User talk:Marvin 2009/AEresponse

A.Communication with admin Seraphimblade

@Seraphimblade:, you wrote that you think some of my editing are a cause for concern. Before banning, could you let me know and I will try to clarify or explain any specific concerns you have? I think there are several other editors whose edits also needs to be looked at too, because this is not a one-sided dispute between only two editors. Precious Stone 00:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, i had not intention to delete Guy's words at all. I did not see these words, nor delete them. when clicking publish changes, somehow there was no reminding of editing conflicts. sorry about it anyway. will answer your other questions soon. Precious Stone 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:: Thanks for letting me know the issues you are concerned about. Here is my reply:

• I did not know about the rule “Your username should be in your signature”. Now I learnt it from you. Will follow. Thanks.
• I do not think I have been edit-warring, not even 1RR. On the FLG article, my first four edits this year were conducted on June 3 to 5 - three days. Each time there were new contents added or modified and there were discussions on the talk page in terms of how Bloodofox (talk · contribs)'s and user Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)'s edits failed with WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. I did not remove sourced materials, but addressed the misrepresented contents. But all of my four edits were reverted.
• I noticed WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views on FLG related articles.

Principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground 1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus 3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of view editing 6) Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site. Other remedies such as revert parole may be used to assist an editor to contribute in a more collaborative manner.

Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view 7) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Passed 7 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo 8) Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a prominent anti-Falun Gong activist who operates http://exposingthefalungong.org/. He has engaged in edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) to promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism.

Passed 8 to 0 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda 9) Tomananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) and attempts to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy ([20], [21], [22]).

Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) "

I am impressed how ARBFLG applied the principle, and do think this guideline should be followed. However I never said who was an agent and did not specifically say who was an activist. In reality, you can see that I am the one who was constantly attacked and reported by the users who had histories edit-warring or being blocked. Take the two users who reported me this month for example, based on another user' summary of Horse Eye Jack's record, it seems that Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)’s labeling, reporting and attacking others, including me, is not a coincidence; while Pat Cheng had been blocked for 6 times due to some terrible reasons In these recent editing, I can not find any intentional mistakes on my part, yet i was reported by User Horse Eye Jack to AMER and am reported by Pat Cheng here. I am concerned the motives behind the users who reported me or warned me. I worry that it is related to my efforts in following WP:ARBFLG and preventing activism. If you are interested in this topic, I will get into the details.

• For a page under DS, I thought a major change to a stable page, would require some discussions or even consensus first. That is an understanding I have. If I am wrong, I will follow the correct way.
• Nevertheless, I did not do the restoration in my first four edits. What i did was as you mentioned:"everyone may edit, and if anyone else disagrees, discussion then is the way forward." In my first 4 edits, I respected User Bloodofox's edit and did not remove materials, but addressed the misrepresented contents as i discussed in the talk page. But all of my four edits were reverted by Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox.
• For the fifth edit on June 10, I adjusted "extreme-right" to "right-wing" and clearly stated that were reported by NYT & NBC, based on a discussion on June 5.
• For the sixth edit, I moved the newly created first section “Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and political involvement ” by Bloodofox (talk · contribs) to the overseas Falun Gong section; as the origin section was at the first and those groups were overseas falun gong groups, the moving makes more sense. But it was changed back by Bloodofox (talk · contribs) . After that, Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) also reverted my fifth edit, which had gone through a discussion with no disagreement where it was stated that “I feel it is not a good idea to mislead that NYT and NBC associated the ET with extreme-right, so we should make it clear.”
• At that point, I restored the article to the status in the May before Bloodofox’s change, which was my seventh edit on the article. All my 7 edits including this one were meant to try improve the quality of the article. So the reason that I restored the status prior to the major change of the leader section in May, was not “simply for not being discussed in advance.” If you can go to check the editing history, you will be able to verify this.

Thanks for your patience. If you have further questions, please let me know. I also hope i can get the required time to comment on Pat Cheng's 20 + accusations against me and to comment on admin JzG's opinion. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

B. Reply to User Pudeo's comment

Thanks User Pudeo for your spending time on this.

Indeed, Pat Cheng reported me twice one year ago. Now it comes again after one year.

The 10 accusations Pat Cheng put out are far away from the truth. I am going to address all Pat Cheng's 20 + accusations, which will take some time.

This year, Pat Cheng also included 9 points his previous accusations in last year's AE report, which were addressed in my reply to his ANI report (that was why I did not respond to the AE report last year) . While negating all untrue attacks, my reply last year also recognized sometimes my reply on discussion pages were a bit long and unnecessary and I would try to improve in this area. Since then, my discussions on article talk pages have been disciplined well - no unnecessary long talk on article page any more. I feel it is an improvement on my end. Precious Stone 00:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

C. Responses to User Pat Cheng's fake accusations

Those accusations from PatCheng above were false. Below are my responses point by point, in which I tried to shed light on what really happened.

1. The claim 1 is 6 June 2020 Engaged in soapboxing, and proceeded to remove WP:SPA labels in a discussion page

The first half is fake. The referred edit was to remove the wrongfully SPA tag User Horse Eye Jack added to multiple users (on the Falun Gong talk page) who disagreed with his edits on the article. This was not soapboxing. As one user summarized, it seems that Horse Eye Jack’s labeling and attacking others, including me is not a coincidence. Yes, I removed those wrongfully added SPA signs for preventing the attack. I provided the detailed explanation of my edit in the summary.

2. The claim 2 is“11 June 2020 Blanking the Falun Gong article page, ….

The refered edit shows I did not blank the Falun Gong article page at all. Please review my detailed response to admin Doug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#Re:_June_2020

3. The claim 3: “June 12 2020 In regards to Doug Weller's warning, he claimed that his previous warnings were the result of "biased activists", highlighting his battleground mentality. Further warned by admin User:El_C.”

I did not say “the warnings were the result of "biased activists”” as PatCheng claimed. My words were “Yes, I received warnings in the past. My impression is that most warnings were not factual and were from activists who promoted their views with original research on related pages, i tried to prevent them and was threatened by warnings.” I used a word most at that time.

After seeing Pat Cheng’s report here, I went to count and found that there are altogether 8 warnings on my talk page. 6 of them were from User STSC who was blocked twice. STSC's warnings were over the editng disargeements with me.

For the other two warnings, one was from Binksterent and the other only left warning is from Doug Weller regarding Falun Gong page. Both were involved in the editing to those related pages. I do not think those are impartial warnings. Binksterent had been blocked 10 times and had over the disputes on Epoch Times page with me in 2016.Binksternet’s warning was refuted by another user. As to admin Doug’s warning, I tried to explain to him with the detailed circumstance info around my restoring edit, but have not got a substantive reply from him yet. Yesterday in my communication with admin Seraphimblade, i further explained the context surrounding my edit on June 10. i still have reserveation regarding this warning, and will talk more about it in a seperate post.

From Admin User:El_C’s words on Doug’s talk page responding to my message, my understanding is that El_C was mainly explaining the policy that since admin Doug as an involved editor would not block me, but other admins including himself will block me in case of me continuously reverting afterwards. It was stating a policy that Doug has explained, not a formal warning.

Indeed, PatCheng launched multiple cases against me since last year, so some messages on my talk page were from PatCheng, who had been blocked 6 times for vandalising, racist attacks, personal attacks, etc. From last June to this June, somehow I became PatCheng’s target and have been reported by this user three times with numerous false accusations, which created a lot of pressure for me, I feel it is a kind of personal attack or persecution with a motive to push the user’s agenda and silencing different views from reliable sources on Epoch Times and Falun Gong related page. I will address in a separate post with evidences and supporting differences. I urge ARB not to fall for Pat Cheng’s plot.

4. Claim 4: In a time span of 48 hours, continued to insert and revert a paragraph suiting his POV, including several that fail WP:RS such as a Forbes contributor site and the personal site of a conservative activist.

I addressed this topic in the ANER response as well as mentioned in the RSN response. It was provided with 6 sources, not my POV at all. I did not know that the Forbes site and another might fail RS in the beginning. Even if that is the case, the other 4 sources still support the material. As there are numerous other RS that reported similar info, one can easily verify the materials from the 4 reliable sources and other RS.

5.Claim 5 -9 were false. I did not suggest “another editor of being a Wumao (paid editor by the Chinese government). I was the one who was accused for COI, so I provided some real-life examples to show what COI would look like. I did not suggest any one was a CCP spy.

6.As to claim 10, I answered a few weeks ago.

7.As to PatCheng’s previous ARBCOM case against me, i.e. the 9 points of the previous requests. They were all clearly addressed in my replies to the user’s ANI case last year. So I did not say anything more in the user’s ARBCOM case last year and would not do that either this year.

8.As for the 6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for 3RR that was reported by STSC who was himself blocked one time in 2010 and the other time in 2017: Yes. I was blocked for 48 hours in 2015. I accepted it. However, I do think that the reverting times were not calculated carefully by the reviewing admin; otherwise he or she might find STSC was the one who violated the rule. PatCheng mentioned this 3RR case over and over again last year. Now here goes PatCheng again? How about that PatCheng was blocked 6 times? How about PatCheng's claiming the quoted content from a CBC report as OR?

9.As to the Epoch Times article's DS alert in 2016 on my talk page, I might have not noticed, but since 2016 I have not edited the Epoch Times article anyway. As to the DS alert added last year, I try to remeber the DS alert while editing related articles since then.

Above is my comments in response to Pat Cheng's accusations. I still need time for preparing the separate post mentioned as well as replying to admin JzG's opinion. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

D. Responses to admin JzG/Guy's Opinion

Background

This May the August 20 2019 NBC news report and other sources have been added to Falun Gong article's lead section. [23] ​​​​​​I have no problem to see NBC or any other source being used in these FLG related articles. The issues is that these users' edits fail WP:V, and sometimes origianl research contents were used, the sources were like a cover up, as the sources did not have such meanings. I discussed these issues in details at:my response to RSN,one discussion at flg talk page, and "The Last Paragraph of the Lead Section".

Btw, Since last June's ANI and AE cases from Pat Cheng, althogh I do not think i was wrong, i have been more disciplined myself in editing articles and in discussion on the article talk page, as shown in the article talk page discussion and article editing.

I tried to add RS to adjust the misrepresented OR content. But Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox reverted me. [24] [25] [26] ​​​​​​​[27] ​​​​​​​[28]

I did not promote my POV as JzG claimed. Let me be clear what I tried to correct in all my edits in the Falun Gong article this year:

1. The first line "Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions..." in the last paragraph of the leader section of the Falun Gong article is not supported by any sourced User Bloodofox provided. So I tried to cite multiple RS stating Falun Gong adherents formed these groups, like ET, Shen Yun, etc, but were all deleted later by bloodofox and Horse eye Jack

2. An NBC article related ET's facebook ad to Trump reelection, i have no objection that this view should be put in the article. But other views like: ET ads were for boosting its own subscriptioon on this subject from ET publisher's words in the Washionton Post report, and also from a NYT report should be cited as well. So that's what I did, which was also deleted later.

3. NBC and NYT talked about ET being invovled in right-wing politics, this should be included in the article. But these two sources did not use the word far-right nor the word extreme-right. Plus, it is the view of these two sources. We should clearly state that NBC and NYT reported so, and shoud not state as if a fact. I tried to clearly state the source info, but i was reverted.

4. The LA Mag Think Blog source's paragraphs should not be directly copied to the Bloodofox newly set first section.

I believe all these efforts were for preventing the article from POV editing. Nothing was from my own view. So, I have been following WP:RS and other rules.

I disagree with admin JzG in his characterization that both Pat Cheng and me are POV editors. While Pat is, I am not. (I will support this claim with evidence later in a separate post).

It seems that Admin JzG (who now goes by Guy) himself was involved in the FG related ET article. JzG/Guy unreasonably deleted content from an RS, The Star:"Harper helps Hu keep critics away". JzG first removed other unreliable source and the Star source in Edit 1, then removed the content from the Star.2

As it seems that after Pat Cheng had first added the NBC report to the ET article on Aug 20 2019 when it was just released, many other RS supported contents in the ET article (that were not in line with the view from Pat Cheng and the like-minded users) were censored and removed by a group of users, even admins could have been misled by the POV article. I am addressing this with a separate post. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 16:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

E. How WP:NPOV spirit was lost in Epochtimes and Falun Gong related articles – A Response to User PatCheng and other like-minded users’ POV driven editing behaviors

________________________________________

On this AE report page, after I had asked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Epoch_Times&diff=962653896&oldid=962649278 How about PatCheng's claiming the quoted content from a CBC report as OR? PatCheng responded with “FYI, what the editor did to the CBC article was using the Wayback Machine to synthesize an argument which contradicts WP:NOR, when the editor's note is clearly on the current article, so I reverted it.”

Anyone clicking the link will see that the source is the CBC's website and not the Wayback Machine. By the above words, PatCheng completely twisted the question and covered up the caught up wrongdoing. Pat Cheng’s 20+ accusations against me here are all distorting facts, and that's why I called them for they are--fake accusations.

E1.PatCheng's POV & the Edits from PatCheng & Like-minded Users

PatCheng’s viewpoint is expressed at “ET has a habit of completely twisting the words of others to suit its anti-PRC agenda”. However PatCheng failed to provide any RS to support this claim.

I find that POV accounts often blamed others who tried preventing their POV activism for their own wrongdoings. For example, in PatCheng’s accusation 1, the user labeled my edit as Soapboxing. As I have explained in my response 1, the removal of Horse Eye Jack's attacking tag cannot be called soapboxing. Here I would like to make it clear: on the contrary, it was PatCheng himself who did the soapboxing, and the promoting of his strong personal view toward ET and PRC, without giving any RS.

PatCheng soapboxed his view “ET completely twisting the words of others to suit its anti-PRC agenda” on the ET talk page, which seemed to have guided all his three fake reports against me and all his POV edits related to ET and Falun Gong articles. Some observations are shown in the following details:

1. Pat Cheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report: 13:33, 20 August 2019‎ PatCheng

2. PatCheng had also notified another user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples:[29] [30]

3. PatCheng misrepresented the source [31].

4. The previously mentioned How about PatCheng's claiming the quoted content from a CBC report as OR? This is another example showing RS material removed when not being in line with PatCheng's view.

5. Another user discussed Pat Cheng’s many very questionable edits in the ET article

ET is both Pat Cheng’s and my most edited page. Admin JzG called both Pat Cheng and me as POV warriors. JzG is right in defining Pat Cheng's editing behavior, but JzG missed one letter in defining mine, because I have respected and followed the WP:NPOV:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ...NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three."

Recently the August 20 2019 NBC news report (Pat Cheng first introduced to WP) have been used in FG related articles. for example, Bloodofox posted it to Shen Yun and to Falun Gong article [32]

I have no problem seeing NBC or any other source being used in those articles. The issue is that these users' edits fail WP:V. Sometimes original research content was used, the sources were like a cover-up, as the sources did not have such meanings. I discussed these issues, please see my response to admin JzG.

All my 7 edits this year's in the the Falun Gong article reflected this NPOV spirit. I believe that both criticizing views and praising views should be fairly and proportionally represented without bias in an article. For any sourced views not failing WP:RS and WP:Due, I would have no problem to see them being posted. But for contents failing WP:V or WP:NOR, I believe they should be corrected. POV editors Pat Cheng, Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox seem to only accept their own POV in the article.

It seems that I might be potentially fix the POV damages that these users have done on the ET and FG related article is the reason why PatCheng kept attempting to get me banned since last year. This is also why Horse Eye Jack reported me to ANER while Horse Eye Jack was the one who did the edit-warring. I urge admins in AE be cautious and responsible while exerting their privilege.

PS: The section includes 3 sub-sections. Above is the 1st sub-section. Will post the 2nd one today and the 3rd one in the following day.Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 23:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

E2. Quoting Media Reports in Response to Doug Weller's POV & Edits

PatCheng deleted Toronto Sun sources [33] which reported: “Some postal workers misread the publication as being critical of ethnic Chinese and objected to its delivery. This sort of misreading is not much different from calling criticism of Trump anti-American.“ This view is opposite to PatCheng’s view: ET being anti-PRC. Isn't it the reason the report was removed? Only allowing sources supporting their POV is directly against WP:NPOV.

PatCheng viewed ET as anti-PRC (in reality ET criticizes CCP, not the country), but PatCheng is not alone. For example, admin Doug Weller's view on FLG related topic and Chinese government is shown in: 1.“I'm finding what appear to be Falun Gong adherents pushing edits on various articles, hence this notice”, 2.“This came to my attention as there's been an upsurge of Falun Gong adherents editing articles here, possibly taking advantage of Covid-19 to push attempts as well as their own articles.”

Please note there are so many reports from numerous reliable sources that have nothing to do with FLG, but all have criticized China’s communist party’s cover-up. To name some FYI.

1. NYT: CCP Crackdowns Coronavirus Coverage, Journalists Fight-back

2. [34] 

3. [35].

4.[36]

5.[37] 

6 [38] 

Bloodofox violated WP:V, WP:NOR...For users who tried to prevent Bloodofox's damages, Doug often showed up for reverting, warning. 2 examples: 1 and 2.

After seeing Bloodofox and HorseEyeJack's disruptive edits: 3 (Not reasonable putting info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the FLG origin section), 4 (In prior discussion it was advised to make clear NYT/NBC reported ET was involved right-wing politics), Bloodofox's major change 5 (applied the lead section of the stable page under DS, with no discussion or consensus), I tried to address the issues. Right away i was reverted and warned by Doug, which partly led to PatCheng's report. Both the warning and report seem to be POV driven. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 03:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)