Statement by uninvolved user Penwhale
One has to realize that FLG is itself a controversial topic. Unfortunately, this does not help the fact that we have to maintain neutrality (which is one of the pillar of Wikipedia). Based on the action-reaction, I propose a rename of the case to Falun Gong which is more appropriate, as I believe we need to look at actions from both sides, based on personal attacks towards Samuel. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Statement by more-or-less currently uninvolved user Miborovsky
I used to be active on this page but have since given up. Arbitrators, please be aware that this is NOT a case on a single user, but a case on the entire plethora of FLG-related pages and articles. As such, this case WILL be used as "evidence" favoring inclusion of POV material and WILL hugely affect the "balance of power" heretofore more-or-less precariously maintained. This is a political case, NOT a user conduct case. -- 我♥中國 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Wooyi
The account User:Samuel Luo clearly breaches conflict of interest in this case. He admit that he runs an anti-Falun Gong website [1]. He should refrain from editing Falun Gong related articles. The current Chinese regime has persecuted Falun Gong, and this is an undisputed fact. In editing these articles NPOV is needed. Wooyi 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The proposed solution to Samuel Luo is not enough. I think he should be permanently banned for inserting egregious and offensive POV to Wikipedia. Banning Samuel Luo would prevent him to further engage with this POV-laden smear campaign. Other editors should be treated more leniently, though.
Wooyi
Talk,
Editor review 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just found out about the egregious revert warring committed by
User:Jsw663, probably the arbitrators should consider strong action to admonish him as well.
Wooyi
Talk,
Editor review 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- User:HappyInGeneral's image insertion, I believe, is justified because it's a well-sourced image, and it well illustrates the article. Also, I don't believe User:Mcconn has engaged in any "war" based on evidence, so arbitrators should rescind the unjustified penalties on him. Wooyi Talk, Editor review 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just found out about the egregious revert warring committed by
User:Jsw663, probably the arbitrators should consider strong action to admonish him as well.
Wooyi
Talk,
Editor review 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Appeal from Olaf Stephanos
In the recent Falun Gong arbitration case, User:Mcconn was placed on revert parole. However, according to CU performed by User:Dmcdevit, we have found out that the banned editor User:Samuel Luo has been using a wide variety of sockpuppets during the course of the last year. Among them are User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen (an involved editor in the ArbCom case!), User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He, probably newly registered users User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg as well. Most incidents of Mcconn's revert warring took place against these sockpuppets. Therefore, I plead the ArbCom to lift the revert parole that was imposed on him, as it hardly feels justified in the light of this recent information. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:Mcconn needs to have the self control to deal with other users if they disagree about content. And follow the proper channels for dealing with problem users. This includes users that are using sock puppets.
FloNight 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any chance for him to get his parole lifted if he now begins to edit in a completely respectable and proper manner? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Although, I'm not exactly sure why he needs to revert. If for a period of time (at least 2-3 months, I think) he shows self control in his editing, he can request his revert parole be modified or dropped. The key thing is for him to show that he can work collaboratively with other users.
FloNight 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months. Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it. Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'. This is direct contradiction in logic. I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'. Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars. If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance. Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors? If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles. Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users.
Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have apologized for all incivility I might be guilty of. The situation was quite tense with Samuel and Tomananda, and their legacy lingers on until we've reformed the articles. By the way, like I've said several times before (but never getting a response from you), it is quite uncivil on your part to keep accusing "pro-Falun Gong vandals/apologists" of vandalizing your user pages, even though we found the guy ( User:NuclearBunnies) who made matching edits. I have nothing against a checkuser for all involved editors. I know for certain that none of "our party" is using sockpuppets. There will be no edit wars as long as everybody adheres to the policies. I'm not here to insist on blatantly substandard content like the puppetmaster(s) from Frisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot to mention that your distinction between "less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen" and User:Samuel Luo per se sounds pretty twisted. We're talking about the same guy! Doubtless, "Yueyuen" had to act in a slightly different manner; he was a useful helper in some revert wars and creating illusory support for Samuel's position on the talk page. The same goes for User:Pirate101 and User:Mr.He. User:Chinatravel, on the other hand, was meant to cover up the fact that Sam was pursuing other agendas as well, such as defending the CCP's official viewpoint on the Tiananmen massacre. ✔
Olaf Stephanos
✍ 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for an official response to my above paragraph(s). The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?
- I mention the less controversial alter egos because my above paragraph should show that I am still not satisfied with hazy explanations that link THAT many user accounts. If they all originated from SFO, does that mean they are necessarily the same user? And why the finding that Tom + Sam are the same people after establishing they were not earlier??? I think linking User:Chinatravel is a perfect instance of what I consider to be dangerously similar to McCarthyism - witch-hunting all pro-China users and linking them in some conspiracy theory as some kind of ridiculous network or whatever. Jsw663 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months. Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it. Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'. This is direct contradiction in logic. I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'. Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars. If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance. Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors? If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles. Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users.
Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- John Carter ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dilip rajeev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Statement by John Carter
Requesting clarification of whether or not the terms of probation on Falun Gong related articles allow for uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban on the basis of the terms as is currently being requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip rajeev. I'm not sure if I have to notify all the other parties who have already commented on the request for enforcement there, but will do so if such is requested. John Carter ( talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ohconfucius
I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius ( talk) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please also note that I have amended the sanction requested from indefinite ban from wikipedia to indefinite topic ban from all Falun Gong related articles and talkpages, construed widely. Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I was the one to first raise this question, and refer the Committee to my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comment by Sandstein. I would also appreciate a clarification of this point. In reply to Ohconfucius, any previous sanctions do not by themselves constitute sufficient authority for new sanctions; it may well be that these previous sanctions were themselves unauthorized under the remedy. Sandstein 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Vassyana
This has been generally treated as a standard article probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. Please note the examples above and listed at the case log, as well as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong. If this is inccrrect, I expect that ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or enforcement admins would have long-ago corrected the misuse of the remedy. A clarification to explicitly state the status quo handling of the remedy should not be necessary. It should suffice for arbitrators to uphold the standard interpretation, as they are doing in Olaf Stephanos' specific case. If it is really considered necessary to deal with this by way of formal clarification, then please resolve the matter by motion ASAP to prevent this from becoming an in for all previous and standing sanctions to be wikilawyered. -- Vassyana ( talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just noting that John Carter has requested Kirill's input, per NYB's request. [28]
Statement by Kirill Lokshin
The intent of the remedy, as written, was to both (a) place the article on standard article probation, which allows administrators to enact topic bans on their own discretion and (b) provide an explicit provision for further review should the probation prove unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators voting for this remedy believed its meaning to be different from this. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I'd appreciate if someone could ask Kirill Lokshin for his thoughts on this request, as he drafted the decision. Thanks.
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Kirill's interpretation is consistent with the decision and the intent of the arbitrators who voted for it. If other arbitrators agree, hopefully this will be a sufficient clarification. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Brad and Kirill. Would note, however, that the issues being discussed in another case (Abd-WMC, in the final stages of voting) impact on the issues of article probation, and discretionary sanctions, and whether admins have the discretion to impose topic and page bans outside of probation or discretionary sanctions (this is not the case here). If anyone commenting here thinks there is the potential here for inconsistency in ArbCom rulings from case to case, then that needs to be clarified urgently.
Carcharoth (
talk) 18:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think this comment is well-taken. I think this may help demonstrate the need, not only for us to be clear as to the Arbitration Committee's own interpretation of policies and practices in this area, but for the community to develop a policy in this area as discussed in the Abd-WMC proposed decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Initiated by Sandstein at 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Sandstein ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- No other specific editor.
Amendment 1
I ask that remedy 1, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, be vacated and replaced by a standard discretionary sanctions remedy, such as e.g. WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions.
Statement by Sandstein
Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at WP:GS#Types of sanctions ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at WP:AE#Simonm223, I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, a maiore ad minus, the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.
I make this request as an administrator active in WP:AE (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong. Sandstein 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Vassyana
I have reviewed the editorial history of this topic area in some depth. Fulfilling this request would be immensely helpful to the editors trying to help resolve the disputes. This will be encouraging to administrators already trying to make headway in the area. It will also encourage more administrators to intervene, especially those who may have been ambivalent about the more limited enforcement options. This will also be beneficial to editors in the area, with the conditions and sanctions better tailored to the situation. The resulting improvements and normalization of the editing environment will allow dispute resolution efforts a great deal more traction and success. The long-running and intractable nature of the overall dispute in the topic area should justify the expanded measures. Vassyana ( talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Discrectionary sanctions would be good, to fine tune sanctions. (I think that this request was raised for the wrong reasons, but that's a different topic)
Statement By Simonm223
Quite frankly I shouldn't even be given a revert restriction for protecting the neutrality of the FLG articles from blatant efforts to insert a strong POV. Notwithstanding that this is still a good idea. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by HappyInGeneral
No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The latest example (food for thought):
- Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
- However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts [29], [30], [31] and no discussion about the actual changes.
In my understanding Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I cross posted the above here. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse. I wish to remain uninvolved as an arbitrator, because I have been involved in the past as an outside editor/informal mediator and wish to engage the area on that basis. I will make a brief statement as a regular editor. Vassyana ( talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable and uncontroversial; I'll make the appropriate motions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Motions
1) Imposition of discretionary sanctions
- The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:
- (a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.
- (b) Standard discretionary sanctions ( Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for " Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.
- This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.
- Support
- As proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith ( talk) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo approves this motion 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Per Sandstein's rationale above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein's rationale fits here. Folks working at AE and to follow up these things need all the support the Committee can give them. SirFozzie ( talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- KnightLago ( talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Initiated by Asdfg 12345 at 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs) banned from editing Falun Gong and related article or template content for six months. See AE thread. Sandstein 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Enric Naval ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment action requested
- I argue that the sanction was mistaken and ask that it be rescinded.
Statement by Asdfg12345
Sandstein said he banned me from editing Falun Gong articles for three reasons: “edit-warring (less aggressively than some of his opponents, but still), single purpose account (editing only FG topics) and advocacy (editing only to present FG more favorably)”
I will respond to these points with explanation and diffs.
1: On the edit warring charge.
I have had a policy of 1RR for a long time now. I think the only time I broke it was shown in the complaint against me; I crossed 1RR a couple of times then. That was under the circumstance that the other editor had ignored a consensus, derived from an RfC, which supported what I had suggested from the beginning. I felt justified, but in hindsight would be more careful. I’m not aware of any other edit warring on my part—none was presented in the original AE—and it is my intention to maintain the 1RR policy and not revert at all when it can be avoided. I try to always discuss things cogently and civilly. I do not edit war, do not intend to edit war, and know edit warring is bad.
2: On the single purpose account charge.
Since being banned I have taken a broader interest in other topics related to Chinese politics and governance. Whether I edit Falun Gong articles or not, I will continue to edit other articles unrelated to Falun Gong.
I note that the page on SPAs is not a policy item, but an essay. Of course, Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and advocates coming to push their POVs should be shown the door. I am here to help build this encyclopedia on the topics that I know about and that interest me, not as an advocate of an outside cause. I know the rules and play by them, and I want to build professional articles on the subjects I edit. (Though I’ve also been accused of “wikilawyering” when citing policy or providing sources to support my views.)
3: On the advocacy charge.
I do not and have not edited only to present Falun Gong more favourably. Most of my ideas for improvement, and many of my edits, are not structured along the lines of favourable/unfavourable, which I think is most often an unproductive dichotomy for categorising edits or editors. That said, it may appear that many of my edits make Falun Gong look favourable because a lot of the information which paints Falun Gong in an unfavourable light, whether reliably sourced or not, or in accord with due weight or not, is already in the articles, or has already been added by other editors. Making Falun Gong look favourable is not my purpose for editing Wikipedia, and I of course know the job of Wikipedia isn’t to paint Falun Gong in a favourable light—I don’t support including material just because it is perceived favourable to Falun Gong, and excluding material just because it is perceived as unfavourable. Making this accusation has become a common way of deflecting attention from the issues at hand onto the individual raising the problem.
Here is a small collection of edits meant to counter the idea that I’m editing Wikipedia to promote a pro-Falun Gong point of view:
- Here I removed some effusive praise for Falun Gong that was inappropriate for the lead of an article. Here a paragraph of defense of Falun Gong’s founder’s financial situation.
- Here I reverted what appeared to me an attempt to replace material critical or derisive of Falun Gong’s teachings with material that did not include such remarks. This was cited by Enric Naval as an example of how I “remove criticism,” but the opposite is true. I initially wrote that section summarising the views disparaging of Falun Gong's teachings.
- Here is one edit in a section that I wrote about the debate about psychiatric abuse of Falun Gong practitioners in China, including the voices that were more sympathetic to the stance of the Chinese Communist Party. Previously I had also outlined the CCP's claims against Falun Gong, including phrases like "...the practice has exploited spiritual cultivation to engage its practitioners in seditious politics. They also allege that manipulation via their "lies and fallacies", Falun Gong "caused needless deaths of large numbers of practitioners"" etc. none of which I considered unusual to have done.)
- Here I got a barnstar from my sparring partner, Ohconfucius. (He must have figured I can’t be all bad, then).
- Here an editor uninvolved in the Falun Gong pages took the initiative to defend me in a discussion: "I know the Asdfg12345 has edited things other than this; while his edits may be 90% FLG-related, I know he's also worked on other general Chinese culture pages (not to mention he once AfD'ed Masanjia Labor Camp, which is not something you'd expect from someone who is a blind FLG follower, given that pretty much all of these RTL-related articles are anti-China")
- Here are some of the edits, I made to the main Falun Gong article before I was banned. These edits were cited as an example of how I’m a POV-pusher when I numbered them all and asked for discussion before they be removed. They were removed without discussion. Then I added them back, and they stuck (above are the second round). It’s not that I only put in things I believe. I don’t believe some of that is true, some of it depicts Falun Gong negatively too, which I have never opposed, but it’s from reliable sources and in that context is relevant.
- Here are some of the recent proposals I have made (while banned from editing those pages) for improving the pages. I haven’t put on a special show of neutrality since being banned to curry favour. If that is pro-Falun Gong advocacy then I have a lot more reflection to do than I thought. Several of those posts were simple exercises in research, like finding how many sources categorise Falun Gong as "qigong," and how many as "new religious movement" etc. Some of the ideas were ignored anyway.
- The above are just a sample after a quick scan of my contributions to Falun Gong articles.
Final remarks
Those are just some examples. I wrote a
long response to the arguments presented by Enric Naval that attempted to show that I am a tendentious editor who lavishes praise on Falun Gong and deletes anything perceived negative. Most of the complaint and belated response is straightforward, I think, except the second complaint. That is more complex. The quickest way to sum it up, though, is to see the
two
RfCs I started, and note that the opinion of the uninvolved party was exactly what I had been saying. There was a second RfC because Simonm223
ignored the first.
When writing this, I made a choice to say little about the editing dynamics on the pages, the issues surrounding Falun Gong and how they may relate to Wikipedia, perceived biases on the part of some editors, which usually dominate discussion on this subject. Based on some of the unwelcoming remarks to newcomers though, I think the environment will have to improve to avoid further litigation.
I think my being banned was a mistake, and I hope above to have shown why. I have learned from the experience, and will continue to cultivate a more nuanced approach to editing Wikipedia, including doing better with research, and editing a wider variety of articles. I feel like I have gotten some perspective in this month, thought about the issues, and so decided to request an amendment. Please advise if further evidence would be helpful in deciding my case. Thank you for your time.
Respectfully, -- Asdfg 12345 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Some thoughtful remarks on the subject from an outside editor: [32] [33]
- Steve Smith and SirFozzie, the discretionary sanctions page says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." I was given no such opportunity. My dispute is, or was originally, mainly with the substance of the charges, and I responded to them as best I could above (it would be of some small comfort if I knew that the people assessing this had checked the diffs and considered whether the three problems actually existed or not). However, this procedural point is rather important if justice is to be served. The ban was made under the circumstance that I was not "given a warning" or "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take." That means it violated the terms under which these discretionary sanctions are supposed to be imposed.
- Maunus, I have never meant to give anyone mental grief. I think {user|PelleSmith} stopped editing the pages after encountering the intransigence of several anti-Falun Gong editors. Making RfCs and Noticeboard posts are legitimate ways of attempting to resolve disputes, as far as I understand. I've just tried to edit and discuss issues on Wikipedia in good faith, backed up by strong research. I hold that in nearly all cases disputes can be brought back to the reliable sources and resolved through good research. Some of the issues involved in this subject are complex and specific, and it takes some time to resolve. As far as I understand I have followed all the rules and been civil nearly all the time. Should I be banned for assiduity? -- Asdfg 12345 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I wish I could understand how this was a reasonable use of admin discretion, given the evidence above, and lack of evidence for the opposing views which were the reasons for the ban. I find it extremely confusing that arbitrators think my case is not only "comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion" but that the "decision appears reasonable" as well. And there is no way to actually determine whether they have evaluated the case on its own merits or not; they fail to comment on the evidence or elaborate on the rationale of the case.
Sandstein's rationale for banning me makes three claims that are provable/disprovable. They are specific claims, the truth value of which can be evaluated objectively. I was said to have edit warred, but the only evidence for that is breaking one revert of the same content within 24 hours, after having sought a third party opinion that was ignored; I was said to only edit Falun Gong articles, something that is allowed, but my contributions indicate otherwise anyway; I was said to have edited only to make Falun Gong look favourable, but a string of diffs above also indicate that this is not the case. At the moment the process is slightly bewildering, and it's completely unclear as to what, precisely, I have done wrong. I have been given no ideas about how I'm supposed to "improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines," since no specific problems have been pointed out. If the arguments were a bit more slippery, it would be easier to justify them. For example, that I'm an inveterate Falun Gong apologist no matter what I do or say, editing other articles is just covering my tracks, and the times when I edit against Falun Gong, that's also to cover my tracks. Then I would be a class enemy. In that case, I wouldn't have much to say; it would be an impenetrable argument. But they are three quite specific claims, and I believe I have shown how they are untrue above. At the moment it just seems like I'm being treated as a class enemy without that being openly stated.
I suppose this format is very limited for being able to understand the processing of all the information that I presume is going on in people's brains.
My other concern, though, is that the major procedural flaw in how this case was decided still appears to have been overlooked: I was not "given a warning" before sanctions were imposed. The page outlining discretionary sanctions mentions this twice. Whatever the merits of the decision, I do not understand how sanctions which didn't follow the rules of how they were meant to be applied can be upheld.
I could not think of a more effective process for making someone get a sense that their rights had been tossed aside and due process ignored. If we want to carry the working logic forward, given that I am such a bad egg who would not even benefit from a clear explanation of how they can improve before being banned, or precisely what they have done wrong, or even deserve to be accorded due process, why not just ban me from Falun Gong articles forever? Why would six months make any difference? And why should I be able to edit the talk pages? At least then there would be some consistency in the autocracy. Whatever the decision, to whoever can give a clear, reasoned, response as to how Sandstein's three arguments are still valid in light of my response, and answer my complaints about due process, I would be grateful.-- Asdfg 12345 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- By "class enemy," broadly speaking I mean someone who is to be punished for who they are, not for what they have done. I say that because it appears to be the most useful model for understanding the current situation in my view, based on the discussion and respect accorded to evidence and process so far. -- Asdfg 12345 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Conclusion (posted from SirFozzie's talk)
I won't apply for any kind of community appeal, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time, my time, and the time of other editors and admins. I saw an exchange between Shell Kinney and Olaf Stephanos which makes the situation very clear. I had thought that the policies were like a book of law that you just had to stick to and keep within. But it's actually much more about perceptions, social capital, and branding. And nonconformists may have extraordinary measures applied to them. Never mind when propaganda comes from editors who are integrated into Wikipedia, and "outsiders" wish to fix things and explicitly follow all relevant rules when doing so. If you are seen as an advocate, especially for a perceived NRM (but not for science) you are not welcome. It doesn't matter if you are reasonable and law-abiding or not. This is probably just a necessary evil and compromise given Wikipedia's openness and potential for real bad guys to exploit the system. I maintain that I am not one of the bad guys, have kept strictly within policy, and have only ever wished for a professional treatment of Falun Gong. I have been polite nearly all the time, and frequently compromised, shared ideas, and worked with whoever was interested to build the pages. I do not want to see a whitewashing or exclusion of criticism. But doing Wikipedia properly means no propaganda, stringent sourcing, and inclusion of every significant perspective. All that is explicitly within Wikipedia's policies. I am not sure who will have the mettle to challenge the editors dedicated to promoting a negative view of Falun Gong - and their sympathisers - who are seen as part of the community. The silent consent to these ideologically motivated activities allows a page to go from this (11,200 words) to this (2,500 words).-- Asdfg 12345 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I'm not sure whether, in view of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal, this is the right venue for an appeal of a discretionary sanction, but if arbitrators would like my opinion about this request, I'll give it. Sandstein 06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This request belongs to WP:AE.
The content disputes belong to the talk pages of articles (and, for the record, I will reply much better to requests about content that are not filled with bad faith assumptions cannot be easily interpreted
[34] as being full of bad faith assumptions about how I'm trying to smear Falun Gong for some unspecified reason). --
Enric Naval (
talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Olaf Stephanos
I will give my brief comment. Asdfg12345 has worked constructively on the Falun Gong articles for several years. He has always been polite towards other editors, and has taken a methodical approach to NPOV, ensuring that no relevant point of view is left out and that sources are given fair treatment. His insistence on high-quality sources has been categorical, and he has repeatedly made use of peer-reviewed journals and other reputable academic publications.
I am afraid that the involved administrators do not fully understand the delicate balance of the overall situation. The neutrality of the Falun Gong articles has seriously degraded after Asdfg12345 was blocked. As many of us have observed, this is not a simple matter of "neutral-minded" editors seeking to honestly work towards an article that gives fair and due weight to all relevant viewpoints—and who follow neutrality as methodology—against "biased" SPAs who only work to "promote their cause". Indeed, practically none of the editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles has taken a totally cool, dispassionate approach to the subject matter. This is partly due to the editing environment and its long-standing disputes that have never been resolved properly, in spite of numerous attempts. Yet, among the group of editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles over the last few years, Asdfg12345's track record is among the very cleanest. He has proactively initiated rational and argumentative discussion, and I feel that this may be one reason why some would rather see him blocked. Asdfg12345 has kept up the true spirit of Wikipedia against those who have a preconceived notion of how the Falun Gong articles should read, and who fail to regard the true depth of high-ranking research out there. Moreover, there are always those who'd rather cut the corners than engage in real discussion.
My opinion is that the Arbitration Committee, or other Wikipedia officials in positions of comparable power, should put in the effort to investigate the situation from a pragmatic perspective. I would argue that Asdfg12345's case is too susceptible to an individual administrator's impression of the subject matter as such; in other words, I strongly feel that the case has not been evaluated on its own merits. The produced evidence does not warrant a block, and a six month topic ban is simply inconceivable. Just take a look at Asdfg12345's edit history: it can only prove that he is here to truly construct an encyclopedia. Even though his focus has been on the Falun Gong articles and related subjects in the past, his contributions have been extremely solid, balanced, well-sourced, and transparent. He is a real expert, and these articles and their informed readers sorely miss him. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Comment by previously involved user User:Maunus
Having previously involved in the diting of Falun Gong related articles I was acquainted with User:asdfg and his/her editing style. User:asdfg is very polite and forthcoming and never stoops to civilty violations or other kinds of overtly abusive or disruptive behaviour. However, I think there is every reason to maintain the ban on the reason of asdfg's being a clear instance of a Single Purpose Account - of the most tenacious variety. I arrived at Falun Gong with out any preconceived notions (except an interest in presenting the issue in a academically adequate manner from the POV of a sociologist of religion (if anything I was prepared to possibly have to defend the viewpoint of Falun Gong as minority religion as these are often prone to attacks from "anti-cult editors")) - I was soon so completely exhausted by the constant pressure and civil disruption (in the form of disregard for consensus, continued argument over issues already determined by consensus and different kinds of vexatious litigation (in the form of rfc's, etc.)) from asdfg and other openly pro-Falun Gong editors that I decided that continuing work on that article was not worth the costs to my mental health - I know that several other editors have had similar experiences. I believe that topic banning asdfg from Falun Gong related articles is the right way to protect wikipedias integrity and the mental health of its neutral-minded editors. In short, I believe that no amendment to this arbitration decision is required or warranted ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- This should go to WP:AE, but at an initial examination this looks to me like a reasonable exercise of the discretion granted to administrators under the January 19, 2010 case amendment. Steve Smith ( talk) 03:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Steve Smith. We give administrators working in the area of AE reasonable discretion to interpret arbcom remedies. SirFozzie ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well within the realm of administrator discretion and from review, looks to be a reasonable decision as well. Shell babelfish 14:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues that the decision appears reasonable and, in any case, is comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion. — Coren (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by PCPP at 05:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- WP:FLG-A.
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- PCPP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- I request the sanction be lifted
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
Statement by PCPP
I was previously topic banned in 2011 from editing the Falun Gong articles wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong for at least one year, after which I could appeal. Currently I have no further desire to edit the FLG articles, however, since it is mentioned in many of the China related articles, I wish to have the freedom to edit the articles without triggering a violation.
Furthermore, I would have to have the rights to file cases against users who I find might violate the FLG arbitration case. Last month, I filed a case incorrectly without appealing my own topic ban [35] , which resulted in a temporary block.
Statement by Hijiri88
I find it suspicious that PCPP has two TBAN-violation blocks in his log but has only made only 246 mainspace edits since the ban was imposed. Additionally, it would seem that a number of edits that went unnoticed (did not result in blocks) were also violations, as they edited articles with "Falun Gong" in the titles 20 times between February 2011 and October 2011 but were not blocked until January. There was apparently a hubbub following these violations that resulted in several other editors being TBANned, but I have not figured out how PCPP avoided getting blocked.
Typically, the way one goes about appealing a TBAN is to demonstrate one is capable of working on building an encyclopedia in a constructive manner without violating the ban, but in this case it appears PCPP continued editing as though nothing had happened, then once they were finally blocked continued making piecemeal edits for a couple of months before essentially dropping out of the project for four years and coming back to get blocked for violating the TBAN and immediately appealing it.
@ PCPP: Can you explain why you think your TBAN was put in place in the first place and why you have barely edited Wikipedia since your TBAN was enforced?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Looks to me like a clear-cut case of biding time until allowed back into the same fray. If the editor was not interested in getting back into Falun Gong editing, they wouldn't be trying to pursue Falun Gong-related grievances, and would have done something constructive on the encyclopedia in the intervening time. Looks like a WP:NOTHERE / WP:5THWHEEL matter to me. I'm not unsympathetic to feeling one has been wrongly accused and taking a long break, having been in that boat once myself, but the editor isn't even making that case. Just vanished for years and is now back arguing about FG again while disavowing an intent to get into FG matters. Seems just like yelling "I am not yelling!", which is funny in a comedy but not in real life. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Falun Gong.: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Falun Gong.: Arbitrator views and discussion
- OK, not a lot of community comment here, but that's understandable given the activity levels involved. PCPP, it appears that you haven't made a mainspace edit since December 2013, and your only recent activity consists of attempting to file a complaint in violation of your topic ban. Given that you say one of the reasons you want your sanction lifted is so you can file complaints, I'm not inclined to grant this request. I suggest reacquainting yourself with the encyclopedia after your time away by doing some editing in mainspace in an unrelated topic area and filing a new appeal after six months of productive contributions. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per Opabinia, lifting a topic ban so that someone can file complaints is not to anyone's benefit. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 04:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per my colleagues above. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline as above. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per above. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Decline from me too. Drmies ( talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Marvin 2009 at 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Marvin 2009 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- PatCheng ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PCPP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Guerillero ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
Statement by Marvin 2009
Can an editor who has been under a topic ban use a sock puppet to report another editor to arbitration enforcement? Clearly not. And if the editor do so before the sock puppetry is uncovered, should any sanction arising from his or her complaint be nullified, after the sock puppetry is uncovered?
By the end of June, I was informed for an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong in response to PatCheng's arbitration enforcement request. On July 27, both PatCheng and PCPP were blocked, as PatCheng has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of PCPP who has been topic banned on Falun Gong since Nov 2011. I am requesting a clarification that whether the topic ban enforced on me due to PatCheng's AE request should be nullified? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Tantusar: In response to PatCheng's complaint, yes, in the beginning one admin was concerned about edit warring and aspersions casting. I replied to the admin right away at that time explaining how each of my altogether 7 edits in June was not edit warring (even not 1RR), and nor did i cast any aspersions in communicating with others. On the contrary, I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. After that, there has been no further response from that admin. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 13:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PatCheng
Statement by PCPP
Statement by Guerillero
You may also want to take a look at
- User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/July#It seems that the AE report against me was from a sock puppet account (posted 17 July 2020)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Falun Gong 2
- Ongoing ANI thread
- AE Thread that lead to the existing sanctions
Marvin 2009 has been trying their darnedest to reverse their topic ban; this is the fourth try in a month to reverse their topic ban. I stand by the topic ban and point to the fact that each of the 4 have failed to follow WP:NOTTHEM. Marvin 2009 interacts with dispute resolution as if it was a court or justice system instead of as a system to prevent disruption. The topic ban is from an area that is plagued with edit warring, aspersions, and general intractability. The whole area may need an additional arb case shortly to do another round of site/topic bans and place 30/500 over the topic area -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Newslinger
See the following discussions for context:
- WP:AN § Appealing my topic ban – posted 27 July 2020
- User talk:Guerillero § Could you please consider to cancel the topic ban added on me? – posted 28 July 2020
This amendment request is Marvin 2009's third appeal of their topic ban this week. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Tantusar
That PatCheng was a sockpuppet seems to me to be largely irrelevant to whether Marvin 2009 should or should not have received a topic ban. The administrators on the enforcement request found that Marvin was edit warring and casting aspersions. PatCheng's behaviour does not change these findings. Suggest amendment request be denied. Tantusar ( talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade
I do not see any particular relevance to the fact that the AE complaint was brought by someone later found to be a sockpuppet. Even at that request, the three of us who discussed it did note that the PatCheng account seemed awfully fishy in the way they were behaving, and for that reason (among others) they were sanctioned as well. Marvin 2009's sanction has already been subject to, and upheld by, community review at AN, so I think it is shown to be valid. It is not unusual, at AE, for a filer of a request for sanctions to themselves have engaged in misbehavior too, but that cannot mean we just ignore what they bring up if the concerns are indeed legitimate. It may mean, as in this request, that both parties wind up sanctioned.
That aside, I'll reiterate my concern that there has been a lot of unusual behavior in regards to Falun Gong, including sleeper accounts popping right back to activity the moment a serious dispute starts. I still think that warrants a closer look, and finding the sockpuppetry here makes me think so even more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
I think Newyorkbrad is right. Socking to report other users is a high risk strategy, and any report is unlikely to result in sanctions unless the behaviour merits it. Which in this case it seems to have done. Marvin was edit-warring to advance a POV, and his only excuse was " but look at all this bias". He has under 5,400 edits, over 11 years, and FG topics dominate. I don't think he's here to be part of the wider project. Guy ( help!) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Falun Gong: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- This request seeks to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. I have therefore reformatted this request as an amendment request for the original case and named the administrator who imposed the sanction as a party. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Falun Gong: Arbitrator views and discussion
- This would be akin to fruit of the poisonous tree if this were a judicial system. Since it's not, overturning an AE topic ban for that reason alone is not required (and from what I understand, the appeal has already been declined for other reasons). Looking at it another way: If a non-topic banned party had requested the enforcement, would it still have been applied? Since the sockpuppetry was not known to the placing administrator at the time, the answer seems to be yes. – xeno talk 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- For convenience, link to the topic-ban discussion is here. My approach is similar to Xeno's (and continuing the American legal metaphor for a moment, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has its inevitable discovery exception). We obviously don't want people creating or using sockpuppets in edit-wars or to get people sanctioned at AE (or for any other reason), and if the editor's problematic behavior was largely provoked by the since-revealed sock, that fact might be relevant to a sanction decision. But if an editor is behaving so poorly in a DS area that he or she would have been brought to AE by someone else in any event, then it would be pointless bureaucracy to vacate the existing sanction and wait for another AE complaint to be filed with the same result. Pinging the other admins who participated in the AE discussion (@ JzG and Seraphimblade:) in case they have any thoughts to share. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Broadly agree with the above remarks. The topic ban was imposed based on the sanctioned editors behavior, who did the reporting doesn't change that, this is a website, not a court. The best way forward if you want a topic ban rescinded is to completely ignore said topic for a prolonged period while making positive contributions elsewhere. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Xeno. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with all the above. Katie talk 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree with those who commented above. There is no indication that the reporting user being a sock in any way influenced the sanction (as NYB points out), so overturning it just because of that seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Regards So Why 07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved user Penwhale
One has to realize that FLG is itself a controversial topic. Unfortunately, this does not help the fact that we have to maintain neutrality (which is one of the pillar of Wikipedia). Based on the action-reaction, I propose a rename of the case to Falun Gong which is more appropriate, as I believe we need to look at actions from both sides, based on personal attacks towards Samuel. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Statement by more-or-less currently uninvolved user Miborovsky
I used to be active on this page but have since given up. Arbitrators, please be aware that this is NOT a case on a single user, but a case on the entire plethora of FLG-related pages and articles. As such, this case WILL be used as "evidence" favoring inclusion of POV material and WILL hugely affect the "balance of power" heretofore more-or-less precariously maintained. This is a political case, NOT a user conduct case. -- 我♥中國 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Wooyi
The account User:Samuel Luo clearly breaches conflict of interest in this case. He admit that he runs an anti-Falun Gong website [1]. He should refrain from editing Falun Gong related articles. The current Chinese regime has persecuted Falun Gong, and this is an undisputed fact. In editing these articles NPOV is needed. Wooyi 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The proposed solution to Samuel Luo is not enough. I think he should be permanently banned for inserting egregious and offensive POV to Wikipedia. Banning Samuel Luo would prevent him to further engage with this POV-laden smear campaign. Other editors should be treated more leniently, though.
Wooyi
Talk,
Editor review 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just found out about the egregious revert warring committed by
User:Jsw663, probably the arbitrators should consider strong action to admonish him as well.
Wooyi
Talk,
Editor review 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- User:HappyInGeneral's image insertion, I believe, is justified because it's a well-sourced image, and it well illustrates the article. Also, I don't believe User:Mcconn has engaged in any "war" based on evidence, so arbitrators should rescind the unjustified penalties on him. Wooyi Talk, Editor review 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just found out about the egregious revert warring committed by
User:Jsw663, probably the arbitrators should consider strong action to admonish him as well.
Wooyi
Talk,
Editor review 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Appeal from Olaf Stephanos
In the recent Falun Gong arbitration case, User:Mcconn was placed on revert parole. However, according to CU performed by User:Dmcdevit, we have found out that the banned editor User:Samuel Luo has been using a wide variety of sockpuppets during the course of the last year. Among them are User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen (an involved editor in the ArbCom case!), User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He, probably newly registered users User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg as well. Most incidents of Mcconn's revert warring took place against these sockpuppets. Therefore, I plead the ArbCom to lift the revert parole that was imposed on him, as it hardly feels justified in the light of this recent information. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:Mcconn needs to have the self control to deal with other users if they disagree about content. And follow the proper channels for dealing with problem users. This includes users that are using sock puppets.
FloNight 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any chance for him to get his parole lifted if he now begins to edit in a completely respectable and proper manner? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Although, I'm not exactly sure why he needs to revert. If for a period of time (at least 2-3 months, I think) he shows self control in his editing, he can request his revert parole be modified or dropped. The key thing is for him to show that he can work collaboratively with other users.
FloNight 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months. Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it. Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'. This is direct contradiction in logic. I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'. Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars. If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance. Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors? If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles. Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users.
Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have apologized for all incivility I might be guilty of. The situation was quite tense with Samuel and Tomananda, and their legacy lingers on until we've reformed the articles. By the way, like I've said several times before (but never getting a response from you), it is quite uncivil on your part to keep accusing "pro-Falun Gong vandals/apologists" of vandalizing your user pages, even though we found the guy ( User:NuclearBunnies) who made matching edits. I have nothing against a checkuser for all involved editors. I know for certain that none of "our party" is using sockpuppets. There will be no edit wars as long as everybody adheres to the policies. I'm not here to insist on blatantly substandard content like the puppetmaster(s) from Frisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot to mention that your distinction between "less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen" and User:Samuel Luo per se sounds pretty twisted. We're talking about the same guy! Doubtless, "Yueyuen" had to act in a slightly different manner; he was a useful helper in some revert wars and creating illusory support for Samuel's position on the talk page. The same goes for User:Pirate101 and User:Mr.He. User:Chinatravel, on the other hand, was meant to cover up the fact that Sam was pursuing other agendas as well, such as defending the CCP's official viewpoint on the Tiananmen massacre. ✔
Olaf Stephanos
✍ 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for an official response to my above paragraph(s). The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?
- I mention the less controversial alter egos because my above paragraph should show that I am still not satisfied with hazy explanations that link THAT many user accounts. If they all originated from SFO, does that mean they are necessarily the same user? And why the finding that Tom + Sam are the same people after establishing they were not earlier??? I think linking User:Chinatravel is a perfect instance of what I consider to be dangerously similar to McCarthyism - witch-hunting all pro-China users and linking them in some conspiracy theory as some kind of ridiculous network or whatever. Jsw663 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months. Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it. Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'. This is direct contradiction in logic. I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'. Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars. If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance. Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors? If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles. Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users.
Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- John Carter ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dilip rajeev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Statement by John Carter
Requesting clarification of whether or not the terms of probation on Falun Gong related articles allow for uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban on the basis of the terms as is currently being requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip rajeev. I'm not sure if I have to notify all the other parties who have already commented on the request for enforcement there, but will do so if such is requested. John Carter ( talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ohconfucius
I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius ( talk) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please also note that I have amended the sanction requested from indefinite ban from wikipedia to indefinite topic ban from all Falun Gong related articles and talkpages, construed widely. Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I was the one to first raise this question, and refer the Committee to my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comment by Sandstein. I would also appreciate a clarification of this point. In reply to Ohconfucius, any previous sanctions do not by themselves constitute sufficient authority for new sanctions; it may well be that these previous sanctions were themselves unauthorized under the remedy. Sandstein 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Vassyana
This has been generally treated as a standard article probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. Please note the examples above and listed at the case log, as well as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong. If this is inccrrect, I expect that ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or enforcement admins would have long-ago corrected the misuse of the remedy. A clarification to explicitly state the status quo handling of the remedy should not be necessary. It should suffice for arbitrators to uphold the standard interpretation, as they are doing in Olaf Stephanos' specific case. If it is really considered necessary to deal with this by way of formal clarification, then please resolve the matter by motion ASAP to prevent this from becoming an in for all previous and standing sanctions to be wikilawyered. -- Vassyana ( talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just noting that John Carter has requested Kirill's input, per NYB's request. [28]
Statement by Kirill Lokshin
The intent of the remedy, as written, was to both (a) place the article on standard article probation, which allows administrators to enact topic bans on their own discretion and (b) provide an explicit provision for further review should the probation prove unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators voting for this remedy believed its meaning to be different from this. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I'd appreciate if someone could ask Kirill Lokshin for his thoughts on this request, as he drafted the decision. Thanks.
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Kirill's interpretation is consistent with the decision and the intent of the arbitrators who voted for it. If other arbitrators agree, hopefully this will be a sufficient clarification. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Brad and Kirill. Would note, however, that the issues being discussed in another case (Abd-WMC, in the final stages of voting) impact on the issues of article probation, and discretionary sanctions, and whether admins have the discretion to impose topic and page bans outside of probation or discretionary sanctions (this is not the case here). If anyone commenting here thinks there is the potential here for inconsistency in ArbCom rulings from case to case, then that needs to be clarified urgently.
Carcharoth (
talk) 18:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think this comment is well-taken. I think this may help demonstrate the need, not only for us to be clear as to the Arbitration Committee's own interpretation of policies and practices in this area, but for the community to develop a policy in this area as discussed in the Abd-WMC proposed decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Initiated by Sandstein at 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Sandstein ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- No other specific editor.
Amendment 1
I ask that remedy 1, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, be vacated and replaced by a standard discretionary sanctions remedy, such as e.g. WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions.
Statement by Sandstein
Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at WP:GS#Types of sanctions ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at WP:AE#Simonm223, I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, a maiore ad minus, the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.
I make this request as an administrator active in WP:AE (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong. Sandstein 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Vassyana
I have reviewed the editorial history of this topic area in some depth. Fulfilling this request would be immensely helpful to the editors trying to help resolve the disputes. This will be encouraging to administrators already trying to make headway in the area. It will also encourage more administrators to intervene, especially those who may have been ambivalent about the more limited enforcement options. This will also be beneficial to editors in the area, with the conditions and sanctions better tailored to the situation. The resulting improvements and normalization of the editing environment will allow dispute resolution efforts a great deal more traction and success. The long-running and intractable nature of the overall dispute in the topic area should justify the expanded measures. Vassyana ( talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Discrectionary sanctions would be good, to fine tune sanctions. (I think that this request was raised for the wrong reasons, but that's a different topic)
Statement By Simonm223
Quite frankly I shouldn't even be given a revert restriction for protecting the neutrality of the FLG articles from blatant efforts to insert a strong POV. Notwithstanding that this is still a good idea. Simonm223 ( talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by HappyInGeneral
No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The latest example (food for thought):
- Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
- However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts [29], [30], [31] and no discussion about the actual changes.
In my understanding Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I cross posted the above here. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse. I wish to remain uninvolved as an arbitrator, because I have been involved in the past as an outside editor/informal mediator and wish to engage the area on that basis. I will make a brief statement as a regular editor. Vassyana ( talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable and uncontroversial; I'll make the appropriate motions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Motions
1) Imposition of discretionary sanctions
- The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:
- (a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.
- (b) Standard discretionary sanctions ( Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for " Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.
- This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.
- Support
- As proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith ( talk) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo approves this motion 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Per Sandstein's rationale above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shell babelfish 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein's rationale fits here. Folks working at AE and to follow up these things need all the support the Committee can give them. SirFozzie ( talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- KnightLago ( talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Initiated by Asdfg 12345 at 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs) banned from editing Falun Gong and related article or template content for six months. See AE thread. Sandstein 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Asdfg12345 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Enric Naval ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment action requested
- I argue that the sanction was mistaken and ask that it be rescinded.
Statement by Asdfg12345
Sandstein said he banned me from editing Falun Gong articles for three reasons: “edit-warring (less aggressively than some of his opponents, but still), single purpose account (editing only FG topics) and advocacy (editing only to present FG more favorably)”
I will respond to these points with explanation and diffs.
1: On the edit warring charge.
I have had a policy of 1RR for a long time now. I think the only time I broke it was shown in the complaint against me; I crossed 1RR a couple of times then. That was under the circumstance that the other editor had ignored a consensus, derived from an RfC, which supported what I had suggested from the beginning. I felt justified, but in hindsight would be more careful. I’m not aware of any other edit warring on my part—none was presented in the original AE—and it is my intention to maintain the 1RR policy and not revert at all when it can be avoided. I try to always discuss things cogently and civilly. I do not edit war, do not intend to edit war, and know edit warring is bad.
2: On the single purpose account charge.
Since being banned I have taken a broader interest in other topics related to Chinese politics and governance. Whether I edit Falun Gong articles or not, I will continue to edit other articles unrelated to Falun Gong.
I note that the page on SPAs is not a policy item, but an essay. Of course, Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and advocates coming to push their POVs should be shown the door. I am here to help build this encyclopedia on the topics that I know about and that interest me, not as an advocate of an outside cause. I know the rules and play by them, and I want to build professional articles on the subjects I edit. (Though I’ve also been accused of “wikilawyering” when citing policy or providing sources to support my views.)
3: On the advocacy charge.
I do not and have not edited only to present Falun Gong more favourably. Most of my ideas for improvement, and many of my edits, are not structured along the lines of favourable/unfavourable, which I think is most often an unproductive dichotomy for categorising edits or editors. That said, it may appear that many of my edits make Falun Gong look favourable because a lot of the information which paints Falun Gong in an unfavourable light, whether reliably sourced or not, or in accord with due weight or not, is already in the articles, or has already been added by other editors. Making Falun Gong look favourable is not my purpose for editing Wikipedia, and I of course know the job of Wikipedia isn’t to paint Falun Gong in a favourable light—I don’t support including material just because it is perceived favourable to Falun Gong, and excluding material just because it is perceived as unfavourable. Making this accusation has become a common way of deflecting attention from the issues at hand onto the individual raising the problem.
Here is a small collection of edits meant to counter the idea that I’m editing Wikipedia to promote a pro-Falun Gong point of view:
- Here I removed some effusive praise for Falun Gong that was inappropriate for the lead of an article. Here a paragraph of defense of Falun Gong’s founder’s financial situation.
- Here I reverted what appeared to me an attempt to replace material critical or derisive of Falun Gong’s teachings with material that did not include such remarks. This was cited by Enric Naval as an example of how I “remove criticism,” but the opposite is true. I initially wrote that section summarising the views disparaging of Falun Gong's teachings.
- Here is one edit in a section that I wrote about the debate about psychiatric abuse of Falun Gong practitioners in China, including the voices that were more sympathetic to the stance of the Chinese Communist Party. Previously I had also outlined the CCP's claims against Falun Gong, including phrases like "...the practice has exploited spiritual cultivation to engage its practitioners in seditious politics. They also allege that manipulation via their "lies and fallacies", Falun Gong "caused needless deaths of large numbers of practitioners"" etc. none of which I considered unusual to have done.)
- Here I got a barnstar from my sparring partner, Ohconfucius. (He must have figured I can’t be all bad, then).
- Here an editor uninvolved in the Falun Gong pages took the initiative to defend me in a discussion: "I know the Asdfg12345 has edited things other than this; while his edits may be 90% FLG-related, I know he's also worked on other general Chinese culture pages (not to mention he once AfD'ed Masanjia Labor Camp, which is not something you'd expect from someone who is a blind FLG follower, given that pretty much all of these RTL-related articles are anti-China")
- Here are some of the edits, I made to the main Falun Gong article before I was banned. These edits were cited as an example of how I’m a POV-pusher when I numbered them all and asked for discussion before they be removed. They were removed without discussion. Then I added them back, and they stuck (above are the second round). It’s not that I only put in things I believe. I don’t believe some of that is true, some of it depicts Falun Gong negatively too, which I have never opposed, but it’s from reliable sources and in that context is relevant.
- Here are some of the recent proposals I have made (while banned from editing those pages) for improving the pages. I haven’t put on a special show of neutrality since being banned to curry favour. If that is pro-Falun Gong advocacy then I have a lot more reflection to do than I thought. Several of those posts were simple exercises in research, like finding how many sources categorise Falun Gong as "qigong," and how many as "new religious movement" etc. Some of the ideas were ignored anyway.
- The above are just a sample after a quick scan of my contributions to Falun Gong articles.
Final remarks
Those are just some examples. I wrote a
long response to the arguments presented by Enric Naval that attempted to show that I am a tendentious editor who lavishes praise on Falun Gong and deletes anything perceived negative. Most of the complaint and belated response is straightforward, I think, except the second complaint. That is more complex. The quickest way to sum it up, though, is to see the
two
RfCs I started, and note that the opinion of the uninvolved party was exactly what I had been saying. There was a second RfC because Simonm223
ignored the first.
When writing this, I made a choice to say little about the editing dynamics on the pages, the issues surrounding Falun Gong and how they may relate to Wikipedia, perceived biases on the part of some editors, which usually dominate discussion on this subject. Based on some of the unwelcoming remarks to newcomers though, I think the environment will have to improve to avoid further litigation.
I think my being banned was a mistake, and I hope above to have shown why. I have learned from the experience, and will continue to cultivate a more nuanced approach to editing Wikipedia, including doing better with research, and editing a wider variety of articles. I feel like I have gotten some perspective in this month, thought about the issues, and so decided to request an amendment. Please advise if further evidence would be helpful in deciding my case. Thank you for your time.
Respectfully, -- Asdfg 12345 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Some thoughtful remarks on the subject from an outside editor: [32] [33]
- Steve Smith and SirFozzie, the discretionary sanctions page says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." I was given no such opportunity. My dispute is, or was originally, mainly with the substance of the charges, and I responded to them as best I could above (it would be of some small comfort if I knew that the people assessing this had checked the diffs and considered whether the three problems actually existed or not). However, this procedural point is rather important if justice is to be served. The ban was made under the circumstance that I was not "given a warning" or "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take." That means it violated the terms under which these discretionary sanctions are supposed to be imposed.
- Maunus, I have never meant to give anyone mental grief. I think {user|PelleSmith} stopped editing the pages after encountering the intransigence of several anti-Falun Gong editors. Making RfCs and Noticeboard posts are legitimate ways of attempting to resolve disputes, as far as I understand. I've just tried to edit and discuss issues on Wikipedia in good faith, backed up by strong research. I hold that in nearly all cases disputes can be brought back to the reliable sources and resolved through good research. Some of the issues involved in this subject are complex and specific, and it takes some time to resolve. As far as I understand I have followed all the rules and been civil nearly all the time. Should I be banned for assiduity? -- Asdfg 12345 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I wish I could understand how this was a reasonable use of admin discretion, given the evidence above, and lack of evidence for the opposing views which were the reasons for the ban. I find it extremely confusing that arbitrators think my case is not only "comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion" but that the "decision appears reasonable" as well. And there is no way to actually determine whether they have evaluated the case on its own merits or not; they fail to comment on the evidence or elaborate on the rationale of the case.
Sandstein's rationale for banning me makes three claims that are provable/disprovable. They are specific claims, the truth value of which can be evaluated objectively. I was said to have edit warred, but the only evidence for that is breaking one revert of the same content within 24 hours, after having sought a third party opinion that was ignored; I was said to only edit Falun Gong articles, something that is allowed, but my contributions indicate otherwise anyway; I was said to have edited only to make Falun Gong look favourable, but a string of diffs above also indicate that this is not the case. At the moment the process is slightly bewildering, and it's completely unclear as to what, precisely, I have done wrong. I have been given no ideas about how I'm supposed to "improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines," since no specific problems have been pointed out. If the arguments were a bit more slippery, it would be easier to justify them. For example, that I'm an inveterate Falun Gong apologist no matter what I do or say, editing other articles is just covering my tracks, and the times when I edit against Falun Gong, that's also to cover my tracks. Then I would be a class enemy. In that case, I wouldn't have much to say; it would be an impenetrable argument. But they are three quite specific claims, and I believe I have shown how they are untrue above. At the moment it just seems like I'm being treated as a class enemy without that being openly stated.
I suppose this format is very limited for being able to understand the processing of all the information that I presume is going on in people's brains.
My other concern, though, is that the major procedural flaw in how this case was decided still appears to have been overlooked: I was not "given a warning" before sanctions were imposed. The page outlining discretionary sanctions mentions this twice. Whatever the merits of the decision, I do not understand how sanctions which didn't follow the rules of how they were meant to be applied can be upheld.
I could not think of a more effective process for making someone get a sense that their rights had been tossed aside and due process ignored. If we want to carry the working logic forward, given that I am such a bad egg who would not even benefit from a clear explanation of how they can improve before being banned, or precisely what they have done wrong, or even deserve to be accorded due process, why not just ban me from Falun Gong articles forever? Why would six months make any difference? And why should I be able to edit the talk pages? At least then there would be some consistency in the autocracy. Whatever the decision, to whoever can give a clear, reasoned, response as to how Sandstein's three arguments are still valid in light of my response, and answer my complaints about due process, I would be grateful.-- Asdfg 12345 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- By "class enemy," broadly speaking I mean someone who is to be punished for who they are, not for what they have done. I say that because it appears to be the most useful model for understanding the current situation in my view, based on the discussion and respect accorded to evidence and process so far. -- Asdfg 12345 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Conclusion (posted from SirFozzie's talk)
I won't apply for any kind of community appeal, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time, my time, and the time of other editors and admins. I saw an exchange between Shell Kinney and Olaf Stephanos which makes the situation very clear. I had thought that the policies were like a book of law that you just had to stick to and keep within. But it's actually much more about perceptions, social capital, and branding. And nonconformists may have extraordinary measures applied to them. Never mind when propaganda comes from editors who are integrated into Wikipedia, and "outsiders" wish to fix things and explicitly follow all relevant rules when doing so. If you are seen as an advocate, especially for a perceived NRM (but not for science) you are not welcome. It doesn't matter if you are reasonable and law-abiding or not. This is probably just a necessary evil and compromise given Wikipedia's openness and potential for real bad guys to exploit the system. I maintain that I am not one of the bad guys, have kept strictly within policy, and have only ever wished for a professional treatment of Falun Gong. I have been polite nearly all the time, and frequently compromised, shared ideas, and worked with whoever was interested to build the pages. I do not want to see a whitewashing or exclusion of criticism. But doing Wikipedia properly means no propaganda, stringent sourcing, and inclusion of every significant perspective. All that is explicitly within Wikipedia's policies. I am not sure who will have the mettle to challenge the editors dedicated to promoting a negative view of Falun Gong - and their sympathisers - who are seen as part of the community. The silent consent to these ideologically motivated activities allows a page to go from this (11,200 words) to this (2,500 words).-- Asdfg 12345 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I'm not sure whether, in view of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal, this is the right venue for an appeal of a discretionary sanction, but if arbitrators would like my opinion about this request, I'll give it. Sandstein 06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This request belongs to WP:AE.
The content disputes belong to the talk pages of articles (and, for the record, I will reply much better to requests about content that are not filled with bad faith assumptions cannot be easily interpreted
[34] as being full of bad faith assumptions about how I'm trying to smear Falun Gong for some unspecified reason). --
Enric Naval (
talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Olaf Stephanos
I will give my brief comment. Asdfg12345 has worked constructively on the Falun Gong articles for several years. He has always been polite towards other editors, and has taken a methodical approach to NPOV, ensuring that no relevant point of view is left out and that sources are given fair treatment. His insistence on high-quality sources has been categorical, and he has repeatedly made use of peer-reviewed journals and other reputable academic publications.
I am afraid that the involved administrators do not fully understand the delicate balance of the overall situation. The neutrality of the Falun Gong articles has seriously degraded after Asdfg12345 was blocked. As many of us have observed, this is not a simple matter of "neutral-minded" editors seeking to honestly work towards an article that gives fair and due weight to all relevant viewpoints—and who follow neutrality as methodology—against "biased" SPAs who only work to "promote their cause". Indeed, practically none of the editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles has taken a totally cool, dispassionate approach to the subject matter. This is partly due to the editing environment and its long-standing disputes that have never been resolved properly, in spite of numerous attempts. Yet, among the group of editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles over the last few years, Asdfg12345's track record is among the very cleanest. He has proactively initiated rational and argumentative discussion, and I feel that this may be one reason why some would rather see him blocked. Asdfg12345 has kept up the true spirit of Wikipedia against those who have a preconceived notion of how the Falun Gong articles should read, and who fail to regard the true depth of high-ranking research out there. Moreover, there are always those who'd rather cut the corners than engage in real discussion.
My opinion is that the Arbitration Committee, or other Wikipedia officials in positions of comparable power, should put in the effort to investigate the situation from a pragmatic perspective. I would argue that Asdfg12345's case is too susceptible to an individual administrator's impression of the subject matter as such; in other words, I strongly feel that the case has not been evaluated on its own merits. The produced evidence does not warrant a block, and a six month topic ban is simply inconceivable. Just take a look at Asdfg12345's edit history: it can only prove that he is here to truly construct an encyclopedia. Even though his focus has been on the Falun Gong articles and related subjects in the past, his contributions have been extremely solid, balanced, well-sourced, and transparent. He is a real expert, and these articles and their informed readers sorely miss him. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Comment by previously involved user User:Maunus
Having previously involved in the diting of Falun Gong related articles I was acquainted with User:asdfg and his/her editing style. User:asdfg is very polite and forthcoming and never stoops to civilty violations or other kinds of overtly abusive or disruptive behaviour. However, I think there is every reason to maintain the ban on the reason of asdfg's being a clear instance of a Single Purpose Account - of the most tenacious variety. I arrived at Falun Gong with out any preconceived notions (except an interest in presenting the issue in a academically adequate manner from the POV of a sociologist of religion (if anything I was prepared to possibly have to defend the viewpoint of Falun Gong as minority religion as these are often prone to attacks from "anti-cult editors")) - I was soon so completely exhausted by the constant pressure and civil disruption (in the form of disregard for consensus, continued argument over issues already determined by consensus and different kinds of vexatious litigation (in the form of rfc's, etc.)) from asdfg and other openly pro-Falun Gong editors that I decided that continuing work on that article was not worth the costs to my mental health - I know that several other editors have had similar experiences. I believe that topic banning asdfg from Falun Gong related articles is the right way to protect wikipedias integrity and the mental health of its neutral-minded editors. In short, I believe that no amendment to this arbitration decision is required or warranted ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- This should go to WP:AE, but at an initial examination this looks to me like a reasonable exercise of the discretion granted to administrators under the January 19, 2010 case amendment. Steve Smith ( talk) 03:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Steve Smith. We give administrators working in the area of AE reasonable discretion to interpret arbcom remedies. SirFozzie ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well within the realm of administrator discretion and from review, looks to be a reasonable decision as well. Shell babelfish 14:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with my colleagues that the decision appears reasonable and, in any case, is comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion. — Coren (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by PCPP at 05:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- WP:FLG-A.
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- PCPP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- I request the sanction be lifted
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
Statement by PCPP
I was previously topic banned in 2011 from editing the Falun Gong articles wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong for at least one year, after which I could appeal. Currently I have no further desire to edit the FLG articles, however, since it is mentioned in many of the China related articles, I wish to have the freedom to edit the articles without triggering a violation.
Furthermore, I would have to have the rights to file cases against users who I find might violate the FLG arbitration case. Last month, I filed a case incorrectly without appealing my own topic ban [35] , which resulted in a temporary block.
Statement by Hijiri88
I find it suspicious that PCPP has two TBAN-violation blocks in his log but has only made only 246 mainspace edits since the ban was imposed. Additionally, it would seem that a number of edits that went unnoticed (did not result in blocks) were also violations, as they edited articles with "Falun Gong" in the titles 20 times between February 2011 and October 2011 but were not blocked until January. There was apparently a hubbub following these violations that resulted in several other editors being TBANned, but I have not figured out how PCPP avoided getting blocked.
Typically, the way one goes about appealing a TBAN is to demonstrate one is capable of working on building an encyclopedia in a constructive manner without violating the ban, but in this case it appears PCPP continued editing as though nothing had happened, then once they were finally blocked continued making piecemeal edits for a couple of months before essentially dropping out of the project for four years and coming back to get blocked for violating the TBAN and immediately appealing it.
@ PCPP: Can you explain why you think your TBAN was put in place in the first place and why you have barely edited Wikipedia since your TBAN was enforced?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Looks to me like a clear-cut case of biding time until allowed back into the same fray. If the editor was not interested in getting back into Falun Gong editing, they wouldn't be trying to pursue Falun Gong-related grievances, and would have done something constructive on the encyclopedia in the intervening time. Looks like a WP:NOTHERE / WP:5THWHEEL matter to me. I'm not unsympathetic to feeling one has been wrongly accused and taking a long break, having been in that boat once myself, but the editor isn't even making that case. Just vanished for years and is now back arguing about FG again while disavowing an intent to get into FG matters. Seems just like yelling "I am not yelling!", which is funny in a comedy but not in real life. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Falun Gong.: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Falun Gong.: Arbitrator views and discussion
- OK, not a lot of community comment here, but that's understandable given the activity levels involved. PCPP, it appears that you haven't made a mainspace edit since December 2013, and your only recent activity consists of attempting to file a complaint in violation of your topic ban. Given that you say one of the reasons you want your sanction lifted is so you can file complaints, I'm not inclined to grant this request. I suggest reacquainting yourself with the encyclopedia after your time away by doing some editing in mainspace in an unrelated topic area and filing a new appeal after six months of productive contributions. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per Opabinia, lifting a topic ban so that someone can file complaints is not to anyone's benefit. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 04:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per my colleagues above. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline as above. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per above. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Decline from me too. Drmies ( talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Marvin 2009 at 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Marvin 2009 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- PatCheng ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PCPP ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Guerillero ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
Statement by Marvin 2009
Can an editor who has been under a topic ban use a sock puppet to report another editor to arbitration enforcement? Clearly not. And if the editor do so before the sock puppetry is uncovered, should any sanction arising from his or her complaint be nullified, after the sock puppetry is uncovered?
By the end of June, I was informed for an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong in response to PatCheng's arbitration enforcement request. On July 27, both PatCheng and PCPP were blocked, as PatCheng has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of PCPP who has been topic banned on Falun Gong since Nov 2011. I am requesting a clarification that whether the topic ban enforced on me due to PatCheng's AE request should be nullified? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Tantusar: In response to PatCheng's complaint, yes, in the beginning one admin was concerned about edit warring and aspersions casting. I replied to the admin right away at that time explaining how each of my altogether 7 edits in June was not edit warring (even not 1RR), and nor did i cast any aspersions in communicating with others. On the contrary, I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. After that, there has been no further response from that admin. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 13:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PatCheng
Statement by PCPP
Statement by Guerillero
You may also want to take a look at
- User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/July#It seems that the AE report against me was from a sock puppet account (posted 17 July 2020)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Falun Gong 2
- Ongoing ANI thread
- AE Thread that lead to the existing sanctions
Marvin 2009 has been trying their darnedest to reverse their topic ban; this is the fourth try in a month to reverse their topic ban. I stand by the topic ban and point to the fact that each of the 4 have failed to follow WP:NOTTHEM. Marvin 2009 interacts with dispute resolution as if it was a court or justice system instead of as a system to prevent disruption. The topic ban is from an area that is plagued with edit warring, aspersions, and general intractability. The whole area may need an additional arb case shortly to do another round of site/topic bans and place 30/500 over the topic area -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Newslinger
See the following discussions for context:
- WP:AN § Appealing my topic ban – posted 27 July 2020
- User talk:Guerillero § Could you please consider to cancel the topic ban added on me? – posted 28 July 2020
This amendment request is Marvin 2009's third appeal of their topic ban this week. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Tantusar
That PatCheng was a sockpuppet seems to me to be largely irrelevant to whether Marvin 2009 should or should not have received a topic ban. The administrators on the enforcement request found that Marvin was edit warring and casting aspersions. PatCheng's behaviour does not change these findings. Suggest amendment request be denied. Tantusar ( talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade
I do not see any particular relevance to the fact that the AE complaint was brought by someone later found to be a sockpuppet. Even at that request, the three of us who discussed it did note that the PatCheng account seemed awfully fishy in the way they were behaving, and for that reason (among others) they were sanctioned as well. Marvin 2009's sanction has already been subject to, and upheld by, community review at AN, so I think it is shown to be valid. It is not unusual, at AE, for a filer of a request for sanctions to themselves have engaged in misbehavior too, but that cannot mean we just ignore what they bring up if the concerns are indeed legitimate. It may mean, as in this request, that both parties wind up sanctioned.
That aside, I'll reiterate my concern that there has been a lot of unusual behavior in regards to Falun Gong, including sleeper accounts popping right back to activity the moment a serious dispute starts. I still think that warrants a closer look, and finding the sockpuppetry here makes me think so even more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
I think Newyorkbrad is right. Socking to report other users is a high risk strategy, and any report is unlikely to result in sanctions unless the behaviour merits it. Which in this case it seems to have done. Marvin was edit-warring to advance a POV, and his only excuse was " but look at all this bias". He has under 5,400 edits, over 11 years, and FG topics dominate. I don't think he's here to be part of the wider project. Guy ( help!) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Falun Gong: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- This request seeks to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. I have therefore reformatted this request as an amendment request for the original case and named the administrator who imposed the sanction as a party. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Falun Gong: Arbitrator views and discussion
- This would be akin to fruit of the poisonous tree if this were a judicial system. Since it's not, overturning an AE topic ban for that reason alone is not required (and from what I understand, the appeal has already been declined for other reasons). Looking at it another way: If a non-topic banned party had requested the enforcement, would it still have been applied? Since the sockpuppetry was not known to the placing administrator at the time, the answer seems to be yes. – xeno talk 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- For convenience, link to the topic-ban discussion is here. My approach is similar to Xeno's (and continuing the American legal metaphor for a moment, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has its inevitable discovery exception). We obviously don't want people creating or using sockpuppets in edit-wars or to get people sanctioned at AE (or for any other reason), and if the editor's problematic behavior was largely provoked by the since-revealed sock, that fact might be relevant to a sanction decision. But if an editor is behaving so poorly in a DS area that he or she would have been brought to AE by someone else in any event, then it would be pointless bureaucracy to vacate the existing sanction and wait for another AE complaint to be filed with the same result. Pinging the other admins who participated in the AE discussion (@ JzG and Seraphimblade:) in case they have any thoughts to share. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Broadly agree with the above remarks. The topic ban was imposed based on the sanctioned editors behavior, who did the reporting doesn't change that, this is a website, not a court. The best way forward if you want a topic ban rescinded is to completely ignore said topic for a prolonged period while making positive contributions elsewhere. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Xeno. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with all the above. Katie talk 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree with those who commented above. There is no indication that the reporting user being a sock in any way influenced the sanction (as NYB points out), so overturning it just because of that seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Regards So Why 07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)