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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold (Talk) & Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

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:

1. AGK
2. Elen of the Roads
3. Xeno

Recused:

1. SilkTork

Note

In response to Elen of the Roads' remark, I think it may be valuable for arbitrators to review the AEs that were filed, but I also wondered whether the length of them may have been prohibitive. I am currently condensing my evidence and putting into the prescribed template; hopefully that will make it easier for everyone involved. It would be OK to only consult the evidence I am submitting here. One thing though: since I am submitting evidence on three editors, I'm wondering if I might have a extension on the word limit (maybe in the 1600-word neighborhood)? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that your evidence submission here is sufficient to replace what you sent to AE, then please be sure to specify that in your submission here (I'll leave a similar note on the main evidence page under Elen's note). As for the word limit, try to get what you can within the 1000-word limit, and then if you run out of room we can consider an extension then. Remember that the AE stuff will not count against your word limit. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have mostly drafted it and it is already over 1000. It deals with the conduct of three editors over a pretty long period of time. The prose is minimalist. The evidence I submitted at AE was far longer, at around 4000 words and nearly 100 diffs. I am proposing reducing this a great deal and resubmitting it here, but I ask for around 1600. Wouldn't that be better than submitting 1,000 here and pointing everyone to another 4000, where much of the evidence will overlap? I would submit the 1600 here as final, once I receive permission to do so. Then it would not be necessary to consult the original AE (but arbitrators who wished to of course could). Please let me know. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear, so I will ask my question in a simple sentence: I request permission to post about 1600 words of evidence, rather than about 1000. Do I have permission to do that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, the last couple days have been a little hectic. I'll grant an exemption to allow you to post up to 1500 words; do please try to pare this down a little further if you can. I'm asking this because as a party to the case you already have an extension of sorts (up to 1000 words), and we will have quite a lot of text to sort through in this case. Keep in mind also that many diffs will speak for themselves and require little explanation. An evidence section formatted along these lines is perfectly acceptable and encouraged in evidence:

• Editor X repeatedly edit wars with hostile edit summaries: [diff] [diff] [diff]...
• Editor X responds to requests to stop edit warring with personal attacks: [diff] [diff] [diff]...

I'll be sure the clerks are aware of the extension. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hersfold. I will keep this format in mind and go over my evidence carefully, and try to make it as concise as possible. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have just been notified of the deadline for evidence submission. However, yet to this day, because of the absence of submission from the accusing party, I can only guess at the charges of what I stand accused. From the above, it seems that there will be voluminous evidence, and I would therefore request an extension for replying. I think it would not be unreasonable to ask for 5 clear days from the date of submission of evidence. I shall be grateful for your confirmation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ohconfucius. The deadline has been noted on the case since the day it opened. As you can see, editors were given the opportunity to either have the AE statements read into evidence or post something shorter, so I think you can safely assume that the evidence posted will either be the full AE statement or a cut down version. I recommend that rather than focussing on posting rebuttals, you prepare a statement which covers your view of the dispute. If any of the evidence raises questions about the actions of any of the parties, the drafting Arbs (myself and Hersfold) will ask for any clarification that we need. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the workshop provides (oft-underutilized) sections for analysis of evidence, which you may be able to use to compare and contrast your view of events with those views posted by others. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note

I should note that since my involvement in this case is solely in my AE capacity, I do not intend to submit any evidence. T. Canens (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I am not sure if this qualifies as "evidence," as I have been uninvolved in this topic for some time. However, there are some points I believe are reasonable and relevant to raise.

First, why I became less involved. One, there are other significant subjects in wikipedia other than Falun Gong. Two, it became increasingly clear to me, over the process of gathering and reading what material I saw about FG, that there seem to be very close ties between Western governments and Falun Gong. Jiang Zemin, among others, is reported by at least some sources to have said that he thought the US government was behind the development of FG in the first place. Certainly, the recent cessation of Voice of America broadcasts in Mandarin is somewhat, well, strange, particularly as no official support has been given any other broadcaster to China. One independent source I remember reading specifically mentioned an independent broadcaster who sought US money to broadcast to China thereafter, and was turned down. Of course, Sound of Hope radio, which has been linked to FG, broadcasts into China, and its sources of funds are not revealed. I could go on, but after a while the details of what led to my conclusions awhile ago are a bit hazier now.

I also note that almost all of TSATF's complaints in the original AE report are about individuals making connections between FG and other entities, about trying to improve the impression our content gives regarding subjects which are tied to FG, and "cut down" some of the critics. As I said earlier, I had previously gone through all the material I could find regarding Shen Yun some time ago, and found very few really positive independent post-performance reviews of it. I do acknowledge remembering some comments about "nice outfits," but that was about it. TSATF's complaint there is about how the article presents a negative view of Shen Yun. Honestly, unless the more recent reviews about their most recent performances are remarkably better than the ones I had read then, that is more or less what the independent sources say, and, basically, as per NPOV, what our article should say. And I also remember the few comments I heard in town here after a recent one-night performance locally here were, basically, roughly as negative as anything I had read earlier.

I am also stunned by the apparent refusal to develop any additional content, and just continue battling on existing articles. I personally created the Jennifer Zeng article because I believed the content of her autobiography would be a damning criticism of the PRC's conduct. That was some years ago. For all the bickering about the Shen Yun, self-immolation incident, Sima Nan, and other articles that has taken place since then, there seems to have been little if any attention given this subject, or any of the other, fairly numerous, notable people and events related to FG. In fact, I don't know if any other articles have been created since. I could understand why Ohconfucius and Colipon, both of whom seem to be so far as I can see editors who deal primarily or exclusively with China content, might not be particularly interested in some of the expats and others associated with FG, as they are, basically, outside of their scope. I have trouble understanding why the editors who are apparently more sympathetic with FG have not done so. What they indicate is an effort to, basically, want to make FG more sympathetic in the existing articles. That strikes me as very strange, and, perhaps, consistent with what seems to me to be the Western governments' efforts to promote FG as a victim and seriously condemn the PRC.

I've said elsewhere that there is an old joke about how the CIA and State department employ some of our best contributors on international affairs. Nothing I have seen in the recent history of the articles as per the discussion leads me to think that might not be the case here, although I make no specific statements about specific editors.

It does seem to me that some of the "defendants" here may well have committed a few acts in violation of guidelines. It also seems rather clear to me that there may well have been some POV pushing and possibly collusion that they might have been operating against. While they may have acted less than optimally, I am far from sure that they might not have been acting in a very understandable way.

