all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

• Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

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.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

4) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors are expected to avoid participating in editing on topics where they have such a conflict of interest.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I think this is going too far. Activists are permitted to edit as long they work collaboratively with other editors to make the article be written from an overall NPOV. While their own edits may mainly highlight one perspective, as long as they do not stop other editors from adding well sourced material through edit wars, activist should be allowed to edit. FloNight 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. I agree; the language here overstates the case. It is much harder to sustain NPOV (for anyone) than activists may think, in areas where they have strong feelings. But I can't accept this wording. Charles Matthews 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Reliable sources

5) Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Content decision, and not relevant to anything here in any case. Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Content. Moreover Western governments have quite good information on many group that they consider illegal, and we shouldn't ban such sources wholesale. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Too much, and not for us anyway, at this level. Charles Matthews 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. FloNight 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 11:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) per User:UninvitedCompany/Parole reply

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

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

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The parties have been involved in numerous, long-term disputes revolving around the content of a number of articles related to the topic of the Falun Gong, including Falun Gong, Suppression of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, The Epoch Times, Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, and various others.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Asdfg12345

2) Asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Paul August ☎ 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC) has definitely "edit-warred", although recent behavior has improved. reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Cited evidence generally shows removal of biased editing. Fred Bauder 11:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Some reverting, but not a dramatic amount. - SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Not convinced. Charles Matthews 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Fire Star

3) Fire Star ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [8], [9], [10]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Edits seem appropriate. Fred Bauder 11:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Somewhat more than Asdfg, but still not substantive enough for a finding to be made. - SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC). After an extensive review of Fire Star's edits at Falun Gong and Talk:Falun Gong, I conclude that this editor has in fact been a model editor. reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

HappyInGeneral

4) HappyInGeneral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Pretty blatant revert warring, and was blocked 48 hours for doing so. - SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Since adding a provocative and contested image to the article Suppression of Falun Gong ( [18]), on March 20, HappyInGeneral has made 32 edits to that article ( [19]), 31 of them to restore or move the image from elsewhere in the article into the intro ( [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]), with no consensus; this constitutes "edit-warring" in my opinion. reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Edits show restoration of well sourced image. Fred Bauder 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. 3RR offence was half a year ago. Charles Matthews 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jsw663

5) Jsw663 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [51], [52], [53], [54]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) One objectionable edit [55], (NPOV does not require excision of POV language), otherwise, only appropriate reversions. Fred Bauder 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I don't see any problems with these edits, even the one Fred mentions. reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Mcconn

6) Mcconn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. A considerable number of reverts to an array of FG related articles in the last couple months. - SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Charles Matthews 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Olaf Stephanos

7) Olaf Stephanos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [63], [64], [65]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Thin case. Charles Matthews 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

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 ( [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]) to promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. His block log shows that he has been involved in edit wars multiple times. FloNight 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 20:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Tomananda

9) Tomananda ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]) and attempts to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy ( [85], [86], [87]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Paul August ☎ 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I don't see the case for "attempts to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy" as particularly strong, nor is this editor's "ideological struggle and advocacy" significantly different from that of the "pro" Falun Gong editors. reply

Abstain:

9.1) Tomananda ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]).

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Watered down Fred Bauder 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Yueyuen

10) Yueyuen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 20:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Has made 5 main space edits per month since January 1st ( [104]) even if all were inappropriate (and they are not) this is not enough to warrant "edit warring". reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) per Paul August reply

Abstain:

NPOV as applied

11) As applied to this matter NPOV involves reporting of a controversy, comprising mutually generated derogatory information including allegations of torture, imprisonment of large numbers of people in re-education camps and exposure of the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Tweaked wording. Charles Matthews 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Content decision. Kirill Lokshin 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 02:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This is a ruling on content. reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Content. reply

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Article probation

1) Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) No time limit. reply

Abstain:

Conformity to NPOV

1.1) Falun Gong and all closely related articles are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That means full disclosure of the mutually derogatory information which has been the subject of extensive editwarring.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Content decision. Kirill Lokshin 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This is a ruling on content. reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Asdfg12345 placed on revert parole

2) Asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Willing to reward recently improved behavior. reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Fire Star placed on revert parole

3) Fire Star ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC). After an extensive review of Fire Star's edits at Falun Gong and Talk:Falun Gong, I conclude that this editor has in fact been a model editor. reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

HappyInGeneral placed on revert parole

4) HappyInGeneral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Although I would prefer a brief suspension of editing privileges, per User:UninvitedCompany/Parole. reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jsw663 placed on revert parole

5) Jsw663 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Mcconn placed on revert parole

6) Mcconn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Although I would prefer a brief suspension of editing privileges, per User:UninvitedCompany/Parole. reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Olaf Stephanos placed on revert parole

7) Olaf Stephanos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Paul August ☎ 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Samuel Luo banned

8) Samuel Luo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 16:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Paul August ☎ 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Too harsh. reply

Abstain:

Samuel Luo placed on revert parole

8.1) Samuel Luo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. A determined activist Fred Bauder 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Tomananda banned

9) Tomananda ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Paul August ☎ 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Too harsh. reply

Abstain:

Tomananda placed on revert parole

9.1) Tomananda ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. A determined activist Fred Bauder 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Yueyuen placed on revert parole

10) Yueyuen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No finding of fact adequate to support this remedy Fred Bauder 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Has made 5 main space edits per month since January 1st ( [105]) even if all were inappropriate (and they are not) this is not enough to warrent "edit warring". reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Per Fred and Paul reply

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer more flexibility Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) per Fred reply

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1.1) Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

• Added specific diffs to all findings, as requested by Fred (although, frankly, I think the points are obvious from even a cursory glance at the history of the articles). Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I am concerned that as currently framed some of the editors behaving the worst have been left out completely. Fred Bauder 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

As of 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC), the following have passed:

• Principles 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7
• Findings of fact:
  • 1 (Locus of dispute)
  • 6 (Mcconn)
  • 8 (Samuel Luo)
  • 9 (Tomananda)
• Remedies:
  • 1 (Article probation)
  • 6 (Mcconn revert parole)
  • 8 (Samuel Luo topic ban)
  • 9 (Tomananda topic ban)
• Enforcement 1.1

Additional items may pass depending on further votes before the closure. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Remedy 10) "Yueyuen placed on revert parole" now passes even though finding 10) "Yueyuen" does not. I would like to resolve this before we close the case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Update: Remedy 10 no longer passes. Paul August ☎ 15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm going to give another 24hour from last vote before closing this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Close. - SimonP 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Charles Matthews 09:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Close. Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Close Fred Bauder 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. How can we pass remedy 10 "Yueyuen placed on revert parole" with no corresponding finding? I would like to resolve this before we close the case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply