This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Clarifying how NPOV principle applies to use of Li Hongzhi quotes[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed principle Number 7 states:

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

Since many of the editing disputes on these Falun Gong pages have revolved around the inclusion of well-sourced and relevant Li Hongzhi quotes, I propose that the arbitrators consider forumulating a procedural approach on how to resolve these types of conflicts when they arise. Specifically, I am referring to a situation where Li Hongzhi has said X about subject Y, but when that information is posted in an edit the FG practitioners delete that quote, or others like it, on the grounds that they are taken out of context or in some way "misrepresent" what Falun Gong teachings and goals are all about. By way of example, Li Hongzhi has made many notable statements about the demonic nature of homosexuality, which he considers not meeting the standard of being human. While struggling to get this information reported in Wikipedia last year, one of the administrators enunciated a principle similar to proposed principle Number 7...that an editor should not edit at the expense of another editor's work. If an edit reports notable, important and well-sourced information, it should be allowed to stand, with the understanding that additional information or another POV can be inserted to accompany that edit, when appropriate.

For these Falun Gong articles, arbitrators need to recognize that the image of the Falun Gong which practitioners seek to promote is often in conflict with what their Master has said. Certain quotes from Master Li are routinely deleted, regardless of how they are formulated or what other efforts may be done by the opposing editor to satisfy concerns about "context." A proposed remedy for this problem might be to state that if a direct quote from Li is introduced by an editor in good faith, and that quote is well-sourced and clearly important to the topic at hand, then the appropriate response by the Falun Gong practitioners should be to add more information, rather than delete the edit they disagree with. The model for this kind of editing would look like this: "Li has said x about y, but he has also made other statements about y which might lead to a different interpretation." --Tomananda 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following proposal from Tomanada: "Li has said x about y, but he has also made other statements about y which might lead to a different interpretation." quite reasonable. Basically when introducing the Fa Rectification on the Epoch Times page, the plan was to go ahead and implement what some of us where proposing to expound on this issue on the Teaching page then use a wikilink to it. Still there is one problem, namely strong POV pushing, because many things can be said about Falun Dafa. So a question arise, are we prepared to dedicate thousands of pages (well maybe just several hundreds of pages) to have everything in balance of relevance? For example if we have a whole section on the homosexuality part which is a very tiny part of the Teachings, basically a few sentences in thousands of pages from the complete teachings of Li Hongzhi (conferences included), then aren't we giving to much attention to it? Not to mention that many righteous schools of cultivation like Christianity, require taking sexual relationships lightly. Anyway I don't want to be the judge of this. I think the best solution is to have a neutral mediator decide. I hope that by article probation, this is exactly what you mean. Also I think it would help to even out things if we could make these pages the project of the month, so a lot of contributors could come and make edits, and that might show us exactly, what people who are neutral to the subject think it is relevant. --HappyInGeneral 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

“Exposing the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder”: A personal statement[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I will revisit your situation. It remains to be seen whether the other arbitrators will support my position with respect to NPOV. Fred Bauder 00:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to support the proposed bans. You (plural) are engaged in a campaign. Fred Bauder 15:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am really puzzled at why three arbitrators would vote to ban me from these articles given the fact that at least one of those arbitrators has proposed a definition of NPOV which includes “exposure of doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder”. If edits which expose the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder rely on quotes from that founder, how can those edits be considered a violation of NPOV? I am charged with pushing a particular ideology, yet all I have attempted to do is expose the teachings and practices of Li Hongzhi. As I have repeatedly said in discussion, I do not condone the CCP in it’s treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China. But at the same time I am outraged at the way Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in repeated deletions of edits which simply report what their own master says.

Again, I ask all arbitrators to take a closer look at the nature of the edits which have been used as evidence against me. I have not deleted favorable Falun Gong commentary, but rather re-inserted various edits which do exactly what this definition of NPOV says: “expose the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder.” If there’s been a failure to achieve balanced editing here, it must be on the side of practitioners who delete relevant and well sourced material rather than add additional context to present their POV.

Frankly, the votes to ban me without any explanation of what "ideology" I'm supposed to be pushing are quite baffling. Whether I am personally banned from these articles is not really the issue. If I am banned, there will no doubt be other editors who seek to expose "the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder” by inserting appropriate and well-sourced quotes from Master Li. Are those editors also going to be banned for this behavior? And if so, how will this article ever achieve a balanced reporting of the Falun Gong? Under this defintion of NPOV, what can possibly justify the relentless deletion of Master Li's quotes by practitioners in this article?

Because of my edits on the Falun Gong, I have been the subject of repeated personal attacks from anonymous vandals who support the Falun Gong, most recently these: [1],[2]

And now it appears that the arbitrators of Wikipedia think I should be banned for holding firm to the principle that the whole story of the Falun Gong...not just the watered down benign version which the practitioners so aggressively promote…be told in Wikipedia. I simply can't believe that this is the result that the Aribtration Committee is seeking. --Tomananda 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been telling you all along, Tomananda, that many neutral observers would note how skewed and purpose-oriented your edits have been right from the beginning. You and your roommate Samuel Luo are here only to "expose the dark side of Falun Gong", which is a certainly a so-called "novel narrative" you have constructed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For example, Fred Bauder has keenly observed that the cited evidence you provided against Asdfg12345 "generally shows removal of biased editing". You have been able to uphold this anti-FLG bubble for quite some time, because there have been plenty of other people on the talk pages who think ill of Falun Gong, and the voice of reason has been frequently muffled by those who don't even know what WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV mean. These articles are not for insinuations, allusions, aspersions, half-truths and implications. Furthermore, a balanced, neutral account of Falun Gong and its teachings takes into consideration the relative weight of different elements in the entire corpus of texts, which is something you've never wanted to discuss seriously. No - your sole intention has been to otherize Li Hongzhi, Falun Gong and its practitioners. Even though some of your points have been relevant, they have been inundated by your agenda of marginalization, of 'us' and 'them', of ideological struggle against what you (and a Communist dictatorship, and some fringe types who have been driven out of the scientific community) see as a "cultic menace". Please keep in mind that it was your party who insisted on expanding this case to carefully scrutinize the behaviour of all involved editors. These ArbCom members have done a great job going through our edit histories, and now they're evidently reaching what I thought is the logical conclusion.

Linking the puerile insults on your talk page to "Falun Gong supporters" is not only bemusing, it is downright risible. That's all I have to say. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Insinuations, allusions, aspertions and half truths"? My intention has been to "otherize" Li Hongzhi? What nonsense! Your language above does not even attempt to substantiate these edit findings based on an application of actual Wikipedia policies, but instead relies on a broad attack against my motivations as an editor. For the record, my intention has been to report notable and highly relevant statements coming directly from Li Hongzhi. Yes, I did comment once on the discussion pages that many of these statements from Li represent the "dark side" of the Falun Gong and, yes, that is my POV, but the bottom line is Li's quotes speak for themselves. At best, you can argue that my selection of Li quotes has in some ways been biased, but by the same token a Falun Gong critic can just as easily make the same argument about your selection of quotes. And for the record, what exactly have these quotes from Li addressed? They have addressed such issues as what he says the purpose of the Epoch Times is, and what he considers the role of his disciples during this period of what he has called the period of "the Last Havoc", or "Fa-Rectification."

So while you may be anxious to declare, in gloating terms, a victory for the Falun Gong apologists, I wouldn't declare victory yet. And even if the decision is made to, in effect, suppress direct statements from Li Hongzhi in the name of NPOV policy, the well-concealed truth about Li's teachings "at the higher levels" has already surfaced in some of the media and this will continue to happen with or without my efforts. Call me naive if you like, but I am certain that over time the public will come to a different understanding about Li Hongzhi and his Great Law of the Cosmos than it presently has. In fact, I feel the same will happen for the practitioners themselves over time.--Tomananda 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Concerning your denial of the cultish nature of Li Hongzhi's teachings and practices, your argument is based on a logical falacy. The fact that the Chinese Communist Party may use the label "cult" to justify it's treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China does not clear the Falun Gong from charges by Western psychologists that the ~~CCP~~ Falun Gong is, in fact, a dangerous cult. Stated more simply: just because the CCP says the Falun Gong is a cult does not mean it is not a cult. Instead, it means that it's best to rely on other evidence, which is exactly what I have done in all my edits. There is a legitmate case to be made that Li Hongzhi's maniuplative control over his disciples (who depend on him for their very salvation) has jeopordized the health and well-being of his disciples here in the US. That case does not depend on evidence from the CCP and you know it. The Wikipedia arbitration committee risks suppressing important information about the potential dangers of following Li Hongzhi's teachings by virtue of its ruling in this case. I just hope that reason will prevail over your florid rhetoric and ad hominen arguments. --Tomananda 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can vent your anger as much as you want, Tomananda, but why do you think several arbitrators have voted against you? Frankly, haven't you broken the rules? These people have evaluated dozens, maybe hundreds of cases, and they're pretty competent in what they do. Instead of reflecting on what you have done wrong and trying to mend your ways, you keep throwing accusations at others. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought this is some kind of a conspiracy against those who just want to "report notable and highly relevant statements coming directly from Li Hongzhi". I'll say this just once more: our party has absolutely nothing against a neutral, all-encompassing account of Falun Gong and its teachings. In fact, this is what we definitely intend to do, regardless of whether you and Samuel will be booted or not.

On the contrary, we feel that your edits have generally tried to construct an essentialized, crude, over-simplified representation of "Falun Gong according to two guys from San Francisco", and that is what we won't consent to; no doubt, that's what the arbitrators have found out as well. You've gathered a mish-mash of what you see as juicy or sensational quotes and force them wherever you want, never taking into account the enormous complexity and multifacetedness of the subject you're writing about. You do this only to provoke an anticipated reaction in readers, and that's what you call "informing the public". You write like a tabloid journalist. In addition, you don't treat your fellow editors as rational, intelligent and independent human beings who generally act in good faith and definitely want to see a good, informative article; in your words, they're merely a bunch of "cult apologists", blindly "following their master's commands" and trying to keep the "truth" from being revealed. I've seen these catch phrases a million times, and it doesn't surprise me at all that your rhetoric is directly borrowed from the quasi-religious Anti-Cult Movement. (Why not refer to Reader's Digest for a change?) In fact - and I might be wrong about this - I don't remember you citing any real social or cultural studies that would've characterized Falun Gong as a "cult". Tell me, do you admit that this nebulous label can be used as a political tool of marginalization and otherization? Do you admit there are plenty of people who, for various reasons, exploit this label in their struggle against dissidence, nonconformism and perceived heresy? Have you ever seriously pondered these questions?

Of course, the label has its proper uses as well. It lightens my heart to see you saying that "the CCP is, in fact, a dangerous cult". Finally we agree about something; there's just a small hint of fear at the back of my mind, namely, you could have made a Freudian slip... ---Olaf Stephanos 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, I am neither a "puerile" nor an especially "angry" person, but it does bother me how you so characteristically frame these debates in personal terms. Rather than attacking me, or issuing broad characterizations about my editing style ("I write like a tabloid journalist") you would do better to acknowledge that Li has said many things which you simple don't want reported in Wikipedia. If that were not the case, why all the deletions of direct Li quotes? In your response above you seek to belittle the opinon of American cult experts, suggesting that the very concept of cultish behavior is at the level of the Reader's Digest. I acknowledge that there is no academic consensus on the definition of brainwashing, but to suggest that people may be victims of "brainwashing" or "undue influence" at the hands of cult leaders is not, in itself, a puerile opinion. If you think it is puerile to use language of this sort, how can you explain Li's own statement that:

Having been ruled by the CCP for decades, today’s Chinese people have been thoroughly brainwashed. The words that Mainland Chinese people use, the way they think, and how they look at things are all brimming with what the CCP has instilled in them. Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago (June 26, 2005) [3]

Let's be realistic here: Li grew up during the cultural revolution and was therefore a direct witness to what some have called "the cult of Mao." It's not suprising, therefore, that he would incorporate some of these same manipulative techniques when he formulated, at the age of about 40, his unique blend of Buddhism, Daoism, Chrisianity, and popular superstition (as in aliens invading our planet.) I admire Li for his creativity and imagination, but please forgive me for saying that I do not think he protects his followers with his Fashen, heals their illnesses, or is preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it.

We could go on for days with the conversation, but none of it will really help the Arbitrators sort out this case, so let's just agree to disagree on exactly what Li's powers are and leave it at that. I laughed heartily when my "freudian slip" of labelling the CCP a cult instad of the Falun Gong was called to my attention. I think it's really funny, because from my POV, both have cult-like charactersistics which need to be called to the public's attention. --Tomananda 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I can honestly say that, for the most part, I've stayed on the background while you were fighting the bloodiest revert wars. I would've taken a different approach, as I've always promoted contextualization instead of removal. When I came back after a long period of absence, I didn't start fighting with you; I wrote a few (admittedly pungent but) well-sourced statements on the talk pages, and then I initiated this arbitration request. I don't agree with everything "our party" has done, but I wholeheartedly believe that the root cause of this conflict lies in the tendentious editing of Samuel Luo and Thomas Brown. "Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem." [4]

I'm not going to argue with you about any teachings of Falun Gong or their actual truth value. Falun Gong has convinced me and many others, because it's the best practice system we've ever tried, and its concrete effects are extremely impressive. On the other hand, instead of accepting the peaceful coexistence of multiple different paradigms that may lead to new scientific breakthroughs (Falun Gong is not the only example of supernaturalist qigong), you support a ~~violent~~ clampdown of something you consider too far out.

I know that Li has used the word brainwashing as well, and I occasionally use it myself. That's because the word has several different meanings. See the Wikipedia article: "In later times the term "brainwashing" came to apply to other methods of coercive persuasion and even to the effective use of ordinary propaganda and indoctrination." What we're disputing is the cultic brainwashing theories put forth by Margaret Singer, Jean-Marie Abgrall and others. They have been effectively debunked by the scientific community at large. Of course, you are entitled to hold on to any fringe views you desire; I certainly do, in some respects, and I don't want to eulogize mainstream science just because it's mainstream. But the truth is, I'm not trying to insert any viewpoints about highly developed prehistoric civilizations into any Wikipedia articles on archeology. I know the difference between a majority and a minority viewpoint. Beyond any doubt, what you call "cultic studies" is a widely criticized minority group, and their viewpoints should be treated accordingly, especially in an article in which they're used as a secondary source.

Furthermore, you didn't answer any of my questions, so let me repeat and rephrase them here.

1. Why do you believe several arbitrators have voted against you? Why is a ban proposed only for you and Samuel? Have you not systematically violated the policies? Are you implying that the arbitrators are biased or misinformed in this regard?
2. How do you think you could mend your behaviour as an editor?
3. Do you admit that the label "cult" can be used as a political tool of marginalization and otherization, and that there are plenty of people who, for various reasons, exploit this label in their struggle against dissidence, nonconformism and perceived heresy?

I'm not too eager to prolong this discussion before seeing the final results of the vote, so I might not comment on your next message. I just hope you answer these questions truthfully. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, First I demand an apology from you for blatantly misrepresenting my position. I DO NOT "support a violent clampdown of something I consider too far out." I have never advocated a violent clampdown of any group in my life, nor have I said anything like that here on Wikipedia. The fact that you would even make that comment goes to the heart of the problem of how FG practitioners deal with their critics. The ad hominen game is repeated over and over again: if a critic points out that Li has said some pretty disturbing things, and that he exercises destructive control over his disciples, the knee-jerk response is "you are supporting the CCP's persecution of practitioners in China." Sorry for my French, but this is total BS. But yet it is the first line of defense that practitioners use in fending off legitmate criticism. In fact, as you know, one of the FG lawyers even used this argument to stifle the free speech of a whole panel of Falun Gong critics in Madrid, Spain, at the annual International Cultic Studies Association Conference in 2005. He literally said that any criticism of the FG amounts to aiding and abetting the genocide of practitioners in China. I should also mention that prior to the ban in China Li was encouraging his disciples to stage massive protests against his media critics, some of whom actually lost their jobs merely for broadcasting reasonable criticism of his teachings.

As to your questions, I have pretty much answered your last question, but for the record I will itemize my responses to all of them here:

1. It is not up to me to second guess the thinking of any of the Arbitrators. However, I do think it was unreasonable to single out Samuel and I for the severest of sanctions given the documented behavior of other editors.

2. Your question "How do you think you could mend your behavior as an editor?" is simple: when it comes to inserting edits about what Li says about things, I could attempt to cover what I know to be your POV while at the same time introducing Li's direct statements. In fact, I have occassionally attempted to do just that (witness the edit on homosexuality in which the pro-FG position was actuallly written by me.) But the problem with that response is that it is one-sided. As a reasonable review of my edits and the discussion pages will show, I have often asked practititioners to add additional material or even suggest alternative Li quotes on the same subjects (eg: Fa-rectification, the judgment of Dafa, etc.) But as that same review will show, nothing concrete is ever inserted. The closest that anyone has come on this topic was some recent proposals (totally inadequate, but at least a start) which Asdfg put in discussion. But that was after he engaged in wholesale blanking of material himself.

3: Yes, of course the "cult" label can be used as a political tool. Didn't I just acknowledge that in my response above? But again, two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that the CCP engages in overblown propaganda techniques does not justify Li Hongzhi (who claims to value truthfullness) engaging in the same, or sometimes worse, tactics. --Tomananda 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I apologize for using the word "violent" when describing your support for the crackdown on Falun Gong in China. However, it is evident from your writings that you view the crackdown in generally positive terms, aside from the torture exercised by "corrupt officials". (Am I confusing your and Samuel's POV here? I'm not going to dig into the archives right now. I admit that sometimes I view you two guys as almost the same, given that you share the same agenda and the same apartment, and I'm sure you discuss your Wikipedia edits in real life as well.) I don't remember you acknowledging that torture and ill-treatment are part of a systematic campaign of persecution that extends to the highest levels of the CCP hierarchy, and that the persecution/suppression/crackdown/clampdown of Falun Gong is a major human rights violation that must be stopped. Now, you don't have to say that, and I'm not squeezing any confessions out of you. I am simply outlining my impressions.

As far as I know, Samuel was contacted by a lawyer hired by the Spanish Falun Dafa association, and it was a decision made by this individual association alone. There are no Falun Gong hierarchies who make decisions about this kind of thing - indeed, there are no real hierarchies to begin with. Let's use the recent International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran as an example: if it had been possible, I'm sure that quite a few Jewish associations would have sued the speakers and organizers, even though some others wouldn't have cared so much about it. Don't you think these associations would've been entitled to do that? Would you withhold their rights in the name of "free speech"? Critics often fail to see any political dimensions in their work, as if they were simply speaking their mind without the potential to physically hurt anybody. Samuel Luo's website, for example, contains some rather disturbing attempts to legitimize the crackdown and downplay the allegations of countless victims. In addition, given that there had been attacks against practitioners in China well before 1999, the completely nonviolent media protests were, in my opinion, justified in a Communist dictatorship that was already planning to suppress this group of people. How else could they have raised their voice? Looking back at these events after eight years of persecution, don't you agree that they had a good reason to be concerned?! Do you really think Falun Gong would not have been targeted by the Communist party if these protests had not taken place?

What makes you and Samuel poor critics is your dehumanizing attitude towards your fellow editors and Falun Gong practitioners in general. You are so sure that you possess the Truth about Falun Gong that anyone who crosses your path is, in your eyes, either a conspirator, a free-speech-suppressing cult apologist or, at least, your intellectual inferior. That's why you keep complaining about my "florid rhetoric" (that should be prevailed over by "reason"), "sophomoric air of assumed intellect" [5] and so on. Even now you're not ready to reflect on the Wikipedia policy violations you have committed. There is a reason for singling out you and Samuel. Criticism, as such, is not the issue: the real problem lies in your ideological struggle and disrespect of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. You want to spread your message to the world and create an essentialized narrative of Falun Gong by turning the articles into a list of all things you consider awkward and unbecoming. Even if you let other editors contextualize your edits, you want to decide the themes around which the articles revolve and their position. You want to reserve the right to exploit and highlight any quote out of an entire corpus of thousands of pages and place it wherever you desire. This has been your editing pattern all along. It is far from creating a truthful, honest, neutral account. Falun Gong is not a sum of the parts you force in. While there is nothing to cover up in the teachings when all things are considered (if there was, they wouldn't be available for public download), our party doesn't consent to your agenda. You are ready to compromize the whole in order to provoke an anticipated reaction in readers. You don't seriously consider the relative weight of different elements or imperative background information for understanding their meaning. You want to scandalize and make a splash. That's why I call you a tabloid journalist, and that is exactly what I mean by otherization; it is the same tactic employed by generations of orientalists and racists. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, you are so incredibly well practiced in attacking your critics, thereby taking the spotlight off Li Hongzhi, that I have to take my hat off to you! To actually accuse me of dehumanizing any Falun Gong practitioners when, in fact, I have repeatedly said that I have great sympathy for you guys is truly a perversion of the truth. Given your accusations against me, it is also ironic that your Master, whose words you have never refuted, actually does declare that homosexuals are not humans, but rather demons. Not once but many times I asked you in our discussions to at least acknowledge my humanity as a homosexual by saying you really don't agree with your master's characterization of us and you never did. Of course, you can't because to criticize or even publicly doubt Master Li Hongzhi could lead to his revoking your status as a practitioner, and along with that goes a withdrawal of his supernatural protection. So based on this logic, in order for Falun Gong practitioners to preserve their chance at "consumation" it's ok for all homosexuals to be denegrated as not-human simply because Li Hongzhi makes that claim. (Yes, I know that Li also claims that homosexuality is a post-natally formed abnormality, so please don't bother to make that argument again.)

I have sympathy for all Falun Gong practitioners because from day one your idealism has been exploited by Li Hongzhi for his own purposes. Shortly after the ban, Li demanded that his followers travel to Tianaman square to get arrested in order to defend his reputation and the reputation of his Dafa, which he claims created all beings in the cosmos and is currently judging all those beings based on his self-proclaimed principles of truthfullness, benevolence and forebearance. But as Li has taught, Falun Gong practitioners are expected to forget about the principle of forebearance when it comes to working to destroy the CCP. Practitioners also routinely bully any and all critics, which was the original practice Li encouraged with the those illegal media protests. And as to honesty, I have repeatedly pointed out the lies Falun Gong practitioners perpetuate about their own practice when dealing with the public. Those lies not only include mis-representations or distortions of the teachings and history of the FG in China (some of which I documented in my evidence) they also include fabribrating stories of abuse in China in order to further undermine the reputation of the CCP in the west. Now let's be clear here: I am not condoning the heavy handed way that Beijing has enforced the ban of Falun Gong, but by the same token if a group claiming spiritual values has to resort to fabricating stories of torture (I am referring now to the false claims of organ harvesting at the Sujiatin facility) I tend to tune out all of their claims, even if they may be legitmate.

The fact that you seem unable to distinuguish me and Samuel as individual human beings is also telling. You point out (somewhat sinisterly I suppose) that Samuel and I might actually discuss our edits at home. Well, sometimes we do, but as any reasonable person can observe our editing styles are drastically different and at times we have strong arguments about what is or is not an appropriate edit. Meanwhile practitioners such as Asdfg and others announce from time to time that you guys will work off-line (by e-mail no doubt) to develop editing strategies and, in fact, it is known that you guys also corraborated to launch this attack against Samuel and I through the Arbitrators.

As to your absurd analogy between a conference meant to deny the holocust in Iran and and the 2005 conference held at the University of Madrid in Spain, my respose is that Li Hongzhi has always tried to suppress the free speech of his critics from the very beginning of his teachings in China. So when a Falun Gong lawyer in Madrid threatens to shut down a legitimate and well-respected academic conference by charging it's organizers and some of its presenters with jail time for critizing its teachings, is it not clear to you that that kind of tactic is contradictory to the very principles of truthfullness, benevolence and forebearance which your Master espouses? And let's be clear here: no one on the panel was going to condone violence against Falun Gong practitioners, but instead they were planning to expose the well-concealed teachings and practices of your Master Li Hongzhi--teachings and practices which can legitimately be considered dangerous for those who follow them. The point of the panel discussion was not to denegrate you guys at all, but rather criticize Li Hongzhi (who by the way somehow manages to escape all accountability)and his teachings. Ultimately, at least in the minds of Falun Gong critics, exposing Li Hongzhi for the fraud and manipulative cult leader that he is will actually help Falun Gong practitioners, not hurt them. And finally, did you know that one of those scheduled panelists--a Harvard professor of biology--was going to speak about Li's teachings about not seeking medical treatment when you are sick, and how those teachings might effect the ability of health professionals in China to stop the spread of SARS in China?

Look, this discussion is way too long and not especially productive. Can we just agree to disagree at this point? --Tomananda 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In terms of civility, I acknowledge that I have occasionally responded to your argumentation style with adjectives that were not necessary. However, the complete context of my quote was:

Olaf, I am not going to play this game. Your use of French quotes and your sophomoric air of assumed intellect does not address the fundmental issue I raised in my post: that Falun Gong has a big credibility problem. The only way you can convince me that you are able and willing to speak the truth about Falun Gong is to speak the truth about Master Li Hongzhi, which includes his self-proclaimed role as the exclusive savior of mankind and his claim that his Dafa is judging all beings and weeding out the unworthy. Master Li says he has removed the names of all Falun Gong practitioners from the registry list in Hell and promises to turn his followers into gods as long as they fulfill their obligations as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples."

In the discussion prior to that you had said, somewhat condescendingly I believe:

In addition, if I am speaking on a too academic level and some people have a hard time understanding what I mean by a concept or an expression, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification.

And at the same time you accused Fire Star of being uncivil, to which she replied:

Despite what you say, my messages are civil, and I am interested in the concerns of other editors. You may project what you want into it, but my language is perfectly clear. You've misquoted me, and in a "fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine" way you are ingnoring your error in aid of dismissing me as newly immoderate. Calling you on a misquote makes me immoderate? Since you haven't addressed the primary issue of the message you are replying to, perhaps it isn't surprising that you are also reading what you want to read into what I've actually said as well. To be clear, I don't scorn you, I just don't believe you. Your argumentative methods so far lack credibility and are only convincing me that my assumptions about FLG practitioners are correct. --Fire Star 火星 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'Comment by others:

Please comment Evidence of blanking on the Suppression of Falun Gong page[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I agree, it is unlikely the Arbitration Committee as a while will. Most likely such such considerations will be rejected as being a content decision. Fred Bauder 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I respectfully request arbitrator's please comment this section of the evidence [6].

Since I see that on the Proposed_decision#HappyInGeneral page my actions on this page is characterized either:

":# Pretty blatant revert warring, and was blocked 48 hours for doing so. - SimonP 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

or

":# No specific evidence Fred Bauder 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Edits show restoration of well sourced image. Fred Bauder 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

About my 48 hour block I admitted right then then it was a mistake from my part and also that I was looking for somebody that would mediate situations where I get no answers on the talk page, only reverts (see here the short chat with the administrator who issued the block [7]).

On the Suppression of Falun Gong as far as I'm concerned (of course) I consider it being "restoration of a well sourced image" + balancing a completely POV article so basically I think it's a good thing, especially since I have received no answer from an arbitrator, even though I asked right in the beginning (see here [8] [9]) when I asked explicitly how to go on with this.

--HappyInGeneral 12:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Return to discussion of defining NPOV[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I want to move away from the current debate between me and Olaf, and return to the discussion of NPOV as it applies to these Falun Gong articles. Earlier I proposed the following formula for introducing quotes from Li in such a way that NPOV would be preserved:

"Li has said x about y, but he has also made other statements about y which might lead to a different interpretation."

I have been repeatedly accused of introducing Li's quotes with the objective of pushing my POV, yet the practice in responding to those edits has routinely been to delete them rather than expand on them. Thus I am seeking a way out of this dilema, not just for me but for all editors in the future. Since it is clear that the Falun Gong practitioners object to many of Li's quotes, my proposal is really two fold:

1. If a quote is relevant to the subject, but practitioners feel there is a better quote to use, then they should be encouraged to propose an alternative quote; and

2. If after agreeing on a particular quote the practitioners still feel it needs additional context, then it should be the role of the practitioners to propose some language that provides that additional context. --Tomananda 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Response to Fred Bauder’s Justification for Banning Tomananda[edit]

If you are correct that I (singular) deserve to be banned from editing these articles because I am on some sort of “campaign” you have certainly articulated a new Wikipedia editing principle that deserves some additional discussion. Other than campaigning for a full and balanced reporting of all aspects of Li Honghzi’s teachings and practices, I am not sure what it is you think I have been campaigning for. In discussion, I have repeatedly said I do not support the persecution of any Falun Gong practitioners in China, but by the same token I have not taken a stand on whether it is desirable to seek the downfall of the CCP, as Li Hongzhi and his disciples are doing. Do you really think that the practitioner editors are not on their own campaign? And if they are, does that mean they should be banned too, for the same reason?

