a quick indication from arbitrators/clerks that each request for amendment should be handled separately. Otherwise this will spiral out of control, and it will be very difficult to assess the individual merits of each request.


 * Also, If Arbs are really interested in expanding the scope of this case or revisiting the evidence from several years ago, then please let us know. Obviously I would have a lot more to say if anyone took seriously the SPA allegations and other stuff getting tossed around. But hopefully the arbitrators all have sufficient power of discernment to see through the miasma. — Zujine |talk 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Colipon
There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the accuser, TheSoundAndTheFury, is a Falun Gong SPA whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is to advance the interests of Falun Gong the movement. Unfortunately this only becomes apparent after prolonged interactions with the user. To 'prove' his conduct to be worthy of a site ban, I need to go through lengthy litigation and 'evidence-gathering'; having been through the arbitration itself, I am in no mood for another such futile exercise (plenty of evidence against this user was brought up here for anyone interested). I only urge Arbs to see this account for what it truly is.

The crux of the problem is, Falun Gong seems to be TSTF's only major interest on Wikipedia, and Falun Gong is of very little relevance to me or, say, a user like Ohconfucius. Frankly, Ohconfucius and I are just naive suckers who spoke up the most loudly in defense of our policies. We truly underestimated the extent to which Falun Gong is willing to go to tell the story in their preferred way; in retrospect it seems like my involvement here didn't do any good despite the best of intentions. Staying away from these articles would have been the smart thing to do from the beginning.

On balance and over time, it is only inevitable that the 'side' with much heavier personal investment in the subject area would prevail in crafting the articles to the way they want it to be. I have learned to become more at ease with this reality now; fortunately, editing Wikipedia is still a thoroughly enjoyable experience, as long as I stay away from Falun Gong. Last week, I took some time to read the Falun Gong articles to see how they have turned out since Falun Gong 2. It is sad that the articles have become even more strongly reflective of the Falun Gong worldview. They essentially read like glossy pamphlets for the practice much like those you get from walking down the streets of New York; they are totally sanitized ('censored', you could say) of criticism, controversy, or anything that could be seen or even remotely perceived to be prejudicial to the movement in any way, shape, or form.

In essence, the Falun Gong activists have 'won'. They have succeeded in driving away and frustrating all the users who are 'in their way.'

At this stage, I am so disillusioned that I think even a ban on the existing Falun Gong SPAs and their future incarnations will not do much, so long as 1. Arbcom cannot adjudicate on content disputes; 2. the editing of 'controversial' articles remain open to all users.

In reviewing all cases Arbcom have presided over in the encyclopedia's existence, Falun Gong seems to represent a cross-section of 'typical' topics that are subject to arbitration - namely:
 * It is a new religious movement
 * It promotes elements that can be characterized as pseudoscience
 * It has often marketed itself as a form of alternative medicine, self-help, and self-healing regime
 * It is controversial and often involved in 'real-world' litigation (suing others and being sued, much like Scientology); some of its controversies deal with racial and sexual-orientation themes
 * It has a very well publicized and self-declared political agenda to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party

It is not difficult to see why this is a minefield that any sane Wikipedia editor would do best to avoid! In my view, after reading the articles on such topics as Chiropractic, Scientology, "Race and Intelligence", and even "Israel-Palestine", I have to say Falun Gong articles are probably in the worst shape, relatively speaking, out of the arbcom sanctioned articles on Wikipedia. It remains a deeply neglected topic area and a stain on this encyclopedia, it is an untenable situation, but I have run out of ideas on how to fix it.

I took part in this discussion because, recently, in reflecting on the Tiananmen Square massacre and editing the corresponding article on Wikipedia, I have become more strongly critical of the Chinese Communist Party than I have ever been. That a 'finding of fact' dangles over my head that I am somehow "pro-CCP" or "pro-regime" is deeply insulting and brings out a visceral emotional reaction I have never felt. While Falun Gong 2 discussion is being renewed, may I appeal to the arbitration committee that the finding of fact be rescinded, or at least modified to the effect that it only concerns "edits which have the appearance of being anti-Falun Gong" and strike out the portion that mentions anything pro-CCP.
 * Appealing the "Finding of Fact" against me

This request is on the basis that "pro-CCP" bias is not shown in evidence presented -- several Arbs pointed this out themselves during the proceedings -- and that in any case, saying that something anti-Falun Gong is also pro-CCP only makes sense in the context of the Falun Gong's own dogmatic worldview. This finding of fact seems to suggest that Wikipedia 'buys' Falun Gong's explanation that this is a zero-sum game between itself and the CCP, which it is not. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
When I first encountered OhConfucius I was more likely to consider them a partisanly pro-FLG editor than anything else. As such I find it patently ridiculous that OhConfucius is being labeled pro-communist party. If they have begun editing in a way which reflects the controversial aspects of the Falun Gong it is, if anything, a demonstration of a commitment to personal growth and to working within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments of an anonymous user
[I hope it's okay for me to comment here anonymously. Frankly I find the tone here a bit intimidating.]

I was just reading up on the Falun Gong page and saw this quote from a Chinese historian who has studied the group. In addressing how the Chinese government has sought to brand Falun Gong as an “evil cult,” he says: “the entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong.” Presumably this is done to distract from the fact that it (the Chinese government) was imprisoning, torturing, and killing Falun Gong practitioners. Labeling Falun Gong as such is an effective way to make them appear unworthy of sympathy or support.

I found it interesting that a very similar tactic is being deployed by some of the editors here. In order to justify their own poor conduct, they’re trying to shift the blame and instill prejudice against Falun Gong.

Wikipedia is open to people of all backgrounds. Given the pretty homogenous make-up of our editors, I think it’s especially important that we welcome and encourage minority and marginalized voices here (as long as everyone can respect the rules of course). If I was a Falun Gong practitioner and was reading this thread, I would find this to be an extremely hostile and unwelcoming environment, and one where I would be prejudged in quite an offensive way regardless of what I might have to contribute. I think it’s important to affirm here that this is not the environment we should be fostering. 178.197.239.81 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shrigley
Ohconfucius's edits were responsible, routine cleanups of zealous IP editor drive-by advocacy. Although TSTF clearly follows Ohconfucius's edits and routinely reverts them, as an experienced editor, he would never make that kind of edit which Ohc reverted himself. The extent to which personality politics is clouding the judgment of everyone around what are really minor edits, should be obvious.

Shrigley (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't cite factual, libelous information about serious crimes to a Falun Gong advocacy website; duh. That group is known for falsifying facts, and appears to have extensively modified (such as by adding URL links), paraphrased, and excerpted from the perhaps-more-credible sources from which it quotes. When you translate, you also create a new work with new nuances and biases. Ohconfucius was encouraging uniform use of secondary sources, which is essential for neutral treatment of such a controversial topic.
 * Tweaks on a complex framing issue on which policy isn't clear-cut. On the other side of the coin, despite the fact that independent psychologists and academics like Margaret Singer and Maria Chang have characterized Falun Gong like a cult, FLG advocates love to point out that the Chinese government made this accusation first, or more often. Yeah, politicians and journalists have picked up and ran with Falun Gong's abuse-allegation sympathy drives sometimes. But it's also fair to say that the vast majority of Falun Gong's publicity (both gory and hyperbolic or mystic and anodyne) is self-generated.
 * The definition of laundry-list cleanup. While it might be unfortunate that Shen Yun's business model relies on pumping out huge amounts of fangirl fluff on the internet to hide its extremely politically- and religiously- polarizing content, Wikipedia has policies on fancruft, and Ohconfucius is applying them rigorously. It's also worth noting that Ohconfucius is well-known across all Wikipedia namespaces for his rapid and consistent Manual of Style upkeep, so we may not be even dealing with a Falun Gong-specific issue.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Noting AGK is inactive on this item of business. I'll adjust the majority counter accordingly, should any motion be made. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statement from OhConfucius. I also would welcome brief comments on whether this should be addressed here or by the admins on arbitration enforcement, though the procedural issue shouldn't get in the way of addressing the merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Recuse. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also awaiting statements from Ohconfucius. To the issue Newyorkbrad raises, I don't see any issue addressing this here as that's where it's already been raised, but handling at AE would also be fine as the motion specifically allows reinstatement of the ban as an AE action if that were determined to be necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohconfucius: As you've continued editing since being notified but not responded here, I presume you do not wish to make a statement and we can proceed. If this is incorrect, please make your statement here at your earliest possible convenience. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To everyone involved here, this is not a referendum on either the content dispute over Falun Gong or the Falun Gong 2 case. This is a request addressing solely as to whether Ohconfucius' topic ban should or should not be reinstated. For those arguing that it should be, please write a brief statement indicating what particular standards of Wikipedia conduct Ohconfucius' edits are claimed to have breached and why. Ohconfucius' editing in controversial areas is not in itself grounds for the suspension to be revoked; there was no requirement to avoid such areas. For those arguing against reinstatement, please briefly address why any such edits were not a violation. Right now, this is a rehash of the content dispute and impossible to determine. We're not going to make a determination here over the content question or regarding any other questions, including questions regarding findings of fact in previous cases. If you want to appeal those, please file a separate request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who have made efforts to revise their statements. I'll be looking through those over the next few days. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For article edits, I don't really see any actionable policy violations, just content disputes. However, I very strongly urge caution. If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein,, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone. It's not really a wise idea for you to be writing "essays" about, or "analysis" of, editors in the topic area. If you touch the topic at all, stick to discussion of specific portions of specific articles only, please, and avoid discussing other editors at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That didn't take long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still going through diffs, so I will hold off on an opinion on the amendment request. That said, I think it's important to note that, though OhConfucius mentioned voluntarily avoiding Falun Gong-related articles, the May 2014 amendment did not require this, and so discussion as to whether OhConfucius should have been editing these articles is somewhat irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that Ohconfucius' edits warrant reinstating the topic ban, though there were cases in which Ohconfucius should have used more care in editing, whether it be reviewing sources or leaving clearer edit summaries. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the level of attention Ohconfucius is giving the Falun Gong articles, and would urge Ohconfucius to move on to other topic areas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Awaiting statement. Do you have an estimate for when it will be ready ? NativeForeigner Talk 03:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NF, I've recently discovered that ping only works when you sign a comment the same time you save the edit. Since you had to fix the ping template above, it didn't actually work.  However, I'll fix that: . --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, another thing I wasn't aware of with the new ping functionality. NativeForeigner Talk 16:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stay careful regarding Falun Gong. While you are allowed to edit in the area per the motion, I think it's important to draw a distinction between what is allowed and what is advisable, so use best judgment here. NativeForeigner Talk 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification requestː Falun Gong 2 (July 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Colipon at 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Colipon
I, User Colipon, was placed on "mandated external review" in July 2012. Since then three years have passed and it seems like the arbitration committee have made some changes to way this remedy is carried out. On May 3, 2014, I was informed that this remedy was "vacated." I have not touched anything Falun Gong related for the last three years. My question is, are any sanctions still in place for me or am I now "free" to edit without restraint? It would be useful for me to edit uninhibited at this point as some articles which are only tangentially related to Falun Gong need serious work but I often stop myself in case it runs afoul of this stipulation.
 * [@AGK] Thanks for the prompt response. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Falun Gong 2: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Falun Gong 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is quite complex but easily unravelled. In July 2012, we passed remedy 7 ("Colipon subject to mandated external review"). In May 2014, we vacated that remedy with this motion which passed this set of housekeeping provisions. You will note that provision 5 expressly rescinded the Mandated External Review in force until that point. No other sanctions were ever placed on your account and you are therefore not currently subject while editing this area to any sanctions imposed by the committee. AGK  [•] 16:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What AGK said is correct, but do note that the Falun Gong topic area remains subject to discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)'
 * I concur with the above two replies. Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above, though I'd remind Colipon there was a reason for sanctions originally, and that new sanctions can be put into place under the DS. Hopefully that will not prove necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That remedy no longer exists. Colipon needs to be aware that Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the others, especially about the continuation of the standard discretionary sanctions.   DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)