I urge the ArbCom to make a thorough review of all the statements, including some possibly easily seen misrepresentations of fact and of others, in the evidence presented for consideration here and at AE, and at the basic behavior of all those involved. I have a rather strong feeling, admittedly just a feeling, that the "defendants" here may have been, in at least a few cases, been the lesser of at least plural evils. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're getting at with much of this, but the majority of your concerns seem to be about the apparent limitation on the scope of the case as defined by the motion that led to its opening. While three editors were named in the motion, it also mentions that we'll review "other issues relating to pages which were within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong." I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret this as the more traditional "review conduct of all involved," albeit with a somewhat lesser focus on the editors not named in the motion. If the pages centered around Falun Gong are subject to what appears to be COI editing or governmental-based POV pushing, then I don't think evidence documenting that would be entirely out of order. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be probably be impossible for me to verify any real COI, particularly if it were with people who are in some way affiliated with Falun Gong or governments, either Western or Chinese. I do however believe that there are rather serious POV issues, particularly given the remarkably, well, almost obsessive, interest indicated to date in the articles about FG in China, which is, according to several sources, no longer an active concern there. Little if any attention seems to have ever been given to FG outside of China, either in notable individuals who have left the PRC, events there, and suchlike. Personally, I would think truly objective editors might be just as interested in current developments as they are in the PRC rights abuses. I think that there may well be rather serious concerns about editors selectively seeking to include or emphasize material which conforms to their "party line", possibly of both sides, but to my eyes most obviously on the pro FG side. However, some of the comments I have seen presented to date indicate to me that there is a possibly much more readily apparent attempt to paint material and groups seen as affiliated with FG in a good light, and its "opponents", basically the PRC, in a bad light. Pretty much all the individuals who can edit here are Westerners, and "used" to Western rights and systems. It is natural for all of us to have a POV that, basically, Western rights are right. But, to an extent, I'm not entirely sure how relevant everything I have presented here is myself. My own opinions, however, are not evidence, any more than anyone else's are. And, even in the reports I read, there was no clear statement that, for instance, Sound of Hope radio was getting financial support from Western governments. But I do believe it is worth noting that this is a major "political football" to both sides, and that it has been such for some time, and that there are clearly organizations which have an agenda regarding how FG is presented anywhere. Anyway, like I said, these are just opinions. I think they are somewhat informed opinions, but even so that is all they are. But I thought that the conclusions of some previously involved editors regarding the situation of FG in the broader world might be of use to the arbitrators. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like this is somewhat approaching the content vs. conduct line. In an ideal world, the Committee should be able to make decisions on user conduct completely ignorant of any context obtained from the content being disputed; in other words, editors should exhibit the same expected level of conduct regardless of subject area. However, as any physicist or chemist will tell you, we don't live in an ideal world of frictionless surfaces, ideal gases, and context-free disputes, so a basic understanding of the background is often useful in knowing why the subject is proving to be so contentious and why editors are behaving the way they are. That said, we shouldn't need more than a basic understanding, as we do not rule on content. Introducing too much content background shifts the focus from the conduct of the users to the original dispute, which I think is often the reason why the community is unable to deal with these issues in most cases. The community doesn't have the strict rules the Committee enforces on evidence and commentary and such, allowing the lines to be blurred and the problems to continue.

The background you've provided here is certainly helpful to understanding the context in which this dispute has taken place - I've been skimming through the statements and some of the articles mentioned in them to try and get that understanding for myself, but I think you've summarized things quite succinctly here; thanks for sharing your views. However, without more concrete proof that this is actually taking place, I do think it's better that this be left as "on-the-side" background here and not introduced as formal evidence. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, even if we all say that we want to focus on conduct, this is almost never the case in practice. Like jury trials, we are all prone to our biases; given the same set of evidence, one jury can deliver a totally different verdict to another. Content understanding is thus still the most important variable in ArbCom cases. A Trayvon Martin arbcom case may well get a different ruling if all the arbitrators were, say, Japanese, instead of Americans, since the latter is more emotionally invested, but also more knowledgeable. Someone familiar with Trayvon Martin or race relations in the U.S. may be able to pick out the nature of POV-pushing just by reading a simple diff. Similarly, on the Japanese wikipedia, "Race and Intelligence" could very likely not even be a topic of contention, as such a topic has almost negligible effect on Japanese society and is purely an academic exercise, whereas in the United States, all emotion boils over when people breach the subject of race.
Similarly, at Falun Gong, I don't anticipate that Arbs will read books on Falun Gong and do copious amounts of research, but even some cursory interaction with the topic-space will give anyone a good idea of the nature of editorial patterns on those pages. Alternatively, one can simply read Falun Gong's Nine Commentaries to get a 'flavour' of the disputes.
In addition, I think past cases really 'cloud judgment' of existing cases, perhaps by stare decisis, but perhaps also just by improving ArbCom's understanding of advocacy in general. For example arbitrators involved in WP:ARBSCI may end up focusing more on FLG's NRM characteristics, while those involved in WP:ARBPIA might end up focusing elements of nationalism.
Moreover, since skilled users know how to skirt the rules and avoid precisely the strictly defined 'conduct markers' that we look for at an ArbCom case, so long as they master civil POV pushing, conduct-related sanctions are very difficult. Colipon+(Talk) 04:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colipon. You linked to the pages WP:GAME and WP:CIVILPOV here. You've often said that other editors engage in gaming the system, civil POV-pushing, or wikilawyering, though it's unclear to me what you mean, because the claims always lack precision or evidence. Those pages list concrete examples of problematic behaviors. For instance, it is considered a form of gaming the system to "[Use] policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the 'evidence' for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action." It is also a form of gaming the system to "[Mischaracterize] other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." And so on. If you think that other editors have transgressed these guidelines, maybe you could explain how, and provide examples.

I'll give you an example: in the AE you filed against me, you claimed that I engaged in "Numerous instances of edit warring at Tiananmen Square Self-immolation" with an "astounding.. dedication to altering the balance of this article prior to its TFA" As evidence, you provided two reverts (good faith, not edit wars) which occurred two days after TFA. In fact, I didn't edit the article at all for ten months prior to TFA. So, you unambiguously misrepresented my actions in order to make them appear sanctionable. That is an example of gaming the system. Homunculus (duihua) 07:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you desire examples of "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction" from yourself, I'll be happy to give one to you, from the AE TheSoundAndTheFury filed against Ohconfucius, Colipon, and me. In that thread, instead of accusing me of edit-warring, which is a crime only in wikiworld, both you and TheSoundAndTheFury accused me of "frequently" being uncivil, citing the supposed fact that I "particularly" make "religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities."

In addition to the above, TheSoundAndTheFury claimed that "he [Shrigley] frequently refers to Falun Gong as a “cult,” to its adherents as “cult members,” etc". He repeated this accusation a third time at AE, saying that I "[make] religious slurs against Falun Gong", and that I "[like] to call [followers of Falun Gong] "“cult members”", that I "[do] this as a means of ad hominem attack instead of discussing content, as though he believes that it is appropriate to discriminate against particular users because of their religion." As if his accusation of religious bigotry were not more explicit, he finishes, "Users like Shrigley, unfortunately, create a climate that is hostile towards this class of people." Homunculus repeats the same baseless allegations in his AE statement: "no one should use another user's religion (or presumed religion) as grounds for ad hominem attacks... something that users Shrigley... [has] done regularly." He indicates the offending phrase: "I’ve seen editors here (and a few others not listed here) use talk pages to refer to them as “cult members,”" and again: "As to Shrigley, same: user frequently employs ad hominem attacks against opponents, accusing people of being Falun Gong practitioners instead of discussing the merits of content."

Here's the problem. Zero diffs were provided to substantiate the accusation that I "frequently" "like to call" Falun Gongers "cult members". This might be a result of the fact that I have never used that phrase on Wikipedia ever, not even when quoting someone! Fortunately, the arbitrators have imposed a "claims must be supported by diffs at all times" on directly-submitted evidence, and the only diff that comes even remotely close to both of your accusations that I "frequently" directly refer to FLG and FLGers as a "cult" and "cult member" is one diff, where I indirectly mention the fact that some other people consider Falun Gong a cult, in order to explain why a comparison (made by editors here) between the Falun Gong and Jews under the Holocaust was inappropriate. This is no more me calling Falun Gong a cult than Homunculus was denying the Armenian Genocide when he referred to others' denial of the Genocide in order to prove a point. Even your more general accusations that I use "ad hominem... instead of discussing the merits of content" are contradicted by TheSoundAndTheFury's own diffs, where in every single instance where I supposedly make incivil comments on content talk pages, I am actually discussing content.

Also unlike edit-warring, a behavior whose definition is lose and is subject to good-faith differences of interpretation, what you and TSTF did is explicitly prohibited under WP:NPA's "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." There's no question that what you both did is not WP:GAMEing, because you didn't merely misinterpret diffs; you didn't even provide the diffs of specific epithets which, if they were quoted from me, would be trivial to search and find. In fact, Homunculus's statement at AE provided zero diffs of any of my edits, despite directly accusing me of many serious transgressions. It is truly unfortunate for both of us that the AE thread, with its lower standards for evidence, was admitted as evidence to arbcom, and especially unfortunate for me, because you both were able to repeatedly portray me as a religious bigot with fabricated quotes and nonexistent evidence. That is an example of gaming the system. Shrigley (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrigley. I think I may have erred in posting a response to Colipon here. Maybe these kinds of analysis belong elsewhere. But to be clear, you're saying no diffs were provided as evidence of your alleged transgressions? I'm looking at TSTF's evidence, and it seems that every claim is directly supported by a diff. If an editor makes a claim on the evidence page that is not supported by the evidence, or if they misrepresent the content of a diff, I imagine the arbitrators reviewing the case will either remove it or will discount that claim.Homunculus (duihua) 13:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. If the arbitrators see something that is questionable, or see assertions made without diffs, they are, of course, welcome to discount it. I attempted to make my 'meta-analysis' about the state of arbitration in general, not just about Falun Gong. We've witnessed a lot of 'gaming the system' tactics at Palestine-Israel, Climate change, Macedonia naming war, even Homeopathy, Sathya Sai Baba, Mitt Romney etc. I can't see why Falun Gong, which has been through two ArbCom cases and countless user sanctions, would be any different from an editorial point of view. Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• @John Carter. Yes, I can agree in general. Articles about cats are written by people who love cats, articles about countries are written by people who like these countries, and articles about CIA are written by people who generally do not like CIA, or at least one might argue this way because all their "Concerns and controversies" are included in main article (as this suppose to be), rather than as a separate page. Based on that, one might conclude that Chinese subjects are more pro-government written than US subjects. Is it bad that articles about cats are edited by cat lovers? Well, just like Helen said, it depends if they do good service to reader. I do not think they did good service to reader in this article. However, articles about CIA, cats, and Falun Gong are relatively well-written. So, whoever they are, they did decent service to reader. Of course I only represent the "general readership", because I am not an expert on subjects like Falun Gong or CIA. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quigley: I did provide a diff for the claim on this page [1]. I believe Arbs will look primarily at the evidence submitted here, which is a condensing of the evidence at AE. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I should hope that attempting to dismiss an editor because someone believes they're a CIA plant would fall under WP:NPA. Jtrainor (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And I would hope that if someone were to make such assumptions, they would have some reasonable and substantial evidence for doing so. To be honest, yes, there is some very strong circumstancial evidence of US government in Falun Gong. Danny Schechter made reference to himself holding such beliefs "for a while" in his book, although he did not, so far as I can tell, indicate what evidence may have been presented to change his mind. Also, I note that I, who allegedly made the "attempt to dismiss" the editor, in fact, so far as I can tell, made no such statement. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Protocol on responding to evidence

I understand that parties against whom evidence was presented have the option of responding to it within their own sections, is that right? Are there any recommendations on word constraints for such rebuttals? I understand that verbose argumentation is of little use to anyone. Homunculus (duihua) 22:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to know whether brief responses to evidence should be given here, or on the Workshop page - and if here, whether it counts toward the word and diff limits. Specifically, I have some diffs of my own editing Falun Gong pages that I would like to present. Secondly, I am nine diffs over. Do I need to delete nine diffs or will I be indulged? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You may respond to evidence with evidence of your own in your evidence section - this counts towards your overall limits (1000 words/100 diffs for parties, 500/50 for non-parties). You can make (relatively brief) commentary in the Analysis of Evidence section on the Workshop.

@SoundAndFury, you are already over the limit, so please remove some diffs before adding any more. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed nine diffs. Anyone else is welcome to submit them in their own evidence count if they wish. Three from others agreeing with inclusion of Bo Xilai info [2][3][4], and then the evidence of prior warning or notice: [5][6][7][8][9][10] The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Deadline looming

This is just a reminder to everyone that there are now less than 36 hours remaining to submit evidence. We've only had two submissions so far; for all other users, I will assume that your AE submission will suffice as your evidence, however any responses to evidence or additions to the AE statements must be entered before the deadline, when the clerks will protect the evidence page from editing. No extensions will be granted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I intend to submit evidence. As I already hinted at a few days ago, evidence from my accuser was only submitted 11 days into the fortnight window. Whilst I'm working hard on my submission, it isn't anywhere near ready. I may need an extension. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Evidence was submitted here only a few days ago - however, the original AE request was posted some time ago, and there was nothing to stop you from posting evidence of your own. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, AE is AE, RFAR is RFAR. So if your response to my extension is a 'no', then I must observe you're being overly bureaucratic. I'll try my best to hurry my work. The case is scoped around the action of three editors, so it would seem reasonable to hear what accusations I'm up against before considering defense strategy. I do have some elements, but it needs to be adapted in light of the submission. I seem to recall not too long ago in the TITLES case, Born2Cycle submitted his evidence after the deadline and it was accepted; I just want some fairness to prevail.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Elen of the Roads stated when this case opened that we would consider the statements made at AE as evidence unless a shorter summary was provided here. Since you have not yet provided evidence on this page, we will take your AE statement as evidence until and unless you provide a statement here (within the deadline) that you indicate should supercede that statement. You are welcome, as well, to add evidence here and still add a statement along the lines of "See my original AE statement [here] for more information." As to your other points, the case is scoped primarily around the actions of you and two other editors, but also other matters relating to the previous case. As I've mentioned above, this can include conduct of other editors, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree. Article titles and capitalization was opened at the very end of January, with the evidence phase ending mid-February. Since that time, the Committee has adopted firmer rules regarding evidence in an attempt to streamline cases more and keep them to the specified time-tables. In keeping with those guidelines, I would encourage you to submit as much evidence as you are able prior to the deadline; further analysis and commentary of other user's submissions may be provided on the workshop page as I've mentioned a few times now, and if additional formal evidence is absolutely needed, an extension can be considered at that time. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I will be limiting my involvement in the subsequent phases of this RFAR, so I hope you will see fit to allow my submission. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Re - AgadaUrbanit

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A quick response to evidence submitted by AgadaUrbanit: the user's comments appears to be about content, but there are a couple things that are worth responding to: "After reviewing the sources and reading the Falun Gong article I have found that the article is far from being neutral." — The editor has said this before on the talk page, and repeatedly added a npov tag to the article. Myself and other editors asked him/her on numerous occasions to explain in a specific and actionable way how the page is not neutral.[11] Rather than responding with concrete suggestions or articulations of the problems, Agada edit warred over the placement of tags on the page, then filed an AE case against myself and TSTF because we declined to put the tags back on the page. EdJohnson closed it with no action, noting that Agada's complaint "lacks precision and it's hard to see what other editors could do concretely to address these concerns." I think this context is relevant. "From other hand, there is a "consensus" on the article talk page that neutral scholar sources, like Gallagher and Ashcraft, are not reliable in FG context" — This refers a three-page overview of Falun Gong written by Catherine Wessinger in a volume on new religious movements in America, edited by Gallagher and Ashcraft. A considerable number of Agada's contributions to the Falun Gong page over many months involved trying to add this source to places where, frankly, it didn't quite fit or improve the page; more often than not it was redundant and/or hindered readability (eg.[12][13][14][15]) No one ever said that this is not a reliable source, or couldn't be used at all. The source is still on the page. "All the citations of this source I've added were removed from the article" — This is not true, but when it was removed, it was always explained (usually on the talk page, if not clearly explained in the edit summary). "I have not found a collaboration driven environment on the article talk page." — I'm sorry that the user feels this way. I spent a very significant time trying to work with this user, and am honestly not sure what more I could have done. The discussion threads Agada linked to speak for themselves, I think, and are pretty representative of the dozen or so threads of equal or greater length that Agada has been involved in here. If anyone has thoughts on how I could have be more collaborative in these circumstances, I would welcome them. Agada, best of luck with your future projects. Homunculus (duihua) 20:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I might provide simple explanations for your points would arbitrators find it beneficial. BTW loved your work on Life and Death are Wearing Me Out. Keep up the good work, Homunculus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate that. You too, and thanks for pitching in on that page. Homunculus (duihua) 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Homunculus, can I ask you to please put this on the evidence page - or the Clerks can move it there for you. This talk page is neither for presentation of evidence nor for discussion of the content of evidence. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry about that. Since Agada did not present any evidence of behavioral problems, I don't think it's necessary for me to respond in the evidence. My note here was as much a rejoinder to Agada personally as anything else. It's fine with me if this section is deleted entirely, but I would ask that the clerks perform the task, since I don't want to delete other users' comments. Does that work? Homunculus (duihua) 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)