User:Ohconfucius/rant about Falun Gong pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disclaimer :This page attempts to summarise my continuing travails and evolving turmoil while editing all things Falun Gong. This is just me letting off steam to keep myself sane. I do not make any claims to objectivity here, it's just how I am feeling at the time I write this. You are of course very welcome to comment

I am also perplexed by this article. It gives a great deal of effort to what people would call "conspiracy theories" in America, but then mentions that oh by the way we know exactly who all seven of these people are, we know they protested for Falun Gong, we've talked to them and been told they did it for Falun Gong. Saying that one of them may not be the same person according to a Taiwanese intelligence agency's comparison of the video of his pre-burned and post-burned face just isn't convincing me, sorry. If you really need to rag on China then ask how it is that somebody who is insane enough to try to burn himself half to death ends up on trial and getting convicted for a life sentence (for what?), but don't tell us a theory that doesn't make any sense.

– User:70.15.116.59 (talk) , 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Falun Gong family of articles is not a very sane 'ocean' to hang around in, although there are a few oases and a few islands of tranquility within it. There are FG sympathisers, FG apologists, CCP supporters and also some blatantly anti-FG vandals out there, all of whom make working on articles very difficult. It also appears to be dominated by editor(s) who [is/are] simply not interested in editing any other articles. None of the edits are stable, and I have not seen anything like this scale of push-pull elsewhere on wikipedia. Wikipedia's policies are interpreted in an "interesting fashion". The battleground is littered with "corpses" : some editors have gotten tired of the fight, others have been expelled. There are editors there who do nothing but work on expanding FG universe on wikipedia, who resist ANY attempt to meddle with "their article". I suspect there are also those who took just one look, stepped back in total horror at the apology of an article which is the result of the battles, and turned away - I nearly did, but for the challenge which editing this sort of article poses.

I am no fan of the Chinese Communist Party, the media censorship it practices, nor its human rights record, but the Epoch Times appears often to carry stories and allegations that no other respectable journal will confirm or even hint at. Very few would dispute that the journal is a mouthpiece of the FG, and thus amounts to a self-published source. From what I have read in the pages related to FG, quotes and stories lifted from Epoch Times are on the par with Pravda (did you know it means "truth" in Russian) and People's Daily in churning out the propaganda. There are individuals here who treat it as "gospel", and insist that everything that can be cited, if from Epoch or clearwisdom, or falundafa.org, must never be removed (see this section). What utter bollocks! "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people". On the other hand, official pronunciations which are directly relevant to the article are suppressed because it is "deceitful and poisonous". It may come as a surprise to such editors that Wikipedia is not about disseminating the truth: "the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.

Just because something is sourced does not mean it is relevant or deserves the column inches you may wich to give it. Wikipedia is not about being exhaustive about every point of view.

Propaganda violates the main tenets of wikipedia, and should be deleted on sight. The FG articles are littered with copyright violations of propaganda and other stuff which makes no sense to mere mortals, yet the FG articles are filled with more and more of these. There are some editors of FG who do not work on any other articles, and don't seem to care what the rules are. WTF is good faith? Ohconfucius 06:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there may be a witch-hunt going on against all users who seek to instill a sense of realism into the family of articles. Principally one of its practitioners seem to engage the same Stalinist intolerant practices FG allegedly receives in the name of "exposing the truth about the CCP" or "countering the CCP propaganda".

What is being implied?? I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo. Why is there such paranoia? Where is the charitable tolerance (真, 善, 忍) which its esteemed leader apparently professes? Where is the assumption of good faith?

This very vocal and impetuous user appears happy to defend articles' sorry state, and resists almost all attempts to improve the article. He has been known to roll back changes which offend including those by fellow practitioners - fellow wikipedians who do not toe one person's FG line are "in need of investigation". His passive-aggressive behavior upsets me no end. I have tried to reason with him, as have others, apparently.

Here are some reverts which have resulted in a 24 hour editing ban:

  1. 16:41, 16 August 2007
  2. 18:27, 16 August 2007
  3. 20:43, 16 August 2007
  4. 00:40, 17 August 2007

Then, there are the anti-FG users, who repeatedly disrupt proceedings with their sockpuppets probably in defiance of a ban:

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Samuel Luo (2)

[Edited by Ohconfucius 02:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

I don't think it is at all as you portray it, and that you have painted a one-sided picture. I don't think you have an axe to grind here, though. I can only speak for myself in my response to you. I have always done my utmost across my editing on these pages to stick to wikipedia policies. For me, I don't know what else I can do in editing the pages. I would feel terrible if I deliberately sought to twist information and do devious things to make secondary sources look like they said good things about flg when they didn't, or manipulate secondary sources and do these kinds of bad things. Check out the section on psychiatric abuses on the persecution page. I wrote it. Please let me know if it is neutral or not, and we can discuss that section as a kind of benchmark. To me, that is basically the best I am capable of. But actually, I think only through a dialectical process will more neutral material appear. As it is, my own bias will still creep in. Another thing is though, how can I put it in this case, those psychiatric abuses are actually happening... so it is impossible for a neutral report to not turn up this fact. The claim to neutrality and for holding the neutral ground has always been precisely the dispute between the editors across these articles. Is that a surprise to you? But have I accused you of not being neutral? Even of PCPP I tried to say some sweet nothings. The fact is, in editing these articles one automatically loses their neutrality. You become enmeshed in this debate, and.. how can I express this concept, well, you want to claim the 'neutral' ground, I take it--but how do you know you are so neutral? You are just the same. I am not saying that everyone should just go for it, do any kind of bad edits, just get your point across, push your line, distort the facts, whatever, because there ain't no such thing as neutrality. I am not saying that at all, and I think that would ruin everything. For me about six months ago, there were a few editors, not samuel and tomananda, which constantly said they were neutral, but which weren't, which thought ill of falun gong, one of them denied the persecution completely etc., but they edited the articles and said they were neutral. Did you know tomananda said he was neutral? So i saw this and realised I should not say I was neutral. That seems to be an already soiled claim. To claim that you yourself are neutral when you are involved in a contested situation, to me that displays its own meaninglessness. It is just what a non-neutral, pov pusher would do, just like tomananda and samuel did--they said they were neutral. Anyway, I don't say I am neutral on this. I am a falun gong practitioner, Dafa has transformed my life and been a source of sole good in my life. I don't do drugs any more, I am much more clearheaded in my life, I am committed to my studies, I don't watch pornography any more, I listen to classical music now and my favourite composer is bach, for social activities now I will watch an opera with one or two mates instead of going out on a speed binge and going to drum n bass gigs, I wear my hair in a tidy way, dress tidily, rather than going around with long messed up hair, bare feet, not caring about my appearance or surroundings, I actively attempt to be kind and empathetic to my family members and friends, though I no longer share their anxieties about life, how can I put it, those are just superficial things... This is just personally, how can I claim I am neutral on Falun Gong, anyway? And I think the persecution is disgusting, vile, an enourmous injustice to human life, and that any sane person would be utterly reviled at it and any attempt to downplay it. My stances on these things are quite clear. But I can guarantee a few things, like that I will not deliberately attempt to break wikipedia rules on how things should be reported, what will be reported etc.. That's pretty much all I can do, because the rest is already decided. And I don't have a problem with that, because I 'know' dafa is harmless, has been good for me, and that the persecution is wrong, and that is pretty much all i need to know, and I feel quite comfortable about those things, and that that is basically a correct stance. it is a bunch of exercises and some books ffs! Dafa practitioners have set up media because they are being persecuted and no one else will report on this stuff. The worlds media, businesses, government will happily keep quite because of China's economic interests. Murdoch wants to do big business in China, so he will kowtow to the wretched communist party and his son denounces falun gong as a cult, and his media keep shut about the persecution. have you read the kilgour/matas report yet? if not, why not? if so, how could you not understand why people in that situation would not want to set up their own media to tell people about what is going on, since no one else will? Or do you doubt the veracity of the persecution altogether? Is it that you have not read about it, spoken to any falun gong practitioners about their personal experiences, or maybe you think it is all made up somehow, because of.. well I don't know actually on this point, why would it be made up? Did you see the photos of people with smashed up backs, no legs, smashed/burnt faces, corpses, all that stuff? have you read about police trying to force confessions out of practitioners, they will electrocute them with high voltages on a tiger bench? Do you think people would come out of jail and make that shit up? What about Gao Zhisheng's open letters to the ccp--have you read them? if not, why not? In the third one i think he talks about his time with dafa practitioners a while ago. This is before he himself was persecuted and jailed and his firm shut down. He is a christian, just an upright resister. He said how they showed him their genetalia, and how the police had first of all stripped them naked and attacked their genetalia. Do you realise how horrible that is? Tearing womens' nipples off with pliers, that is the most disgusting. Do you want any part of this? Why can't those people, when no one else is speaking out for them, when they are enduring this completely unjust persecution, speak out themselves, set up media outlets and speak out for themselves? Of course, the epoch times is just being run just like a normal media outlet, and it is no different from other media outlets except for its willingness to report on this stuff. But in fact, heaps of other media have reported on the persecution and on the organ harvesting. Did you read the wall street journal series of articles? the writer got a pulitzer prize! They discuss in depth the issues associated with the persecution of falun gong, also the awful torture. It is all real. If epochtimes reports more on it, so what? Why shouldn't they? Why should this persecution be tolerated? Do you tolerate it? But in fact, those editorial alignments are clear in the epoch times, its stance is very clear: the ccp is conducting a wicked persecution of innocent people, not just falun gong but many others, and the paper will report on it and expose that stuff until the ccp stops doing it. If the ccp were not doing these evil things, why would the epochtimes keep going? Do you think people are doing it for fun or political motives? Do you think I give a shit about politics? The purpose of practicing falun gong is a metaphysical concern, about returning to one's original true self. There is no trace of some external, worldly pursuit—but as long as the persecution is going on, peaceful methods will be used to put an end to it. It is really, really rather simple. You should be clear about all this.

You have presented as a rational, intelligent, humourous and reasonable person, so in that context, for the main points of what I said, (people should be allowed to practice falun gong, falun gong is not bad, falun gong has done good for some people so good for them, the persecution is bad, falun gong should not be persecuted, organ harvesting and torture is bad, the ccp should stop doing this stuff, it is okay for falun gong to peacefully resist the persecution)--I guess I am going on the assumption that you more or less agree with these kinds of points. If not, and you wish, we could discuss things further and if it would help to clarify certain issues, present you with a wider variety of secondary sources in relation to these points, or if you have further questions about these general points, we could pursue that line of reasoning.

Anyway, let's say you agree with those, which would mean that your problem specifically has been the conduct of individual editors on these pages. it is very important not to confuse the two issues, and to confuse what you are and are not against; what you do/do not have a problem with. Frankly, I don't like some of the editing I have seen EITHER! Do you know how far worse tomananda and samuel were? That is not the point, is it, though. Basically for this question, I think it can be resolved without too much drama, and that it is a matter of specific problems and specific instances which can be discussed, meted out, and haggled over on a specific basis, and there are definite solutions. But actually, did you know they would see you in the same way? Anyone could easily write the same thing you have, saying how crappy you are, and how you are seeking to push a certain viewpoint. I have really tried not to make any kinds of accusations, and it is only through a dialetical process that a better neutral article will be reached. These are definite problems with definite solutions, and I want to see neutral articles, not pro falun gong propaganda pieces, where all the stuff is from clearwisdom and epoch times, there is no kind of analysis, third party reporting or engagement—that would be a farce, and I would want to correct it almost as much as a CCP propaganda piece. Because I know a wikipedia site like that would do no good to clarify the actual situation for a large number of readers, and it would be precisely useless. I actually think the true situation is that falun gong is harmless and the persecution is bad—and I don't need to just say that and then make up articles on that basis, but on the whole, that is what a reasonable view says. I have written a lot just now. I found your entry rather provoking. Please check the psychiatric abuses section. if your problem is with me I would like to know and work that out. I don't care that we have differet and juxtaposing editing concepts—I have never called you a heretic for that. I encourage you to engage with the important points of what I have written and the general ideas I am trying to make clear. If your problem is with another editor(s) then you should be clear that that is your problem, not falun gong as a whole, and you should be clear about where you stand on the persecution. It is not good to confuse the two, because they are completely separate things, and you must not confuse where you stand on the persecution with your opinions and frustrations about individual editors.--Asdfg12345 15:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

some final points. 1) sorry for length. 2) i don't want these articles to be vehicles for the truth. clearwisdom and falundafa.org are good enough for that. these should be neutral and widely sourced, in doing that they will give the reader to thought, their own investigation, and an understanding of the various sides of the situation. I think that will come to what i described as a reasonable conclusion (dafa harmless, persecution bad), but maybe others disagree, and that is fine. let's just hash it out, get the secondary stuff, lay it out there, and let the reader make up his mind. one thinks dafa bad persecution good, well let's just present all the sources with no manipulation etc, and leave it at that. That is actually all i am advocating. 3) if you are referring to the porter quote, i am at a bit of a loss. it is one sentence, sourced to a university publication, quite relevant to the text, and quite reasonable a statement in itself (are you so starry-eyed about luo gan??) i would find it difficult to engage too much here. tomananda thought he was very reasonable, did you know? he got banned in the end for his bad behaviour. so on this point when there is disagreement on an issue like this, that is hard, and in the last case arbcom got called in. i know we won't come to that, but i guess maybe the only remedy is for both of us to consider internally a bit, make compromises with each other, try to use a bit of the old 真, 善, 忍, and try to resolve it. if you felt so strongly, i would just delete that sentence to make peace, but note my deep misgivings, and see if we can work better into the future. of course, we constantly make assessments of things, so if i felt trapped in another tomananda/samuel situation, of course that case reached its natural conclusion. i don't think that's what we're talking about here. let's be clear. I want an orthodox, upright, neutral and clear set of articles. it's a long way off, but if that is what you want too then we're fine. In any case, I think this issue of dialectics is important, and both parties need to recognise the dialectical nature of this exercise, and that only through that process will the best wiki-style stuff be reached.--Asdfg12345 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you for your insight

Yes, you surmised it correctly. I was seriously jacked off by somebody who had gone around reverting all my hard work over the last 2 days, and I wanted to have a good rant somewhere without messing up the talk pages, and get it out of my system without resorting to personal attacks. I am doing what I can to improve the method I am editing, but as you say, nobody is free or immune to any bias. I had a major blowout when someone set me back by a cavalier revert too many and picked a fight. Some of the above text was written a while back, and I resurrected it last night when emotions were running a bit high. Yes, you are right that I still went a bit too far in criticising the whole FG when I was in fact angry about the acts of one person in particular. I will edit the text above now that I see a bit more clearly. I appreciate for your analogies, and your pearls of wisdom, and also for your constructive editing. You have given me plenty of food for thought. Ohconfucius 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading what you wrote, you are at peace with yourself, and I am happy for you. You seem to be a lot more emotionally detached about the issues too, which is why I feel I can talk to you. It is good that you bring up the moral issues, which are important. However, I have tried very hard not to get involved in the emotional or moral side of what is going on between FG and the PRC govt. Anybody with a soul would find the torture and live organ extractions abhorrent, but I don't want to get into the moral debate about it because I find (on my part) it gets in the way of creating good encyclopaedic articles. I agree with what you say about personal bias. I know that the more I work on FG articles, my views will change. I work on a lot of articles here on wikipedia and I try to be dispassionate about the issues. I look for sources, and I also look at sources and try and build an article from what is there, I also remove poor and ambiguous constructions, weasel words, and the articles were choc-full of them. I just work on what is there, using the toolbox which is wikipedia's policies and guielines -note that I have been criticised for applying these too rigidly. I often completely deconstruct articles and rebuild, and I guess that is what so upset some editors to begin with. It's my style, and I'm learning to adapt.
So, I will start working on some of the other articles from the standpoint of references. After checking some of the references, I found some are not properly represented by the text in the articles. In addition, it appears that there is quite a lot of useful information which was not properly used. I did that exercise with the hukou article, and was able to source almost everything, including allegations of apartheid, with minimal reliance on primary sources. That way, we should be able to minimise the numbers of citations directly to Epoch Times or Clearwisdom, contentious at best. Ohconfucius 03:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No doubt you are reading my talk pages too, where I have elaborated my views on Noah Porter to Dilip. I think it is a bit of a joke for the reasons already stated there. At the moment, there are not so many opinions expressed on this point, and I will not engage in a tug of war on this, important though the principle is. However, if someone else comes along and removes all or any references to Noah, I would certainly back him or her up. Ohconfucius 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I can understand your frustrations. I blew a few gaskets a year or so ago in the depths of the samuel/tomananda rampage, so I know exactly how it feels to be in a helpless situation against unfair editing. Wikipedia at least has the recourse to third party mediation/arbitration mechanisms, and this is important in cases such as this. As for Porter, I still don't understand what's wrong with the reference, including if it is properly mentioned the context. Even xinhua etc. has to be mentioned to get all sides of the picture. I don't know any other publications that will state the party's motives, position etc., which need to be presented here too. I guess your complaint is that it's just a weak source, a masters thesis, and the articles should rely on stronger material. I would say yes and no. I think the ideal material would be what is well thought out, well researched, well considered, intelligent, and takes into account all the complexities in this issue. I don't know how much of that stuff there is around. We basically have to just use the things that are available, and not argue about the veracity of the content, because that argument could never end. That whole anti cult movement for example, all that needs to be presented here, because those people exist and they have attacked flg on their websites and in some books. In this case though, we can also mention others who have attacked them and say they are a bunch of pseudoscientists and don't belong anywhere near the academic community. We have to use newspaper articles too. A lot more research went into porter's thesis than into the majority of newspaper articles floating around. People can say the most atrocious things, and as long as it is published properly it can't not be reported. I think an important thing is that the source be given its proper context, and what other sources have said about its veracity be also mentioned. Basically anyone can say anything about falun gong, and as long as it is published in what is defined as a reliable source, then it can appear here--i am just distilling what i understand from the policies. Some sources are better than others obviously, and that is always ideal, but the policies permit all these, clearly including porter's thesis, so i feel that's as far as i can go. If i were to make personal judgements about what is or what is not a worthy opinion and source to be published, I would delete swathes of material from these articles that i consider rubbish. I think they'd be better off, but i'd be violating some rules, so i better not do it. Well, we don't need to agree on everything obviously, as long as there is still an atmosphere of article improvement then that's what matters.--Asdfg12345 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is a reliable source?

Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. - Noah fails this - he is not regarded as an authority on anything. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. - it remains to be proven that the Noah Porter thesis has been published in an academic journal and thoroughly peer-reviewed by the scholarly community. Most theses are 'published' by submitting a copy or three to the University in question, reviewed in a presentation to three or four judges followed by a Q&A, and then a copy is filed in the university library. Noah's was put on line by the US Universities central library, not quite the same as being published in a professional journal. I do not have a problem with the slant in his thesis, but I cannot see that any authoritative scholar would even bother to challenge a thesis published in this fashion by a person without any academic standing. Having said the above, it does appear to be a well-searched thesis, citing plenty of sources, which could be cited directly. There are paragraphs in the FG article saying Porter cited so-and-so, and it would be infinitely better to cite these directly.

To your more general point, perhaps you should go around challenging the reliability of sources in other articles. I try to be the most objective I know how; I often do it, and I think wikipedia would be a better place for it if everyone did that too, so why not "go for it!"? Just because a source for something element of fact or speculation exists, does not necessarily mean its inclusion in a wikipedia article is warranted. I subscribe to the maxim "less is more". I believe that including too much information without weighing it demeans the article. Ohconfucius 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I hope to become more organised and rigorous in my approach to wikipedia in the near future. The only possible problem that may arise from what you said, is that everyone will put their own judgements on what is valuable and what is not, and inevitably there will be opposing judgement evaluations, right? Can sources be excluded on the basis? I think it would be a lot simpler in uncontroversial articles or when there is not a billion dollar persecution happening. But definitely, we should discuss things in an open and civil way. That's important.--Asdfg12345 05:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another complaint against Dilip rajeev

copied from archived discussion User talk:Blnguyen/Archive84

I would like to seek your advice on a problem I'm having with a fellow editor re the abovementioned articles. I just cannot seem to get through to him - we have had words before, and he has now returned from wiki-break with a different approach: he has covered himself with a veneer of politeness, yet is just as opinionated and dug-in, and bent on turning these Falun Gong related articles into soapboxes for Falun Gong.

The current battleground is Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, (rewritten over a period of months as a collaboration between asdfg12345 and myself, and gaining good article status in October) has been overrun by this particular disciple of Falun Gong who has admitted their political motivation. The culprit, Dilip Rajeev (who edits few, if any, non-Falun Gong articles and has a history of edit wars), stated to myself on the article talk page, "The reason we cant used propaganda from the CCP controlled press is that it is a long known and a well documented fact(by no means my personal opinion) that the CCP controlled press has been using the weirdest and the most slanderous propaganda against Falun Gong for the sole purpose of incitement of hatred."

He is completely unable to accept that anything the Chinese authorities says could be worthy of citation in a wikipedia article, whilst claims, assertions and allegations of Falun Gong and other advocacy groups', however marginal and insignificant, are totally legitimate and indeed necessary. He says We are obliged to report here what Human Rights Organizations such as the Amnesty have said on the issue - whether you like it or not. He has been forcing his way in editing on the above article, digging in trenches. He has also sought other significant non-neutral POV changes to the series of articles - such as putting ironic quotation marks around words he feels do not reflect the FG position; unilaterally renaming Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China → Falun Gong and live organ harvesting, and proposing to rename Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident → Tiananmen Square "self-immolation" incident.

I strongly suspect his next battleground will be Persecution of Falun Gong, which surprisingly been largely stable for over a month now. In addition, he has been harrassing me and accusing me or removing comments not pertinent to a given article as "covering-up". In addition, he has just accused me of sockpuppetry.

I've lodged renaming request, requested a pre-emptive page protection, but am seemingly at wit's end, as he is completely stressing me out. I don't want to bow out of editing the FG articles to give him free rein. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I might take a while, I'm a bit busy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

I wish to point out that I have not made any such reverts lately. I had discussed , at length, every change I made and have always asked other editors to point out if they see any concern with any particular edit of mine. My recent changes have been very positively commended upon by other editors. The reverts I did was mainly in response to user:EgraS who kept reverting my changes, while not even bothering to give an edit summmary. I stopped rolling back his reverts, after two reverts, for the sake of avoiding an edit war, despite him not even bothering to give a reason( or even an edit summary for that matter) for his reverts. It was another well established user who restored the revert of user:EgraS, using TW, to the version of the page after my edits, pointing out to EgraS that "There is absolutely no need for a large scale revert. I'm resisting this time because it is such an egregious case. The edit was mostly just deleting a huge amount of content. There's no justification for that at all.".

If you feel, in any particular case that my edits were against wikipedia policies or that I have reverted against majority opinion, kindly point out and I'll be careful not to make a similar mistake again. I am also requesting Oconfucius to please point out using "diffs" any edit of mine that he would characterize as "disruptive".

In response to certain allegations raised above against me by User:Ohconfucius , please allow me to clarify:

  • The recent changes have done are here[1][2]. The quality (or lack of thereof) of my edits may please be judged after reviewing my edits and the pertinent discussion on the talk pages. The content I have added, in most part, are from sources of The Highest Repute such as The Amnesty International, Kilgour-Matas Reports, HRW, Human Rights Reports submitted at the UN, etc. and very often in blockquotes. The changes were positively commended on by other editors.
  • I have never made any personal "accusations" against Oconfucius - while on the other had the user has been repeatedly and baselessly accusing me of a wide range of "violations" from wp:soap, wp:de, wp:attack, wp:npov etc. while refusing to point out, despite my repeated requests, which particular edit of mine he has problems with. I am still requesting that he may please point out which particular edit of mine he'd characterize as above using diffs. Also requesting that he may please not pull out statements I made as part of talk pages discussions and put them out of context as he has done above.
  • The checkuser request I made to compare IPs of EgraS and Oconfucius was only because I was very much surprised by certain edits where EgraS was referring to Onconfucis statements as if it were his own and EgraS's response to a request for explanation of removal of content by Oconfucius as if the question were directed at him. Also the uncanny word-for-word resemblance in certain talk page statements made by the two users. For instance, please see these edits. To be honest, I still find it hard to accept such similarities could occur by mere coincidence and the users are completely unrelated.
  • I also wish to bring this case to the attention of the Arbitration committee, because Oconfucius has been blaming me for all kinds of violations for a while and if there be fault on my part the arbitration committee may point it out and I will make sure not to repeat those mistakes and if such allegations are baseless the above user may please be requested to not do so since doing so it makes it much harder then to focus objectively on the edits .

Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously you can't revert because the page was locked. I'm not concerned with or haven't looked at other things like CU stunts or the like. I could check the data again I guess, but if similar edits are the only thing, then one could simply imitate another person and get them blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeatedly pointed out Dilip rajeev's transgressions principally of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE), but also of WP:ATTACK, which he has been obstinately refusing to accept. Admittedly, I only explained in global terms why the text he is attempting to delete or insert was problematic in my view. The editor incessantly writes in talk pages about the "persecution of Falun Gong" and "atrocities" perpetrated against practitioners, "lies" of the CCP, using these as justification of removing or inserting certain text, or ironic quotation marks - I, and Egra, protested again and again. The said editor insisted on glorifying Falun Gong and banishing all criticism as "propaganda", inconsistently saying his changes were "not radical" in one breath and "radical" in another, making unabashed stand-alone rants about the "Chinese Communist party propaganda", and making red-herring arguments while referring to BLP in the Li Hongzhi article - I found it nigh on impossible to carry out a sensible dialogue with him, however high his IQ may be.

Also requesting that he may please not repeatedly reinsert criticisms naming me in a talk page not relating to the article but to another, in violation of WP:TALK, was utterly reasonable in my view. I told Rajeev I found this action of his provocative; User:Antilived happened to concur with me that the comments did not belong.

The checkuser request he made to compare IPs of EgraS and mine was a smokescreen to cover his transgressions, to bog us down trying to defend ourselves. It may even be an attempt to get even at me for having him banned twice for edit warring. He appears to be more willing to find consensus than in the past on the surface. In reality, he is just as aggressive and belligerent as in the past - a leopard does not easily change his spots.The sheer number of edits to the checkuser request bears witness to his complete obsession with making a case against me.

I did notice the very long thread at RFCU. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He fails to accept the common and accepted way of cross-discussions between different editors on Usertalk pages, let alone on article talk pages. He is being conveniently thick, using similarities I deliberately placed in the talk pages (in parody or to save retyping a shared point of view) as an excuse to accuse me of sockpuppetry. The "evidence" he offered against me using a sockpuppet is about as sound as his "evidence" against the Chinese authorities in the article.

I too wish for Arbitration committee to take note of what is happening, because rajeev's hounding and harrassment of me all around WP, waging a trench warfare on the Falun Gong articles, repeated editing disruptively and turning WP into a soapbox for Falun Gong, is completely not conducive to a sane editing environment. I have been enjoying a healthy editing relationship with another FG practitioner, and would suggest rajeev has been the only pro-Falun Gong user violently confronting others since FG articles has been put on probation by ArbCom. If there be fault on my part the arbitration committee may point it out and I will make sure not to repeat those mistakes, and if such allegations are baseless the above user may please be requested to not do so since doing so it makes it much harder then to focus objectively on the edits. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked people in the past for droning on nonsense about checkuser results that said the opposite to what the guy claimed, eg User:Wiki Raja. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

copied from archived discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive421#PCPP.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29

As part of their propaganda battle, Falun Gong practitioners have set up newspapers, TV stations, and other front organisations such as COIPFG and World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG). I have noticed the existence of a Falun Gong cabal which is seeking to use Wikipedia to further counter-attack and obtain a "right of reply" against the propaganda onslaught of Chinese Communist Party (CCP), quite often ignoring or severely bending wiki policies and guidelines, most obviously WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, and occasionally also WP:RS and WP:A. The majority of these users are not interested in editing any other articles on wikipedia, because that does not further their cause. Some pro-FG editors engage in edit wars when sourced material which does not find favour with them is inserted - the Falun Gong foot-soldiers do come in and out, consistently using the undo button, reminding all that any good work not meeting their own criteria are easily rejected and reverted; I have found and corrected numerous inaccurate attributions and what I suspect to be deliberate misquotes in this family of articles. I have noticed that the environment is pretty hostile: no sane editor hangs around the Falun Gong related articles for long - perhaps that's already an indictment of my own sanity ;-) - so the family of articles by definition attracts cranks or ardent supporters or opponents, consequently creating a vicious circle of a very polarised article prone to edit warring. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)