Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [2].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Newyorkbrad advised me to post this information on the Evidence page: I will not have unrestricted, steady, full access to computers/internet between late March and mid June, maybe up to July. I do not know what kind of access I will have. I think at different times it will vary. I will be travelling during this time. I just wanted to tell the arbitrators and other editors ahead of time. This may not be the best place for this note.-- Asdfg 12345 10:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Update: It will be in less than 7 days from now, 17th of March, that I leave.-- Asdfg 12345 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

As I initiated the case against Samuel Luo, I'll first try to demonstrate his inappropriate behaviour. I'm willing to look into other editors' possible violations as well, and I may provide more evidence in the near future. Like I said in my arbitration request, my intention is simply to put forth some egregious examples from each month instead of fully covering Samuel's notorious edit history, thus saving the ArbCom's time. It goes without saying that Samuel has frequently engaged in revert wars, but their bones of contention are not always apparent at first sight.

February 2007

• [3] -- Blanks paragraph from a peer-reviewed journal.
• [4] -- Weasel words to a peer-reviewed reference in the text.
• [5] -- Blanks whole section with a false remark, even though the material was from "The United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong".
• [6] -- Pictures (e.g. from Amnesty) deleted; fallacious edit summary.
• [7]-- "adding eyewitness account", whereas the edit consisted mainly of blanking large sections of sourced, relevant content.
• [8] -- Deletes a few key sentences directly from the source.
• [9] -- Blanks a section. The widely publicized Kilgour-Matas organ harvesting report "...does not qualify to have a subsection."
• [10] -- Removes an entire section taken from peer-reviewed journals. Replaced with similar content from the opposite side. The edit summary doesn't mention blanking.
• [11] -- Replaces a neutral introduction with a reduced and uninformative one.
• [12] -- Major blanking, fallacious edit summaries.
• [13] -- Major blanking, "redundancy."
• [14] -- Blanks several well-sourced paragraphs, fallacious summary.
• [15] -- After Samuel has aggressively forced this series of edits, I put a "noncomply" template on the top and "unbalanced" templates on every section. The unbalanced tags were all removed with dubious excuses.
• [16] -- Makes use of a personal website, all in Chinese.

January 2007

• [17] -- Major blanking of sourced content, adding unsourced claims and OR. One example: "But by July, 1998, Li felt the need for state support. He wanted state approval for his campaign to silence critics; he wanted encouragement for his obedient followers, who were intimidating critics through the use of public—and illegal—protests".
• [18], [19], [20], [21] -- Part of a revert war. Samuel is using terms such as "leader" to describe Li Hongzhi, as well as introducing plenty of poorly sourced statements or definitions.
• [22], [23] -- Adding disputed material + his personal website to external links.

December 2006

• [24] -- Blanks sourced material from New Zealand Listener etc., as "unrelated."
• [25] -- Deletes paragraph from American Asian Review as "ridiculous claim."

November 2006

• [26] -- Blanks sourced quotes, no willingness to discuss. See comment.
• [27] -- Similar: "redundancy".
• [28] -- Controversial text, no backup from sources. Material from a private Chinese website. Removing quotes from Embassy Magazine and other sources.
• [29] -- Reverts the deletion of Samuel's personal website against the advice of User:Blnguyen.
• [30] -- Changes a neutral description of a picture, pushing an unsourced POV.

October 2006

• [31] -- Blanks content from peer-reviewed journals. Inserts material from sources in Chinese. Removes major sections of sourced content.
• [32] -- See edit summary. However, the edit consists of blanking well-sourced material and introducing own translations of Chinese content, stuff from private websites, etc. No discussion.

September 2006

• [33] -- Blanks sourced content, infuses the text with weasel words. E.g. "None of these protests was more shocking, revealing, controversial, or tragic..." Repeated removals of these words, Samuel always puts them back.
• [34] -- Reverts a mediator's edit, asking him to "try it without the POV". See edit summary.
• [35] -- Source does not back up the claims.

August 2006

• [36] -- Blank well-sourced sections, quotes from an ethnographic study, and an anthropological journal.
• [37] -- Simple blanking of sourced section, no edit summary, no discussion.
• [38] -- Unencyclopedic and weasely section head: "Saintly Master Li". Also, the words "Followers conceal information about him..." do not appear in the cited source.
• [39] -- "Falun Gong practitioners worship...", unsourced, OR. Quote was disputed and removed but repeatedly added.
• [40] -- These two sections have been the subject of dispute for a long time. The most serious disputes are caused by weasel words, original research, inferences, sarcasm, inaccuracy in reporting the sources, etc. Some material directly from Samuel's personal website, e.g. "Claiming that he is the only one who knows the true cause of sickness, master Li has characterized modern medical science as shallow and said that..." Samuel has rejected attempts to rewrite the material. No discussion.
• [41] -- WP:OR w/ WP:Weasel. Much of this content seems has been copied and pasted from Samuel's personal website. Revert war.

July 2006

• [42] -- Blanks sourced content from the Embassy magazine.
• [43] -- Deletes relevant pictures.
• [44] -- Repeated blanking of quotes from Newswire, Calgary Herald, etc. - "redundancy".
• [45] -- Large amount of sourced information blanked; weasel words all over; unsourced, OR, and strongly POV material. See"The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership"
• [46] -- Reverts again the "Cruelty of Falun Gong leadership", OR and weasel words.

June 2006

• [47] -- Sourced material -> "redundant".
• [48] -- Removes word "alleged".
• [49], [50] -- Deletes sourced info from NYT.
• [51], [52] -- Repeated section blanking, no discussion.

May 2006

• [53], [54] -- Repeated deletion of material from NYT
• [55] -- A neutral description was changed to "Falun Gong practitioners set themselves on fire in a suicide attempt..."
• [56] -- rv disputed section, ignore third-party User:Ed Poor's request for revision
• [57] -- Willingness to revert war: "we can keep doing this until someone stop us"

April 2006

• [58] -- Repeated deletion of sourced content that responds to a claim pasted from a private website
• [59] -- Deleting a whole section containing material from various reputable media.
• [60], [61] -- Repeated deletion a short caption of a video that was commented upon by International Education Department of United Nations.
• [62] -- Blanks sourced content from WT etc.
• [63] -- Deleting a relevant paragraph to make another claim seem unambiguous
• [64], [65] -- Pushing a POV: Falun Gong quickly grew to be the "largest cult in China"
• [66] -- "The Falun Gong accusation is a lie." tacked into the end of a paragraph
• [67] -- Direct vandalism: altered the quoted phone call from a cited source.

WP:Civility clearly breached

As a political belief group (I won't label them a cult because that is disputed currently, but there is no doubt that its mission, as stated by the Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi, is to undermine the Chinese government and is thus political [68]) the pro-FGers have engaged in less than civil behavior, hurling accusations aplenty since they suddenly "discovered" Wikipedian rules, despite many of those editors having been on Wikipedia for over 12 months and have thus little excuse not to have their previous behavior examined as well. Their excuse of "we all need time to learn the Wikipedia rules" makes one suspect why it has taken them so long, and why they haven't been disciplined for their editing behavior beforehand, yet they feel it justified that anti-FGers should be strictly disciplined.

The anti-FG camp has not been guilt-free either, equally strongly imposing their POV version. Their discussion willingness has been limited, especially when accepting compromised versions. Users like Samuel have been banned for previous un-Wikipedian conduct, but whether he should suddenly be banned further for conduct that can only constitute "editing and discussion simultaneously" instead of discussion BEFORE editing would indicate a change of behavior be required.

However, the wider picture is that both groups are seeking to get the other banned for a long time now. See User:CovenantD [69] who reacted strongly and accused admins of bias when the admins found that Samuel and Tomananda were different people, and was banned for 24 hours by Essjay. Thus Olaf's current case is simply a repeat of the past.

In the spirit of tolerance and understanding, both sides need to be more prepared to apologize (sincerely) more. I've noted a sudden increase in the past week or two by the pro-FG camp, which makes me wonder whether they're just trying to look good for this ArbCom case. WP:NOT a battleground needs to be reinforced by arbitrators via a motion.

Widespread personal attacks (WP:NPA failure)

The current mediator Armedblowfish may disagree with me on this assertion, since bona fide (good faith) edits must be assumed, so nobody should be accused of Wikipedia policy breach. However, past conduct by all have ranged from the moderate content edits to outrageous personal attacks, e.g. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (see users Samuel Luo and Tomananda's entire talk page / user page history) at anti-FGers every few weeks for the past few years, and link-changing on pro-FG user pages (e.g. Asdfg12345's) once a few weeks ago [75]. This shows both sides have engaged in suspect behavior, but clearly in bias against one side over the other. Olaf has claimed a conspiracy theory where Chinese Government members are setting up a negative propaganda campaign, but this claim is far-fetched to the extreme and seems to be the only reason justifying the current pro-FG one. [76] (I have replied accordingly on his talk page). Unregistered (or IP-only) users have the advantage of not being detected, but have been abused to further their cause, hoping that harassment can intimidate users into not contributing further for their version of MPOV/NPOV edits. The ArbCom ought to make a ruling that such behavior is not acceptable and constitutes WP:Vandalism.

There is a regular user from a South Korean (from Seoul to be exact) IP address whose only mission is to vandalize pages belonging to users he thinks are critical of Falun Gong. The most recent attack was by this user: [77]. Others include IP addresses starting with 211.50.65.1xx (including examples listed above) and now 210.207.18.84 (Apr 4 2007). Naturally, I only obtained these IP addresses because the editor concerned here never registers. And just a side note - South Korea does contain a noticeable number of FG practitioners, but these attacks are all from the same city.

Claims passed off as facts (WP:NPOV failure)

Past editing behavior would also indicate that good faith can no longer be assumed, as there is a wider, concerted campaign to ensure a POV or MPOV rather than a NPOV version is placed for all Falun Gong-related articles. An example of an occasional pro-Falun Gong user who engages in POV edits (or at least blurring the line between claim and fact) is User:Playing Fair, see [78]. Users like Olaf_Stephanos may also be biased to the extent it is impossible for a NPOV version - he tried to label the Chinese government as a 'cult' and tried to justify it as a fact, but not the Falun Gong! [79] To quote a phrase from that edit: "But adding CCP to the list is not a value judgement in itself". There are facts, disputed facts, and outright falsehoods. Unfortunately this example qualifies as the latter.

ArbCom should pass a ruling regarding editors' behavior specific to Falun Gong-related pages (esp. WP:COI; WP:A)

Investigation into editing behavior by ALL editors must be made and hopefully proportionally. Please also have a look at the 8 rules I proposed regarding editor behavior, NOT content, on the entry's discussion page [80]. They were approved by all until Olaf came along, yet he feels justified that he can impose his rules on others even though his will not prevent edit wars. ArbCom ought to seriously consider something similar to it, to limit editors' behavior, rather than content, because the former should prevent edit wars, whereas the latter will not.

• Is banning all the relevant users actually helpful? The root of the problem here is different POVs, and not just simple 'vandalism' that can be corrected by immediate punishment. Therefore, I think it most useful for ArbCom to provide guidelines regarding editing behavior as a very minimum. Sanctions against specific editors can follow if deemed necessary and appropriate. However, it's the long-term edit-wars that need to be tackled here. I personally fear that if sanctions are slapped on both sides that neither will reform and will simply harden their opinions. Please consider this point seriously.

There is also a technical violation of WP:COI by both pro-FG and anti-FG camps. The ArbCom must rule on what how to go about this, including the relation to various sources, according to the new WP:Attribution policy. Jsw663 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

AOB (Miscellaneous)

• Please don't forget that some editors will try to use strict Wikipedia policy enforcement as a justification for their POV edits, including Olaf who tried to get his "15 rules" passed (see Falun Gong 's discussion page for details [81]) but failed because I challenged him on several points because they will NOT help edit wars. I suspect this ArbCom case is in partial reprisal to that as he tries to use ArbCom's authority to justify his rules. I am sure the ArbCom will pass rules to limit editor behavior at the conclusion of this case.
• Furthermore, HappyInGeneral fails to support Olaf's proposals with specific Wiki policies (or that they add anything to existing policies). It is important to note that this user has assumed that every FG doubter is part of some Chinese government conspiracy, thus justifying their extreme views on the matter. [82] (archived). This only reinforces the need for guidance by ArbCom regarding editing behavior.
• Please regard my 'evidence' here as an 'addendum' to both the pro- and anti-FG evidence that follows this. The supreme challenge in such a case for Arbitrators is whether they can actually stay neutral despite accusations of bias by both sides, and to ensure one's own (political) beliefs (e.g. whatever one may think about the Chinese government or political belief groups) are as far removed as possible when determining the conduct.

Conclusion

I support a strict enforcement of Wikipedia rules, but am also strictly against the ABUSE of rules. I fear the pro-Falun Gong camp are exploiting the weaknesses of Wikipedia and doing the latter. However, the anti-Falun Gong camp have indeed had a slight record of breaching Wikipedia rules before, e.g. Samuel's blocks total 3, assuming you do not count the repealed blocks (like it should be). Therefore I suggest a mixture of toughness with lenience like I said before. In the end we should all strive for the same goal - a constructive Wikipedia environment and article. That can only be achieved if ArbCom doesn't have to be constantly bothered by this topic again, and show a constructive way forward. Jsw663 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Counter-rebuttal to Covenant D's rebuttal, by Jsw663

I apologize for any misunderstanding, but you can see how one can get the wrong impression by simply reading your talk page, Covenant D. Your block log shows a history of not fully knowing what constitutes WP:3RR, and a record of previous violations [83] does not do you credit. I have replied and apologized accordingly on Covenant D's talk page [84]. His refusal to accept my apology makes me wonder about his neutrality and good faith though; we are all liable to make innocent mistakes (as long as they are not done repeatedly and systematically). After all, the block was approved by two admins (Mackensen as well as Essjay), not one. I shall delete the above sentence (which I have now just struck out) if CovenantD drop the rebuttal section below. If you want to leave your rebuttal in, then I'll just leave in my struck-out sentence so Arbitrators are under no illusion as to which section is under scrutiny.

PS Covenant D has also been blocked once again for violating WP:3RR on March 11, 2007. [85] Jsw663 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The evidence page probably isn't the place for this but I feel compelled to respond very directly to the severe misrepresentations that Jsw663 has presented about me.

During my time on the Falun Gong articles I was attempting to serve as a neutral mediator. My first comment on the talk page was to disagree with a FG editor. [86] After several months playing the roll (which can be seen in Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive7 through Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 13) I became so well respected for my neutrality that I was unanimously approved as "official" mediator by editors involved in discussions. [87] A quick perusal of the block I recieved from the now-infamous Essjay will clearly show that it was for comments I made prior to any finding about Tomananda and Samuel. In fact, there was no finding by CheckUser because it was declined for those very comments. I left the Falun Gong pages because I felt that I could no longer be neutral as a result of that block.

It should also be noted that Jsw663 was not active on the talk pages during the same time frame I was - he has no first hand knowledge of my efforts to mediate and stay neutral. I can only wonder at the reasons for so badly distorting my record. CovenantD 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Asdfg continued blanking (on a different page) after being declared a POV warrior

After declaring that he didn’t intend to be a POV edit warrior to Fire Star on February 6, 2007 on the Falun Gong Talk Page, [88], [89] Asdfg went to the Epoch Times page and...

• 1:49 7 February ... Asdfg blanked material based on direct quotes from Li: [90]

Back and forth edits were done by both “sides”, including Tomananda. Within that context, Asdfg continued blanking:

• 1:27 8 February [91]
• 19:16 9 February [92]
• 1:08 10 February [93]

Asdfg then had a change of heart:

• 11:57 11 February with the edit summary “Undo own edit. I recant. You win.”

Conclusions:

• Asdfg continued blanking material he considered “fallacious” after he “solemnly sweared” to abstain from this behavior.
• Asdfg had a change of heart on February 11th, when he issued his “I recant” statement.
• At this time, Asdfg, working with other practitioners, prepared an arbitration case against Samuel.
• Among the major obstacles between the two sides of the Falun Gong edit wars is whether Wikipedia should report Li’s teachings “at the higher levels” which include the idea that his disciples, as a condition for their salvation during this period of Fa-rectification, must work to destroy the CCP.

Asdfg and other FG practitioners typically "team up" to systematically remove material

• 29 December Asdfg: [94] blanked Dafa quote on the Epoch Times page
• 28 December Happy in General: [95]
• 27 December by an anonymous editor [96]
• 19 December by McConn [97]
• 18 December by McConn: [98]
• 15 December Li’s Epoch Times quote deleted by an anonymous editor [99]
• 30 November Deletion of Li quote by McConn [100]
• 30 November Deletion by Fnhddzs [101]

Different Li quotes were used here and elsewhere to convey his teachings on Fa-rectification and his expectations for disciples during this period in which all beings in the cosmos are judged by his great law (Practioners should destroy the CCP by spreading the Nine Commentaries and other means). [102], [103], [104] Yet no matter what quote is used, it is always deleted with spurious reasoning. Practitioners blank this material because they think it makes them look bad. (One practitioner actually said that, referring to Li's own teachings. [105])

Dilip Rajeev, with help from Fnhddz, blanked material on the Teachings page

The blanked material reported Li’s teachings on the influence of Demons and on the Fa-rectification. Dilip, like Asdfg, used multiple pages for the same material, but continued blanking in a sneaky way.

• 21 May 2006: Fnhddz blanked multiple paragraphs reporting Li’s teachings on Demons and Fa-rectification, saying “Here is what enlightenment is about. It is not consummation and Fa-rectification OK?” [106]

• 2 June 2006 Dilip Rajeev deleted Li quote about “the true Fa (law) that has never been taught.” [107]

• 2 June 2006 Dilip deletes quote again: [108]

• 7 June 2006 Dilip blanks section on Demons: [109]

• 7 June 2006 Dilip adds the current Demons section to the Theoretical & epistemological studies page: [110]

• 8 June Dilip deletes Demons sections again, saying “it exists in the Epistemological studies page.” [111]

• 10 June Dilip deletes the entire original edit on Demons which began: “ Falun Gong teaches that among the beings in the universe there exist demons” and replaces it with multiple paragraphs of direct quotes from Li, thereby obscuring what was reportred in the original section on Demons which had been written collaboratively by a number of editors, not all of whom were anti-FG. [112]

Blanking multiple sub-sections summarizing Criticism and Controversies

• 19 December 2006: Omido blanks multiple sections [113]
• 20December: and again [114]
• 24 December 2006 Omido says “They HAVE to go.” At the same time he deletes a sourced report of Li’s early supernatural powers and a statement beginning “Li claims to provide salvation for mankind…” [115]

Misrepresenting the history in China Re: Criticism & controversies of the FG

• 20 December 2006 Omido changes an accurate sentence about the history of criticism in China to an inaccurate sentence. (see line 60) [116]

Original sentence: "Criticism and controversy about the Falun Gong began a few years after its introduction in China in 1992 and continues to this day."

New sentence: "Criticism and controversy about Falun Gong began after 1999, when the persecution by the CCP began."

The inaccurate sentence was inserted multiple times by FG practitioners over a period of months to give the appearance that the FG was not criticized before the ban, even though the Criticism page documents much criticism before the ban. [117] Although this may seem a minor infraction, it goes to the heart of the editing problem: Falun Gong practitioners will resort to outright lying in order to present a falsely benign image of their Master and his teachings.

Obscuring Li’s teachings on homosexuality

Li quotes which some consider homophobic [118] are often deleted. Asdfg gives one example below where I restored previously agreed upon material which was later blanked by Olaf. I did this to preserve the full meaning, while Asdfg claims it demonstrates I resisted changes on the Criticism page. Practitioners are sensitive about their Master’s teachings on homosexuality, often obscuring the full level of Li’s condemnation of homosexual behavior, which he does not consider human. Here's the contested edit: [119] and the source material: [120]

I created a stub on 17 May, 2006 [121] for practitioners to provide more material about their Master’s teachings and on 27 May 2006 I responded to a request from practitioner McConn to add more context for the Switzerland speech with this edit: [122] Virtually nothing was added to the stub and as shown above Olaf subsequently blanked some of the previously agreed upon material for the Switzerland speech.

Response to Asdfg's latest allegations

Asdfg was not editing when the homosexuality edit was debated at length. See discussion at: [123] On 26 May 2006 Mcconn said of the edit "Looks good to me. Does anyone oppose it?" At that time, no one objected. Months later Olaf, who had been absent, came back and began blanking. His new edits were discussed here: [124]-- Tomananda 07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Response to Happy in General

Let me get this straight: you accuse me of "tendentious editing" for reporting Li's own words about what beings are worthy of being saved and which will be "weeded out" during his Fa-rectification, while simultaneously asking an administrator to delete critical content on the frozen Li Hongzhi page? [125] You just had that administrator delete critical material concerning the significance of Li's awards and honors. Here's the original edit:

He is the recipient of numerous awards from state and congressional bodies in the U.S and Canada, and has twice been a Nobel Prize nominee. ^[1], ^[2] However, the significance of these awards has been the subject of debate given the fact that they are considered easy to obtain and many politicians are unaware of Li's teachings when they are asked to sign a proclamation or endorse him for an award. [126]

As reported by a US newspaper in 2001, out of four US representatives in Northern California who signed a letter to the Nobel Prize Committee praising Master Li, three were not aware of his teachings on homosexuality. One of those three—US Representative Anna Eshoo—is quoted as saying: Obviously I wouldn't recommend to the Nobel Institute someone who's anti-gay, because that's a human right. She subsequently rescinded her nomination, writing to the Nobel Institute that while practitioners deserve freedom of speech, belief and assembly, Mr. Li has made statements that are offensive to me and are counter to many of my core beliefs. [127]

By arguing that critical material (including quotes from Li) cannot be inserted into these articles because they represent "tendentious" editing, while at the same time defending the unqualified reporting of lauditory reports of Li's awards and honors, you are assuming a double standard. Now that you have managed to get that second sentence deleted, I would like to ask the Aribtrators whether they think the deletion of that material--which is well sourced and notable--is in keeping with Wikipedia standards for a controversial subject. -- Tomananda 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

New Evidence: Wholesale Blanking of Li's Statements continues on Epoch Times page

An anonymous pro-Falun Gong editor did a series of blanking edits on 13 April 2007 on the Epoch Times page. Note especially that his/her first edit [128],removed a well-sourced quote from Li Hongzhi concerning his view of why the Epoch Times was founded:

As stated by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa." [129]

As members of the arbitration committee deliberate on this case, I ask that you consider the overall pattern of editing behavior by pro-Falun Gong editors. Although your reluctance to get involved in matters of content is understandable, I ask that you consider that there is a pattern of inappropriate blanking on these pages which cannot be justified as merely “removing POV editing.” Does not the continued systematic removal of well-sourced statements from the founder of Falun Gong itself represent “POV editing”? If we cannot clearly report what Li Hongzhi himself says about the higher teachings and purposes of the Falun Gong how can these articles possibly offer a complete picture on this subject?

Falun-Gong-Practitioner-Editors’ exploitation of the Wikipedia and their use of anonymous IP addresses in personal attacks

Editors on Falun Gong related pages can be categorized to three groups: Fgers (Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors), Critics (critics of Falun Gong) and neutral editors. Fgers are here to portray their group as a benign meditative practice that promotes truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. Critics are here to reveal the Falun Gong’s religious nature. Fgers have routinely blanked material that reveals the group’s core beliefs while flooding the pages with their POV pushing material. Critics have routinely introduced material sourced to the Falun Gong’s own websites and at times shortened Fgers’ POV. As my evidence will show, Fgers are not here to contribute positively but to turn these pages into propaganda tools.

Before presenting my evidence I need to first make this point: the Falun Gong is a well funded and well organized religious/political group and Fgers on Wiki have been working in a concerted fashion. Some Fgers ( Dilip rajeev, Omido, and Fnhddzs) who were repeatedly warned and blocked for their violation of Wiki rules disappeared (or become much less active), but new users sharing similar edit styles have taken up their places. I believe Fgers are employing sockpuppets in order to continue their aggressive edits while appearing clean. I do not have evidence to back up my accusation, but I definitely have evidence to show that Fgers have routinely used anonymous IP addresses for blanking and personal attacks. Because of this suspected use of sockpuppets and the use of anonymous IP addresses, it is not possible for me to point to a specific Fger in this complaint. Therefore, I am directing this complaint to all Fgers as a group.

Evidence

Edit wars on Falun Gong pages go way back and there is a wealth of evidence showing Fgers’ blanking of sourced material. My evidence comes from most recent edit wars.

The Li Hongzhi page has been repeatedly blocked for conflicts over the “ Li's claims of divinity” and “ Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi” sections. Material in “Li's claims of divinity” is sourced to Falun Gong’s own websites; material in the interview section comes from western main stream media. There can be no justification for their removal. However, Fgers have repeatedly removed these two sections in their entirety. [130] [131] The following Fgers have repeatedly removed the interview section: Asdfg12345 [132], Olaf Stephanos [133], Mcconn [134], HappyInGeneral [135], Omido [136].

Fgers have also provoked edit wars on the Teachings of Falun Gong page by repeatedly blanking the “Depravity of today’s people” and “Sickness Karma” sections which are sourced to Falun Gong’s own websites. The following FGers have engaged in this blanking: Asdfg12345 [137], Mcconn [138], Dilip rajeev [139]. Fgers have also used anonymous IP addresses: 72.139.33.198 [140], 220.226.26.4 [141], 207.46.50.75 [142], 220.226.6.239 [143].

Why would Fgers blank material sourced to their group’s own websites and Western media? The answer that makes sense is this: such information clearly shows the religious nature of the Falun Gong which contradicts the public image the Falun Gong seeks. My assertion can be backed by edit conflicts over the introduction on Falun Gong page. The battle over these three paragraphs has been the most problematic. Began in March, 2006 it has continued to this day; please see the most recent discussion here. The remaining dispute, the issue that concerns Fgers the most is whether Falun Gong teaching should be labeled as “spiritual” [144] or “religious.” [145] Fgers prefer “spiritual” and they have shown willingness to battle over it.

Anyone who reads Li’s claims of providing salvation to humankind and the Falun Gong’s damnation of non-Falun-Gong-people will see that "religious" is a more appropriate qualifier. The Falun Gong has been called a cult by prominent American cult experts. [146]

In addition to removing sourced material Fgers have also used the method of inserting excessive material to push their POV, the recent edit conflict on the Suppression of Falun Gong page provides a good example. In a week, Fgers turned the page from this to that without any discussion. In response, I rewrote most parts of the article. [147]

Unlike Fgers, I explained my changes on the talk page [148] and initiated a dialogue. [149] As you can see I do not object to the inclusion of some of the material I removed, but I believe it should be shortened and placed at a more appropriate location. My purpose in reducing and removing material is to improve the quality of the article.

To my disappointment Fgers responded by filing this complain. It is both hypocritical and ridiculous that while they themselves have routinely blanked sourced material on multiple pages, they feel justified in pointing their fingers at me.

When FGers don’t get their way they turn into angry abusers. A number of editors, including neutral editors, have been attacked. As the most active Critic, I have been given the utmost attention. The following is a long list of nasty insults Fgers have left on my talk page by using anonymous IP addresses: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Suggestion

Fgers and some Critics have engaged in repeated revert wars. What makes Fgers different from Critics in their removal of material is their agenda to turn these articles into propaganda tools for the Falun Gong. Such an approach is an exploitation of the Wikipedia community. So far, some Fgers have only been punished for violating the 3RR rule, I believe they should now be penalized for their use of anonymous IP addresses in edit wars and personal attacks. However, I am pessimistic about the effect of punishments such as block. Fgers have multiple IP addreses on their disposal; they can always come back under a different user name.

I can explain much of the material Fgers compiled against me, but I am not sure you want to read all that. Whatever mistakes I made I have already been punished for. My recent edits do not violate Wiki rules.

I am not sure what can be done to end the edit conflicts on these pages. Fortunately we now have an official mediator working with us and he is going to make a difference.

The history of edit conflicts with Tomananda on this subject have revolved around his introduction of material that –- while usually corresponding to the cited source -– is generally highly skewed. It reflects his stated, personal interpretation or understanding, is often placed prominently and aggressively, and its intent is obvious (as backed up by notes on the talk pages, and even in this ArbCom request). The general pattern has been that myself or another editor removes this material, posts on the talk page, and a lengthy discussion ensues. The material is sometimes simultaneously reverted back and forth. The last part of the conflict is a moot point at this stage; in the course of my first, careful reading of Wikipedia policies I discovered that revert wars are wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia, and also that there are channels of Wikijustice for dispute resolution. I was not fully aware of the explicit prohibition of edit warring until I read WP:3RR. Around early February I made a series of statements about tightening up my editing, trying not to revert, attempting to be more congenial and tolerant on the talk pages etc., [150] [151] and I have tried to stick by that. Notably, Tomananda seems to refuse removing the latest subject of contention on the Epoch Times page while we are engaged in discussing it. The ArbCom request was several weeks after this, quite unrelated to it, and a result of Samuel's continued and unrepentant blanking.

This would otherwise basically be a content dispute except for Tomananda’s repeated and aggressive insertions of this material, his continuous accusations – often including in response to alternative proposals – that I am trying to conceal the teachings of Falun Gong, that Falun Gong is a "cult" dedicated to concealing its "high level" teachings with all practitioners brainwashed by Li Hongzhi, and his pulling quotes out of their larger context to invoke the readers' stereotypes. Out of thousands of pages of written material he chooses what he considers the most representative and uses it to define what Falun Gong is “really” about. He also seeks to force these definitions into the introductions, even though WP:Lead section states that "Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article." I am not against the inclusion of any material, as long as it's NOR, verifiable, well-contextualized, and doesn't purposefully omit any significant elements of the corpus of lectures at large. However, I oppose any POV definitions and generalizations that are not backed up by secondary sources.

All this has been the subject of edit wars in the past. Incidentally, I think some lines are being crossed here with all the personal accusations and whatnot.

I will now give some representative examples of Tomananda's editing behaviour and attitude. In my opinion, they have been the root of a lot of problems across these pages:

Talk Page comments; conspiracy

A conspiracy theory to cover up the teachings of Falun Gong “at higher levels” is Tomananda’s standard response when his extreme editing style is resisted, and is repeatedly used in the discussions. Tomananda has stated that he is on wiki to "expose the dark side" of Falun Gong, [152] reveal the "concealed" aspects of the teachings,^{[numerous, see below]} expose Li Hongzhi's (founder of Falun Dafa) political ambitions, [153] etc. The following is a small sample:

• [154], [155]

• [156] –- “Your continued efforts to conceal or obscure Master Li's core teachings are not in keeping with what your role should be as an editor.”

• [157] -- "There is no justification for your changing this language, thereby obscuring the Master's basic teachings re: homosexuality."

• [158] -- "...Falun Gong practitioners conceal or distort the master's teachings all the time."

• [159] -- "The truth is that you don't Li's teachings "at the higher levels" to be simply and clearly reported in Wikipedia."

• [160] -- "As long as Falun Gong practitioners continue to lie about their beliefs, presenting a false view of their practice to Westerners in order to gain sympathy and support in Master Li's campaign to destroy the CCP, I will speak out." and later "...I cannot forgive the deceptive practices which Li has managed to so well ingrain in his disciples that I suspect you don't even realize when you are being deceptive."

• [161] -- "Asdfg and Happy in General: Please stop this game of deceit."

• [162] -- "I can't help but say, once again, that you are trying to conceal the teachings at a higher level." ... "It's clear to me that you are trying to obscure this information by having embedded links."

• [163] -- "Once again you are attempting to obscure the teachings at a higher level."

• [164] -- "The sad reality is that practitioners routinely deceive the public about their beliefs "at the higher levels" because their master demands it. Deception is a common characterstic of a cult."

• [165] -- "It's because Master Li has indoctrinated his disciples to engage in deception when talking about the Falun Gong to outsiders."

• [166] -- "Falun Gong practitioners are liers because Li tells them to lie...or rather, not to speak about the teachings "at the higher levels" when talking to ordinary people. I don't blame you guys for this deceipt, but I do blame Master Li for manipulating you and destroying your ability to think clearly." later "Keep in mind that I see you and the other practioners as victims of Master Li, who uses you to work towards the destruction of the CCP. The failure to honestly admit that the destruction of the CCP is the principle goal of the Falun Gong is part of the big lie."

• [167] -- "As long as Falun Gong editors work to conceal their own Master's teachings, how can we believe all the outrageous claims about "genocide" and "crimes against humanity"?"

• [168] -- "As you know, I have repeatedly accused Falun Gong practitioners of being dishonest about their core teachings and their Master's objectives."

Tendentious editing behaviour

• [169], [170], [171], [172] -- The two sections in question here "Sickness Karma" and "Depravity of Today's people" draw heavily from Samuel's personal website. Parts of these are straight from his website. There is nothing of a balanced, neutral tone in these sections. It is hard to know where to begin with this. Please check the diff and (in the first one) scan from "Falun Dafa" downwards. The rest did not contain this section, but were still continually put back and for a long while there was no response to discussion on Talk Page. These are just a sample. There are numerous reverts, spanning months. (That content was already refactored, anyway [173], [174])

• [175], [176], [177], [178] -- The first three show resistance to any changes on the Criticisms page. Other editors' contributions are simply reverted. One sourced, relevant section to be found at the bottom is continually removed. Note there was a lot of discussion about this, but what I am highlighting here is the unproductive editing behaviour -- in particular, there is no excuse for continually blanking the bottom, sourced, relevant section. The content is clearly an issue here, but Tomananda's behaviour and attitude is problematic.

• [179], [180], [181], [182], [183] -- The red part is in question. This is a severe misuse of primary material. Some of it does not correspond to the source cited, some of it is original research, some of it is simply inaccurate. Overall it is quite strongly POV. Discussion was not forthcoming in these reverts. This material was aggressively advocated for, and removing it was labeled as "suppression." Note this issue has already been resolved, but the behaviour is what is at question, and it has not changed.

• [184], [185], [186] -- This is a modified version of the above. Again, this is aggressive inclusion of very strong POV. Resistance by multiple other editors is labelled as "suppression." I excused myself from this battle in favour of discussion. Tomananda kept it up with another user. Like on other occasions, part of this makes a statement and provides a source, but the statement does not correspond to the source. (referring to first sentence)

• [187] -- Blank sourced paragraph.

Response to homosexuality evidence

I do hope both diffs Tomananda provided are carefully examined. This is a good example of Tomananda's distortion of primary sources.

• See this sentence of Tomananda's diff "Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s “upright Fa to keep human beings in check” homosexuals could expect to receive a particularly harsh punishment from the Gods." with how the quoted text actually appears in the primary source: "Let me tell you why today’s society has become how it is. It results from there not being an upright Fa to keep human beings in check." -- the statements about punishment from the gods are in the next paragraph of the primary source.
• The other reverted part was "In Switzerland, Li stated that by renouncing their sexual behavior homosexuals could experience a different outcome."--and this does not appear in the cited source at all.
• Meanwhile, regarding the revert to "Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s “upright Fa to keep human beings in check”..." from Olaf's "Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s Fa-rectification...", the primary source actually says: "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods." -- so which one actually corresponds to the source? This is one of the clearest examples of Tomananda's injection of personal viewpoints and distortion of primary sources, addition of original research, tendentious editing, and resistance to other editor's changes.

I have moved my response to Tomananda to the talk page.

About Yueyuen

Yueyuen is another editor who has behaved much the same as Samuel Luo. Obvious, consistent violation of all core policies are abundant. Here is a sample from the beginning up to now, also including statements on talk pages alleging a conspiracy, violating NPA etc.:

May 2006

[188] [189]—part of an edit war, includes blanking sourced content, adding weasel phrases, OR etc.

[190]—blank sourced content, claim they “…do not directly relate to the incident”

[191]—deletes images, no explanation given

June

[192]—adds some POV stuff, no source given “At the beginning, Li introduced himself to the public as a master with great wisdom and supernatural power."

[193] [194]—add weasel words, deletes at least one sourced paragraph.

[195]—remove the word "alleged"

[196]—"Falun Gong practitioners are again trying to conceal the truth. You guys are abunch of liers"

July

[197] [198]—rv, blanking some things, adding weasel words, this revert also includes the section titled "The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership".

[199]—big blanking etc.

August

[200] [201] [202] [203]—part of a revert war. This is the same pattern of large scale blanking, addition of unsourced, POV, weasel content

Actually, nearly all of Yueyen's contributions in the month of August are simple reverts following the same pattern, "rv" after "rv."

September

[204] [205] [206]—part of a revert war. There are some WP:LIVING violations here. Some things that are not sourced are added, some sourced things are deleted, there are weasel words etc. too "Since 1996, Master Li’s statements about his identity have become ever more grandiose.", or revert bolding some parts of quotes from Li Hongzhi, which were not bold in the original text. This is the same content from Samuel's website.

[207] [208] [209]—these are just some from a long revert war. Much of the reverted content is from Samuel's website and violates core wiki principles.

[210]—obvious weasel words added, maybe violates WP:LIVING: "please stop the BS practitioners."

[211]—revert original research, maybe violate WP:LIVING: "Keep lying practitioners, you salvation depends on it."

October

[212]—blank some sourced stuff.

[213]—similar idea, simple revert of other editors contribution as "rm POV"

[214]—blanking etc., same edit as August or so.

[215] [216]—typical reverting, maybe some WP:LIVING violations: "stop concealing info to the public", "stop cocealing the group's core teachings."

[217] [218]—rv then informal mediator who said the edit was unsupported by the source.

[219]—"there is no POV in the sentence, stop lying to the public"

[220]—revert, this includes the "From July 22, 1999 to the end of 2002, tens of thousand of Falun Gong practitioners had protested in the center of Beijing--Tiananmen Square. None of these protests was more shocking, revealing, controversial, or tragic than the incident on January 23, 2001" also some blanking.

November

[221]—typical reverting of content from Samuel's website: "Now you are lying Dilip, please stop deleting those two section."

[222]—attacks founder of Falun Dafa

[223] [224]—simple reverting of others' contributions, including some blanking of sourced content.

December

[225]—some revert warring and blanking, "Your ability to lie is incredible.", "You first lied and now pretending to be blind. Why don't you compare the two yourself?"

January 2007

[226]—more restoring of the content on Samuel's website.

February

[227]—this is part of the reverts Yueyuen did, after the initial big changes by Samuel, including blanking sourced things, adding weasel words, heavily skewing things, etc. [228] [229]—similar, as well as blanking pictures, large amounts of other things, this includes the novel preface to a source: "Julia Ching, who is unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group, has suggested..."

[230]—blank a pic

[231] [232]—same reverts

About Tomananda

Tomananda mentioned the statement about Fa-Rectification, which is meant to define Falun Dafa--the use of definitions to push a POV has been a constant feature of Tomananda's editing. [233]

This is a very good example of tendentious editing by Tomananda. This quote is out of context, and is also a skewed representation of parts of the teachings, relying on Tomananda's stated interpretation and driven by his stated advocacy. It was suggested that parts of the teachings be treated in full and in context, with links from the Epoch Times page. He refused to use a wiki link [234] for this. There was also a lot of discussion about this on the talk pages see: [235] [236] [237] [238] [239]. At present myself and some other editors still don’t agree with this version, since it is still misleading, incomplete, strongly reflective of Tomananda's POV, and still contains original research. It is hoped that the mediator will be able to help us on how to solve this.

About Samuel Luo

[240]—Samuel, requesting help in a revert war.

[241] [242] [243]—Blanking images from talk page, no valid reason given

[244] [245]...—Much revert waring in this period, check history page [246] however not much talking from Samuel, Tomananda, Yuenyen, Mr.He, etc ... see talk page in that period [247] [248]

About Pirate101

He is another helper of Samuel, check out his growing contribution list [249].

About blanking the Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page

The following edit [250] is routinely removed from the Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page, by Samuel Luo, Pirate101 and Yueyuen. Some examples: [251] [252]. Actually if you look into history [253] of this page up to day, this sentence was removed 17 times in the last 4 weeks. In my opinion, but please judge for yourselves, the whole page is in accordance with [254] the Chinese Communist Party's actions of information blocking, cover-up and disinformation. Please take a close look to the content of the page and the discussion page, and perhaps you will arrive to the same conclusion.

Quote: "The purpose of their persecution and the tactics they’ve used are so base, cruel, and violent, and they do their utmost to hide it from the world." [255]

Finally

Regarding Jsw663 proposal for the “... 8 rules ...” [256]

It would be good to consider the alternative, let’s educate everybody about wikipedia policies and do our best to respect them, as proposed here: [257]

For any of you who want to find out more about me and my conduct, please do read through my user page: HappyInGeneral and check out my contributions

Many Falun Gong practitioners editors have repeatedly removed material sourced backed to Falun Gong websites and reputable western media. They appear to be working in the same pattern in deleting this material and they have also used IP addresses to avoid the 3RR rule. There are tooo many examples but I will just provide the most obvious examples.

Edvidences

Wholesale removal of sourced material on Li Hongzhi page:

Editor Fnhddzs [258] [259]

Editor Mcconn [260]

Editor Dilip rajeev [261] [262]

Using IP addresses to remove the same material [263] [264] [265] [266] [267]

Wholesale removal of sourced material on Teachings of Falun Gong page:

Editor Asdfg12345 [268] [269]

Editor Mcconn [270]

Editor Dilip rajeev [271]

Editor HappyInGeneral [272]

Using IP addresses to remove the same material [273] [274] [275] [276] [277]

Falun Gong practitioners have also used IP addresses to carry out personal attacks against me. [278]

These evidences show that Falun Gong practitioner editors are not here to contribute positively but to carry out their own agenda. They should be punished for provoking revert wars and violating the 3RR rules. Their use of IP addresses in revert war and personal attacks should be looking into seriously, thanks.-- Yueyuen 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.