Li Hongzhi has clearly set the goal of Falun Gong practitioners to work to destroy the CCP, and has explicitly said so many times. Here are just a few Li quotes:

The CCP is the last major entity of the malevolent Party's evil specter, and to save the Chinese people [we need] to disintegrate the malevolent Party's evil specter. Teaching the Fa at the Western U. S. International Fa Conference (February 26, 2005) [10]

(referring to the Nine Commentaries): The Nationalist Party (KMT) has fought with the CCP for decades, and yet they have never been able to explain what the malevolent CCP is. Falun Gong, meanwhile, has managed to completely and clearly explain the malevolent Party. Isn't that extraordinary? Teaching the Fa at the Western U.S. International Fa Conference (February 26, 2005) [11]

But in order to stop the evil, the people who are no longer salvageable, and the diehard followers of the CCP, it has been necessary for you to organize some activities and do some things. Certain things are to be done by non-practitioners, however. Specifically, in society many people are participating in the [China] democracy movement and have formed various political organizations. They have political aspirations and they want to have a certain political system put in place in China. Whatever they do, those are human affairs. But in terms of exposing the CCP’s evil nature, they have indeed had a big impact. In this vein, the media outlets Dafa disciples have set up are part of society’s media, and can, in order to expose the CCP’s evilness, provide extensive coverage of those activities and support what they do. It helps the Chinese people see the wicked CCP’s evil nature and, to an extent, it has the effect of rescuing Chinese people. So that’s not a problem. But if we do things exactly as non-practitioners do, or if we do these things directly as Dafa disciples, then it’s not so appropriate. Still, Master does affirm the ideas you have come up with and the formats you have adopted—they are not wrong. Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago (June 26, 2005) [12]

So in China, even though the restraint on people there from the wicked Communist Party’s evil factors is, as with many other people around the world, being eliminated, slowed down, and lessened, and it is no longer that effective really, the persecution against Dafa disciples is still being sustained. [That will continue] unless they are fully eliminated, and at that point the persecution will end. Those evil factors of the wicked CCP will definitely be cleared away by gods in the Fa-rectification! (Enthusiastic applause) Teaching the Fa at the 2005 Canada Fa Conference (May 22, 2005) [13]

The story of the Falun Gong is complex. The reality of what Li teaches is not well understood in the west in part because very few people are willing to spend hours reading Li Hongzhi directly, but rather depend entirely on what the practitioners say about the Falun Gong. And what do the practitioners talk about when explaining their faith to the general public? Here’s the answer, provided by Li himself during a closed-to-the-public speech in San Francisco in 2005:

So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things. Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (November 5, 2005) [14]

You may think that I have a nefarious agenda in seeking to report what Li actually says about the Falun Gong in Wikipedia, but really wouldn’t any reasonable observer conclude that this information is notable, well-sourced and relevant to an understanding of the Falun Gong? And if this information is important enough to be reported in Wikipedia, does it make sense to rely on only Falun Gong practitioners to report it? Because if you do, it will never be reported. --Tomananda 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a other quotes that I could put here to paint a different picture, but instead I will just repeat the main theme again. I am here as a wikipedian. I want all these to be featured articles. This is a terribly demanding and interesting subject, and it deserves a thorough and precise treatment on wiki. I am committed to helping create complete and neutral articles on this topic. Eventually, they should be good enough to be featured. I don't want to hide anything. The articles are going to get done either way.--Asdfg12345 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not here as a Wikipedian? Of course there are other quotes from Li that might suggest a different picuture, but can't you at least acknowledge that in these quotes he does unambiguously state that the only solution to the persecution problem is the elimination of the CCP? Can't you at least acknowledge that, Asdfg? And if Li Hongzhi's ultimate goal is the destruction of the CCP (which I think is clearly the case), then shouldn't that be reported in Wikipedia? Believe it or not, there are some people in the world who can be sympatethic to the issue of human rights violations in China, but also firmly believe that the remedy is not the destruction of the Chinese Communist party.

Let me be clear: it's ok for Li to advocate the destruction of the CCP (I do believe in free speech after all), but as a Wikipedian myself I refuse to accept the notion that this information should in some way be suppressed in the name of political correctness or out of disdain for what Li calls the "evil" and "wicked" Chinese Communist Party. I have spent more than a year attempting to introduce edits that report those things Li has said which practitioners never report. While doing this, I have suffered an extreme amount of personal attacks based on my age, my sexual orientation and my insistence that the truth must be told. Frankly, I have respected the Wikipedian principle that all sides to a story must be told, but now depending on the outcome of this arbitration I may need to re-think that position.

You say you don't want to hide anything, yet your editing behavior seems to indicate the opposite. Maybe that attitude changed when you declared to Fire Star that you would no longer act like a POV warrior. Frankly, I want to believe you, but the proof, as we might say, is in the editing. And as long as some practitioners feel free to delete well-sourced Li quotes simply by saying they are deleting the POV editing of someone else, there can never be a complete and honest reporting on the Falun Gong. --Tomananda 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We always have the same discussion. The articles will get done and the teachings will be given clear expositions. When I have time, the first thing I will do is write the whole Fa-rectification section, including all the stuff about the CCP. What you say is your interpretation based on a selective use of quotes. It'll get done right, and that's for sure. Just wait and see. Besides, once I actually read the stuff about no revert warring I stopped deleting your stuff. Those things on the Epoch Times page are still there, and that discussion was not concluded. You were wrong to insist on forcing it onto the page before we agreed on how to do it, but in the end I conceded and put tags on it instead. That needs to be done properly as well. Anyway, enough talking. In about a month or two I can start working on all this.--Asdfg12345 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an arrogant statement to make, Asdfg! You are only one editor and a Falun Gong practitioner at that. The philosophy of Wikipedia is to develop articles collaboratively, not based on the input of a single individual who clearly has an ax to grind.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Can you not agree that in the quotes above Li Hongzhi unambiguously is calling for the destruction of the CCP as the only means for dealing with "the persecution"? For you to continue to dismiss solid evidence coming from the mouth of your own master is really a bit much. These quotes do not represent my POV, they represent the POV of Master Li Hongzhi. Give me a break! --Tomananda 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not appear to be arrogant, and I apologise for that. I was trying to show you how I want good articles, and expressing my enthusiasm for committing time to this project. I said the first thing I would do is write something about Fa-rectification, which is something you have shown a lot of interest in. I think this would also help to straighten out the misunderstandings you have developed. Just to speak personally, if the CCP was not persecuting Falun Dafa I would not be handing out fliers denouncing the CCP's persecution of Falun Dafa and others and telling Chinese people about the CCP and the persecution. If the CCP stopped the persecution and let everyone out of jail, admitted its mistakes and started doing good things for people then I would stop handing out those fliers, too. I don't know what you want from me, really. Li Hongzhi has said what he has said. That is going to get reported in wikipedia. He also said if the CCP didn't persecute Falun Gong then it could have been saved and made good like everything else. He also mentioned about higher factors in the universe that led to the manifestation in this dimension, the CCP's persecution--so that should be reported to. I really don't have any ill intentions. The goal of the whole thing with the CCP is to save people anyway, not to destroy the CCP in and of itself. Who cares about the CCP? I am just saying we should report things with no original research and interpretations. In my personal understanding, from what is just there from that quote from Canada 2005, it seems clear to me that Li Hongzhi is saying that the CCP is not going to stop persecuting Falun Dafa by itself, and that everyone is going to quit it and it will destroy itself through corruption and badness, and that is the only way the persecution will end. That is how I understand that passage myself. Is that okay for you? Anyway, I mainly just responded to clear up that I did not mean to be assuming any importance for myself about my role here, but just to say that I want to do what I can to help this project, and more specifically to mention to you that when I can, I will get started on the Fa-rectification section. Of course, other people will edit it and everything and make it even better. This is wikipedia!--Asdfg12345 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I want from you and other practitioners is a cooperative attitude and honesty. Simply rejecting Li quotes on the grounds that they are POV is neither cooperative nor honest. As editors, we need to work together, and for controversial subjects that means accepting and merging input from more than one source. Rather than rejecting a Li quote which talks about the need to destroy the CCP, or his request that practitioners spread the Nine Commentaries so that the CCP will fade, you should say OK, he has said this stuff, but how about a formulation like this:

"Li often speaks of the goal of destroying the CCP through such means as spreading the Nine Commentaries, however when he asks practitioners to work towards that end, he also stresses that their ultimate goal is salvation (or consumation)"

The point is I want you stop claiming I am pushing a POV or engaging in original research when I use a Li quote for an edit. Li has said what he has said, and we merely need to report it. We can disagree about the relative weight to give certain quotes, and I am always open to using a variety of quotes, but we simply can't just reject this material out of hand in the name of NPOV, because Wikipedia policy clearly envisions all sides of a disputed subject being reported. If, ironically, one side of the FG story is an honest and direct reporting of what Li says and some practitioners think that makes the FG "look bad", then so be it. It's not our job as editors to "spin" this material in a certain direction, but frankly that's what many practitioners seem intent on doing. --Tomananda 07:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I pretty much agree with what you are saying, and while I think that quote is off the mark, that is the kind of idea that will need to be adopted. Li Hongzhi's statements about a certain topic should follow something like that format, taking into account the different things he has said about an issue on different situations and presenting them in a neutral way, rather than using one set of words, quotes or rigid concept and through that trying to create a singular impression. So of course I agree to that. But these are content issues and have not been the major problem on this project, and are not the subject of this ArbCom. It's the constant rule breaking. Did you see Samuel's latest edit on the Falun Gong page? Now he is removing legitimate tags, even now.--Asdfg12345 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are now agreeing with this approach, but it's hardly the first time I've proposed it in discussion. When you made your famous POV warrior declaration: "I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia." (5 February 2007) Fire Star correctly pointed out: "I should warn you that this unilateral declaration to edit war in the face of any consensus you disagree with is contrary to Wikipedia policy and will definitely result in administrator sanctions if pursued. --Fire Star 火星 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is, even though you subsequently withdrew that stance, it did accurately describe your approach to making deletions based solely on your personal point of view of which of Li's statements deserved to be reported. So when you lecture me about violations of Wikipedia policy, you beg the question: have I really violated Wikipedia policies more than you have? If so, where is the evidence? Have I actually done more reverts than you? I don't think so. Have I ever declared that I would delete your edits if they didn't represent my interpretation of Li's teachings? No I haven't. In fact, as the evidence will show, I have often invited you and the other practitioners to offer up alternative quotes or different formulations to cover such important topics as Li's Fa-rectification. Sadly, I am afraid the arbitration committee is not applying Wikipedia rules uniformly in this case, but so be it. I do know that the Falun Gong editors started with an enourmous advantage in this action by virtue of the arbitrators' decision to only single out me and Samuel for a possible ban sanction. It's rather like Alice in Wonderland: verdict first, then the trail.

But still I am weary of these endless debates and part of me will welcome a break from all of this contention. If I am banned, I will feel comfortable that I have acted cooperatively and in good faith in my editing. And for you to ask me to comment about an edit that Samuel has done is beside the point. I've already stated that Samuel and I have very different appproaches to editing in Wikipedia and do not always agree on what's appropriate. So if you want an explanation for his deletion of the tags you added, you'll have to ask him directly.

Finally, I do have a real life outside of this Wikipedia stuff. Tomorrow I will be travelling to a California political convention of one of the major parties (you can guess which), so I will not be on-line for the next four days or so. Have a good weekend. --Tomananda 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice re difficult editing behaviour[edit]

I want to know the by-the-book way of dealing with this kind of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Li_Hongzhi&diff=124707835&oldid=124429743 -- please click "Newer edit" twice to see.

I am not sure if it is okay to just undo changes like that. This editor has participated in very little productive discussion and most of his edits are deletions like this, or reverts. Part of me considers this kind of editing to be a form of vandalism. At the least, I don't feel this editor has any intention to contribute productively to these articles, and I feel this is very clear by a quick look at his contributions. I ran out of space on my evidence to address this user's behaviour. Besides, he only pops up once in a while, reverting something, deleting something else, then goes away again. I imagine that it would be classed as revert warring if this revert series went back-and-forth. I don't intend to revert the edit again, if he reverts, pending this advice. At the same time, I do not think what he is doing actually meets the definition of vandalism. Is it necessary to go, step-by-step, through the channels of dispute resolution to have this users behaviour addressed by ArbCom? I feel confident that a look at his edit history would reveal similar editing patterns to those of Samuel Luo. Instead, may this note be taken as a request for submission of further evidence, that I may look through this users edit history, compile it, and demonstrate what I have said above? The reference to "positive", sourced, third party information regarding Li Hongzhi "...appreciation for the benefits of his teachings...", has been repeated deleted on this page. These few sentences are not directly sourced since it appears in the article.--Asdfg12345 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the IP address of Tomananda and Samuel Luo[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Now that the number of votes for banning both Tomananda and Samuel Luo has reached a sufficient majority, I suggest that their shared IP address is blocked as a measure against sockpuppetry. I fear that especially Samuel could keep resorting to illegitimate means for pushing his agenda. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Temporary revert parole[edit]

1) Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would support this if it means temp revert parole for ALL FG-related Wiki pages. This is the only way to prevent 'unregistered users' from abusing the Wiki system. Jsw663 11:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm proposing this because several related articles are still protected because of this dispute, and Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, and Teachings of Falun Gong have been protected since January (Falun Gong is currently the oldest protection litsed at WP:PP). Dmcdevit·t 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed. From Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia:Attribution has superseded Wikipedia:Verifiability, just within the past couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle still applies, but I have reworded to match the new combined policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, as you were. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution#This merger is a really bad idea (comment by Jimbo Wales). Newyorkbrad 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure topics and dubious sources[edit]

5) Sometimes, especially regarding topics which have not been the subject of extensive journalistic or scholarly inquiry, published information regarding a topic is limited or available only through sources which because of their editorial policies (strong point of view) are suspect (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse in principle, but might again need to be conformed to the new policy page. Newyorkbrad 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does. <sigh> --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, again; see above. Newyorkbrad 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That old British maxim about not making the best the enemy of the good comes to mind. Sam Blacketer 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

6) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of Wikipedia policies and controversial articles[edit]

7) Wikipedia policies regarding courtesy, assuming good faith, communicating about edits on the talk page of articles, producing appropriate references are especially relevant to articles which involve controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of controversial articles[edit]

8) Users who are unable or unwilling to follow the Wikipedia policies which relate to editing of controversial articles may be restricted with respect to editing in those areas.

Locus belli[edit]

1) The dispute is over editing of articles related to Falun Gong, including but not limited to the articles whose current titles are Falun Gong, Suppression of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, Teachings of Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Theoretical and epistemological studies on Falun Gong. The overwhelming body of evidence submitted relates to edits on these articles, their talk pages, and the talk pages of the participants.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Dispute definition of Falun Gong, propose removing definition entirely and leaving Falun Gong undefined, so it would read: "The dispute is over editing of articles related to Falun Gong..."--who does this?--Asdfg12345 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I did not mention that I also object to the term "movement" to describe Falun Gong. I don't regard Falun Gong as any kind of movement, and already I think that is a leading and biased description. I request this term be removed as well. I would be satisfied if it were replaced with "practice," but the easiest thing to do would be not to attempt any definition.--Asdfg12345 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Summary of the source of the diffs offered in evidence. --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On request, I've removed the word "controversial" from the description of Falun Gong. The purpose of arbitration is not to arrive at a definitive description of Falun Gong, but to resolve disputes arising from editing some articles, so here we should use a description acceptable to the widest number of editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Luo and Tomananda are two people who share one ISP account[edit]

2) Samuel Luo stated in July, 2006, presenting credible external evidence, that he shares a house and a Comcast account with Tomananda, another party to this case.[15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unlocked by Centrx - Jan 16, locked by Blnguyen Jan 24 and has been so since.

In this period: Samuel Luo, 7 reverts; Yueyuen 2 reverts (one was not related to this dispute, a random anon blanked chinese characters); Fnhddzs 2; Tomananda 3 reverts, Asdfg 2, Mcconn 7, Colipon 2, Jsw 1 set.

Unlocked by centrx on Nov 30, locked again by Centrx Dec 28 [17]

Mr. He 8; Fnhddzs 1; Samuel Luo 7, adds his one webpage to external links; Fire Star 6; HappyInGeneral 3; Jsw663 4; Tomananda 5; Asdfg12345 5; Yueyuen 1; Sir james paul 3; CovenantD 1; Omido 16;

Open to editing between November 11 and 14, by Centrx [18]

Yueyuen 3; Dilip rajeev 3, Samuel Luo 1; CovenanantD 1; Asdfg 4; Fire Star 1; Olaf Stephanos 1;

Opened Sept 10 by Fred Bauder, closed October 4 by Cowman109 [19]

Samuel Luo 13; HappyInGeneral 8; Jsw663 5; Mr.He 13; Fnhddzs 5; Yueyuen 9; CovenantD 8; Dilip rajeev 1; Mcconn 4; Instantnood 2

Opened June 2, closed June 23 [20] - still counting....

Yueyuen 8; Samuel Luo 41; Fnhddzs 34;