• Blnguyen (recused)
• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

With 13 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, the majority is 7. Updated by Newyorkbrad 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Flcelloguy has changed status to "away", so now 11 participating arbitrators, majority 6. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Jdforrester now listed as inactive, now 10/6. Thatcher131 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Link #20 currently links to a diff of the RFM page. As we do not allow Mediation cases to be used as evidence in arbitration, I have deleted the mediation page for the time being. Any/all decisions must be made without this information, thanks.

For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon ^{[omg plz]}  18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It would be nice if this quirk were noted somewhere in the Arbitration policy. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It's in the MedCom policy. Should probably be cross-referenced in both places. Essjay explained it to me once as not wanting to use people's good faith attempts at mediation against them. I'll look at the policies tonight if no one beats me to it. Thatcher131 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's the section you're looking for. Regards, ^ demon ^{[omg plz]}  20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

^demon, you are free to go over the evidence page and do any necessary censoring there, too. This case is somewhat unusual in that the parties have placed a lot of their evidence on subpages. I'm not sure yet what to do with them. Thatcher131 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you remove link #17 as well? It is from a discussion I started on the article talk page in my role as a mediator. Thanks, Armed Blowfish ( mail) 21:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It would be better in the future to keep official mediation communications on RFM/case pages. While I support the idea that editors' comments made during good faith attempts at MEDCOM-sponsored mediation should not be used against them, we don't want to extend that to unofficial mediation attempts (such as MedCab or other discussions on the article talk pages) without community discussion. I'll remove the link, though, I'm sure replacements can be found if needed. Thatcher131 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've changed it to a different diff that predates his presence on the talk page; I assume that one won't also be problematic? Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, Kiril, I was working on the page at the same time as you and didn't see that you had already fixed it. Thatcher131 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Armed Blowfish ( mail) 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedy 1.1 reads "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That means full disclosure of the mutually derogatory information which has been the subject of extensive editwarring." Some of the "mutually derogatory information" concerns living persons. I am concerned that this remedy could be quoted out of context as privileging the addition of derogatory information concerning both Falun Gong adherents and detractors. I suggest that words such as "in accordance with policies concerning biographies of living persons, reliable sources, and undue weight" be added. Newyorkbrad 20:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

May I suggest the "...exposure of the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder." be changed to something like "...exposition of the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder." The word "exposition" seems to have a more appropriate connotation than "expose." At the same time, I understand that wikipedia gives itself more to precise, thorough and clear expositions, rather than anything in the form of a tabloid-style exposé. Newyorkbrad notes above the need to be clear on these things to ensure they are not used out of context at a later time. I think this would help too.-- Asdfg 12345 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint.

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If I understand correctly the decision is made based on how much the contribution of each user respect/disrespects the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, if a user is constantly disruptive like Samuel who is now is removing tags from the main pages that show that the article is disputed, although we don't have yet a consensus on it, well tell me how can you work toward consensus with a person like this?

For example did you see me deleting constantly stuff from the "Criticism section" without a very reasonable explication? On the other hand do you see Samuel constantly blanking legitimate information from the Suppression Page [1]?

Also correction I did not "declared a POV war" I just pointed out that the tags are there because there is no consensus, and it's a lot better to show the fact that there is no consensus with a tag rather then a POV war.

PS: I hope that the during "Article probation" there will be a lot of mediation and education & enforcement of Wikipedia rules and spirit, we really need that. -- HappyInGeneral 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I welcome the upcoming decisions by this committee, because they will finally provide a definite focus to seemingly irreconcilable sets of agendas. Since arbitration was accepted, I have because of circumstances both internal (the hope that other, uninvolved, editors would be viewing the forest and the trees in the histories of these articles) and external (much less time to devote to Wikipedia in general) done practically no discussing of or editing on this cycle of articles. I'm sorry that anyone thinks I was edit warring, as I never went over 3RR, was always willing to discuss with those who disagreed with me (as long as they weren't right outside the pale of WP:NPA) and have quite often used the talk pages to explain my edits and my reasoning at length, especially after the "White House shouting incident" brought so much attention to these articles. I tried to help and have had a lot of help from other editors, was agreed with and disagreed with, and tried, more or less successfully, to be courteous to everyone. Notwithstanding, I've managed to put out both pro- and anti-FLG editors and I'm sure more than one "neutral". I do feel my most useful contributions were my requests to bring attention to the issues being discussed by soliciting requests for comment, mediators and arbitrators to weigh in as much as I could all along the history of these disputes, at least until very recently. In conclusion, I have learned quite a bit about the limitations of verbal argument for persuasive purposes and the benefits to the articles of a binding arbitration in a situation such as this one. Which gets me back to the beginning of this statement. Thank you in advance. -- Fire Star 火星 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I would just like to put in a positive word about Fire Star, that FS has in fact been very supportive on the FG-pages, since I started being involved in FG-related Wiki entries, thus I would support Paul August's assertion that FS has been a model editor rather than a disruptive one. It is rare to find editors who are willing to suppress their personal POVs when editing such a controversial subject. Furthermore I am also pleased that the ArbCom case is coming to a close, but wish that at least one arbitrator will care to answer my questions above!!! Jsw663 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think User:Mcconn has done anything disruptive. Arbitrators please reconsider your decisions that would penalize him. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Wooyi has shown evidence of being incapable of removing his personal POV on this subject time and time again. His smile for pro-FG users who were 'let off the hook' by this ArbCom case shows that he only has an interest in furthering one side's cause, rather than the interest of Wikipedia in balanced articles. Jsw663 12:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not letting my POV to influence my comments here. I'm just analyzing the current evidence and diffs. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply