Marvin 2009

per communication. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Marvin 2009. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

i can announce i have no COI issue. it appears a designed insult to label me on this. Precious Stone 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

How do you explain your first edits being promotional? You said earlier you only promoted NTDTV because you didn't understand the rules yet, can you elaborate on that? Seems odd to still be promoting FG organizations more than a decade later if there isn't any conflict of interest, the effect of your very first edits and your most recent edits was the same... To promote FG organizations and deflect criticism of them. Did you know that almost 90% of your edits are FG related? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Answered at User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/June#Re: Conflict of interest Precious Stone 21:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Falun Gong, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Horse Eye Jack: I do not think i touched your comment in the falun gong talk page. please provide the difference. Precious Stone 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not my comment, Bloodofox's [1], you placed a copy of it after their other comment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also just FYI you need to reply the section above this one before doing other wikipedia activities. It would appear you have a relationship with FG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

i learnt a new comment need to be added in the end, so i made the copy of his original words to the end and then responded it. if you have better way, please let me know.

you might have heard CCP hired fifty-cent commentators in China. In fact, CCP hired westerners as well. Recently multiple professors in the US were arrested and indicted, as they worked as CCP spy. If you are interested in them, I can find some media links for you. Here is one https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/11/james-lewis-another-academic-ensnared-in-chinese-r/

I worry here anti-FLG activists who insist in using original research materials could have COI issue, but they tend to label others who prevented them from promoting their activism agenda as being COI.Precious Stone 01:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can quote them, copying their entire comment and then responding to that comment like it was the original comment is not appropriate as a casual observer would be unable to tell which comment the other person actually made. You may have noticed that my conflicts on wikipedia have been almost entirely with Chinese nationalists... Are you suggesting that I’m a 50c? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

That was what did, quoting them, copying their entire comment and then responding to that comment. I still do not understand what went wrong.

it was you who accused me for COI. i did not, but expressed my worry. Precious Stone 02:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You didn't quote them... There are no quotation marks in the text you added nor is it colored or italicized to indicate its a quote. What COI could I possible have? Less than 1% of my edits are FG related, more than 90% of your edits are FG related... Thats why you’re being asked the question, 90% of edits being in a very very specific and obscure area area that the user has no connections to is a bit odd, wouldn’t you agree? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

okay, will check how to quote somebody else’s comment. Thanks. As for my recent 4 edits on the Falun page and a lot of edits on talk page, it was due to the fact that this article was added original research by user bloodofox, i tried to fix the issue, and you prevented me from doing so. Then in the past, there were other activists as i mentioned 2 of them in the ANER comment, I tried to discuss with them, which consumed a lot of edits. For other topics i recently edited there were no such activists. Naturally the edits for discussion were much less. The infiltration of CCP To World Health Organization and the United Nations were obvious, which led the virus spread to the world. For sensitive topics, if one holds a pro CCP view and promotes the view using OR, it is reasonable to think one would announce whether there is a coi issue involved, if one feel a moral obligation. Precious Stone 10:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

But it was never OR... I don’t see anything in bloodofox’s editing history that would indicate they’re pro-CCP and as for me I’ve been accused of being anti-CCP a full dozen times now so its nice to get the diversity of being accused of being on both sides. Have you ever considered that instead of there being a grand communist conspiracy against you that you’re just wrong? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Never OR? I am shocked that your words are so dishonest. On the article talk page, detailed analysis were given to you in the past 4 days.

It was you who falsely attacked me for COI. So i would like to showcase some examples what COI looks like. Pro-CCP is one example. Btw, being accused of anti CCP? This does not mean a user is not pro-CCP. Using anti-CCP for cover-up could serve for better performing pro-CCP at key issues. You should know there were Soviet Union and CCP spies who worked for the western intelligence community for decades and were finally caught up. Aside from Pro-CCP, ideology difference could also trigger COI based activism as well. For example, one NYT article and one nbc article did say Epochtimes were involved in right-wing politics. Activists made use of this and label the newspaper as extreme-right in name of NYT and nbc, but these two sources did not say that at all. Do you think this is not OR？Precious Stone 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Keep going, I’m enjoying this conspiracy theory where those who disagree with you are really deep cover Chinese agents. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

i have noticed that activists like to label others who follow WP:PG and try to prevent them for WP:SOAP as SPA or conspiracy theorist. The fact is that i never said you are a deep cover CCP agent. In labeling and attacking others, the evidence showing Bloodofox’s and your OR contents were ignored. So is it a distraction created for cover-up the NOR violation?

Do you really dispute that you’re a WP:SPA? I don’t mean it as an insult and there is nothing inherently bad about it per say but it does accurately describe your editing history. I’m also not sure what you mean by “activists,” can you be specific? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have explained why many of my edits were consumed on the discussions with activists. You should stop labeling and attacking people. According to WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

Based on WP:SPA,

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Bloodofox’s strong personal viewpoint on FLG and related groups can be seen from many of his words, so can your viewpoint. It appears your guys' single purpose in editing FLG topic serve to advocate your viewpoints. i guess it is not good but understandable. As long as following the WP rules, i think biased users like you both can edit on this topic. The fact you kept adding OR materials (eg. the unsupported two lines, and the misrepresenting NYT and NBC for the extreme-right claim) to the articles, at the same time, you kept deleting at least 6 reliable sources including Washington Post, NBC and the Freedom House that reported different views with you two, indicates that you two's behaviors are similar to the two anti-FLG activist usernames indefinitely banned in WP:ARBFLG. This is not constructive to the Wikipedia project, but disruptive. You should stop. Precious Stone 13:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

What viewpoint do I hold on this topic? I don’t believe I’ve expressed one. Your comments have drifted over the line into WP:PA, if you don’t stop there will be a noticeboard in your future. Per WP:Aspersions you need to provide diffs which support your claims. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

i saw this one earlier, and it is a kind of viewpoint.

Its inappropriate to say that the reporter for a WP:RS is conflating the two when obviously they aren’t, the Shen Yun performance they attended was homophobic... End of story. If you would like to take this to RSN please do, otherwise drop the stick Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

you hold such a strong view without any evidence, there is no surprise to see your edits these days. each time it was you Who reverted me, after your reverting, each time I tried to discuss with you in great detail on the talk page. For those original research contents you added back, i even said if you can change them to quotes or similar meanings based on the provided sources, I would have no disagreement. my edits were not simply reverting yours, since I modified with new contents and rationales on the talk page and in the edit summary. Yet you reported me for 3rr - for my 4 edits in 3 days. You define this as 3rr, which could be the first time in Wikipedia ? Yesterday you labeled me as spa as well as a conspiracist, and asked me what i mean by ‘activist’, so i tried to provide the answer for you. There is no intention for attacking you at all. I tried to prevent original research contents. In a way it helps you guys do less disruptive work as well. You already reported me. Now you are threatening to report me again? Precious Stone 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I reported you for edit warring not 3rr and specifically said it wasn’t a 3rr violation. Please retract your false statement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

the noticeboard is for edit warring and 3rr. Users tend to think them as the same thing. Under the section Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, you wrote “Its not a bright line 3rr as its spread over three day...”. Strictly speaking, they are different. Thanks for the reminding. Okay let me say you reported me for edit warring Without warning. The 4 edits occurred in 3 days. Each time you reverted me, i tried to discuss with you in details... I still do not think i am the one who should be reported. Precious Stone 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

In general you need consensus on the talk page before you can restore your edit to the page, that takes more like a week to get not 24 hours. The page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions as its FG related and WP has historically had a lot of problems with FG followers coming onto wikipedia and being disruptive. Generally making more than one revert on a page under discretionary sanctions within 24 hours is a bad idea. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Also I didn’t call you a conspiracy theorist, I said that your idea was a conspiracy theory. Theres a difference. As for the SPA allegation the reason I make it is your edit history, your top 10 edited pages are The Epoch Times (35 edits), Falun Gong 34 edits, Li Hongzhi (31 edits), 2008 Sichuan earthquake (18 edits), Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident (15 edits), Governmental lists of cults and sects (11 edits), Adsorption refrigeration (11 edits), Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (11 edits), Zhang Jianhong (11 edits), Fazhengnian 10 edits. Seven of those ten and all top three are within the FG space. If we look at your top 10 edited talk pages *all* are within the FG space. You can look at my and the other user you accuse of being an activist’s top 10 edited pages... I don’t think you’ll find anything within the FG space. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

This section title you put above is "Refactoring other’s comments". Yesterday after seeing your advice, I already adjusted the quote on FG talk page using the block quote format (credit to your advice). So the issue has been done. For any topics, if you are interested in, you may open a new section. Thanks. Precious Stone 02:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are more than welcome to respond in the COI section given thats the concern raised by your edit history. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Falun Gong. You've had too many warnings in the past over different issues. Thus the final warning. Note that I will not block you myself as I've reverted you and am thus involved. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

replied at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#Re:_June_2020 Precious Stone 21:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Refrigeration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at [[2]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--PatCheng (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your evidence is currently at almost 4,000 words. That's not acceptable, so I've removed it and placed it here for you to work on. When you have it below 500 words and 20 diffs, you may replace it. If you disrupt the process at AE again, you will be blocked without further warning. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for moving my comments from AE to my talk page. I had no idea about the limit of 500 words and 20 diffs. This was my first responding on a AE report and I put a great effort in detailing the context. Sorry about adding the extra work for you. Now I learn this limit and will try to follow it. May I know where I can find the details of this rule? For example, are 20 diffs only for Wikipedia links? If adding external media source links, will subject to the limit of 20, or not? Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you read the AE page, in particular the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Discussion concerning Marvin 2009 where you posted, you should be able to see the text

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

in italics immediately below the heading. You may add 20 diffs, but links are very unlikely to be followed. You could move your full statement to a sub-page in your user space, something like User:Marvin 2009/AE evidence and provide a link to it in your statement at AE, but I doubt that anybody will read through 4,000+ words and follow dozens of links. You should rely on what you write in your statement at AE to defend yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks RexxS for the detailed instruction. I have set up a sub-page and move the statement to there. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

JzG (talk · contribs) I responded to your opinion at User talk:Marvin 2009/AEresponse#D. Responses to admin JzG/Guy's Opinion. Could you please take a look at it and let me know how you think about it? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 04:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Marvin 2009, it reads as "BUT I AM RIGHT!" You have consistently missed the point that this is about way you prsue your agenda, not the objective merits of your agenda versus anyone else's. Guy (help!) 10:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

admin @JzG:, i do not think addressing the issue POV editing by following WP:NPOV is called agenda. as you are pretty much WP:INVOLVED, it seems that you cannot clearly see this. would you consider recusing yourself on this case? Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 10:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Marvin 2009, as you are an involved party, you are no judge of whether an admin is WP:INVOLVED, or not; that is a decision for uninvolved admins. Also it is inappropriate to cast aspersions on an admin who has commented in good faith at an AE request. I cannot see any evidence of JzG being involved with you and he has a single edit to Falun Gong. That's about as uninvolved as it gets. I should warn you that your attempts to remove an uninvolved admin who has suggested sanctions against you does nothing improve your defence. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @RexxS: for the discussion. Could you please comment my reply to User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse#D._Responses_to_admin_JzG/Guy's_Opinion a few days ago, where i provided one edit JzG did on the ET, which is a FLG related media group. it was never answered. i did not mean cast any aspersion toward admin JzG. it was a honest question. okay, thanks for letting me know as an involved party i should not judge whether an admin is involved or not. i was not aware of that. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 15:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Marvin 2009, I am a regular at WP:RSN, unreliable sources is what we do. ET is one of these unreliable sources. Its ownership is a separate issue - as ET themselves insist. The edits had nothing to do with FG. See the edit summary: this needs independent sources about Epoch Times' coverage of the issue. Self-sourced coverage and a para about the issue but not referencing Epoch Times is WP:UNDUE and bordering on WP:SYN. Also removing self-sourced content because ET is not reliable for claims of fact. All completely uncontroversial Wikipedia sourcing management. Guy (help!) 00:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JzG:your message above is misleading as I did not question your removing the ET source at all. I had made myself clear what I asked about was the Star source and content you removed in your two edits. My question is quoted here

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

Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JzG: In your edit of the FG related article ET, while deleting ET sources, you also deleted multiple WP:RS sources that were all speaking against the China‘s Communist Party:

1. info Kilgour–Matas report on organ-harvesting: "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and "we believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners". - http://organharvestinvestigation.net

2. a sentence sourced from Information Daily: "In 2008, two United Nations Special Rapporteurs reiterated their requests for "the Chinese government to fully explain the allegation of taking vital organs from Falun Gong practitioners and the source of organs for the sudden increase in organ transplants that has been going on in China since the year 2000". - https://web.archive.org/web/20150512183828/http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2008/05/09/united-nations-human-rights-special-rapporteurs-reiterate-findings-on-chinas-organ-harvesting-from-falun-gong-practitioners

3. a sentence sourced from the U.S congress: "The Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives has adopted resolutions condemning alleged organ harvesting from Falun Gong prisoners of conscience." - https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/343/text

4. “During Hu Jintao's visit to Canada in June 2010, the Toronto Star noted that The Epoch Times had published several "hard-hitting" critical stories on Hu's visit, such as allegations of the local Chinese embassy's orchestration of welcome parades, as well as an alleged recording of a speech by the first secretary of education Liu Shaohua, in which Liu stated that embassy would provide accommodation and transport for over 3,000 participants in the welcome parade.” — https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/827903--harper-helps-hu-keep-critics-away

May i understand why these well sourced contents that were all critical of china’s communist party should be removed? Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 04:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to re-examine you your claim that its well sourced... The Star is the only good source I see there, some of the others might be useful for about self but the idea that Daily Information is a reliable source in this context is beyond silly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate admin @Seraphimblade: spent time making inquiries about my edits. In addition to my statement - the E2 part on the AE page, I have collected other parts (A to E1) of my statements at User talk:Marvin 2009/AEresponse. When you have time, i hope you can review them. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 23:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your appeal of this sanction at ARCA has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply