From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents 1 Involved parties 2 Statement by Olaf Stephanos 3 Statement by Asdfg12345 4 Statement by Tomananda 5 Statement by HappyInGeneral 6 Statement by Jsw663 7 Statement by Mcconn 8 Statement by Samuel Luo 9 State by Yueyuen 10 Statement by Fire Star 11 Preliminary decisions 11.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0) 11.2 Temporary injunction (none) 12 Final decision (none yet) 12.1 Principles 12.2 Findings of Fact 12.3 Remedies 12.4 Enforcement 12.5 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tomananda (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Fire Star (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jsw663 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mcconn (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Yueyuen (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Statement by Olaf Stephanos

(truncated version, about 500 words)

Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist, has made few contributions that comply with Wikipedia's core principles. He has demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to constructively discuss his edits with other users; furthermore, he has never expressed any repentance for his disruptive editing behaviour. The comments left on the discussion pages, the large number of misleading edit summaries, the negligence of appeals for discussion (there have been a few attempts, but they are consistently void of cooperative mentality), and his own statements of his advocacy support our case.

It is patent that Samuel's mission has never been to create a neutral encyclopedia article but, instead, to use Wikipedia for promoting his agenda. He has sought to turn the Falun Gong articles into an extension of his own anti-Falun Gong website. Samuel's reckless behaviour has been the principal trigger of edit wars on these pages. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) provides a good description of the current situation: "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." I've repeatedly told everyone that I don't oppose to any material that conforms to Wikipedia standards. We're not seeking arbitration for the Falun Gong articles per se, but before we can have a successful mediation case, patent vandalism needs to be uprooted. Samuel has been blocked five times already, so we're dealing with a noted troublemaker.

Given his strong opinions and a large personal interest in this issue, we do not think that Samuel will be leaving the project for good. However, an official intervention might be the only thing that makes him realize how he needs to mend his approach. In truth, he will be forgiven if he repents his latest series of violations, constructively adds his own edits while respecting WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability, and promises that he will do no more lawless blanking. We want to edit these articles according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines without constantly having to ward off harassment and anarchy. It has come to this after one year of full-blown chaos; we have now compiled the evidence and ask ArbCom to evaluate it. For the sake of convenience, we'll simply expose a few egregious examples from each month, even though Samuel's edit history is studded with similar behaviour.

We suggest that the latest series of edits occurring in early-mid February is examined thoroughly. They are a good reflection of a general trend. Blanking material from human rights organizations and peer-reviewed journals is a common pattern in Samuel's edits. Usually the edit summaries he leaves behind are highly misleading: he might have claimed to "add a quote", even though most of the edit consists of blanking large sections of sourced material. He also tends to infuse his text with obvious weasel words and "novel narratives" not backed up by sources; their removal has frequently lead into revert wars. Here's just a handful of examples of Samuel's edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (an administrator removes Samuel's personal website, Samuel reverts). If the ArbCom is willing to look into this case, I can provide a clear, concise and illustrative list of Samuel's noteworthy violations in reverse chronological order.

[edit] Statement by Asdfg12345

Final version, culled, per request. Now 492 words.

Agree with the essence of Olaf's note. Samuel has been a persistent and unrepentively disruptive editor since he began editing. His violations of wikipedia core policies are extensive and egregious. He provides very little useful material for discussion and often leaves misleading and/or highly hypocritical edit summaries. This, long term, obviously leaves other contributors in a helpless situation. He has been sanctioned in the past. Please be assured that this description is not exaggerated -- the evidence stands for itself. Some of the content Samuel has included, for example on the Li Hongzhi (founder of Falun Dafa) page, has often come directly from his personal website, which he has repeatedly reverted deletions of, also violating WP:LIVING: compare this to Samuel's personal website (note this is just an example, not a very good one, that the content is taken straight from his site.) There are more of these examples -- the edits tell the story well enough.

If still relevant, I want to respond to Tomananda but to do no more than clarify the situation and quote myself as the words actually appear on the Talk page:

I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) -- I hearby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions, heart and attitude toward editing on wikipedia. I now retract this statement and apologise for any confusion or miscommunication, as it was not intentional. My statement of intent and understanding of my role on wikipedia are more fully and accurately expressed in a later post. --Asdfg12345 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck through my brash comment, apologised and explained myself the next day.

Some more things: this is not about retribution. If Samuel recanted his latest series of violations and started working in accordance with wikipedia's principles, stopped blanking etc., I would not have any more interest in this request. Samuel is automatically forgiven. Of course, I did not initiate this request. Regarding my edits and understanding of wikipedia, I would say there is probably a great deal of naivity in the early days, both in editing and talk page discussions. I am acutely aware of this, though I have never done anything like large scale blanking of sourced content. I have always explained myself, invited and engaged in (sometimes rather lively!) discussion, and the only stuff I have ever removed and challenged is (of course, what I understand to be) tendentious. In the end I would say I have become mostly enmeshed in abstruse content disputes, and there is a very clear and qualitative difference between that and what we are talking about here. Also, as a side note, I think there are some editors involved in this suffering from a bad case of m:MPOV.--Asdfg12345 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tomananda

Asdfg has a history of blanking. It’s outrageous that he and Olaf would now initiate an action against Samuel, who is as much a victim of the Falun Gong as he is an "activist". I was happy that Asdfg stopped blanking sometime in February, but apparently that was for the purpose of preparing a "case" against Samuel.

There is a long history of blanking, deceptively identified edits, and POV warrioring by Asdfg, Omido, Dilip and others. Those violations can be documented going back to Spring, 2006. But does it really make sense for us to go down this road? Everything Samuel has done he has done in good faith, and often in response to a barrage of edits done by multiple Falun Gong practitioners working in concert.

If this case is accepted, unfairly singling out Samuel, I will document how the violations done by Falun Gong practitioners far exceed any violations Samuel may have done. The practitioners delete material they consider negative, even direct quotes from their master who demands that they not talk about his teachings at the higher levels with “ordinary people.” Yet we seem to have made some progress with the mediator and I think that should continue. --Tomananda 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy in General: Yes, Samuel and I share the same "machine." That fact was fully disclosed here [8]. Rather than raising this non-issue, we should be talking about the systematic campaign of deception that you and other Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in on these Wikipedia pages.

Response to Asdfg: The history is all there for anyone to read; I didn’t think it was necessary to recreate all that history when I reported your declaration of POV warrioring. Here’s a more complete picture of what happened:

From the Talk Page, Falun Gong

• Asdfg: 6 February Main Page Talk: “If you swear off introducing fallacious material, I’ll swear off blanking it.”
• Fire Star: 6 February “The problem is, it is your opinion that the material is fallacious.”
• Asdfg: 16:50 February 6: “I hereby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions.”

Next day on the Epoch Times page

• Asdfg: 1:49 7 February ... Asdfg blanked material which relies on direct quotes from Master Li Hongzhi:

A mini edit-war ensued, done by both “sides” of FG debate, including Tomananda. Within that context, Asdfg continued to blank the Li Hongzhi material:

• 1:27 8 February
• 19:16 9 February
• 1:08 10 February

Next, on February 11th, Asdfg reverted his own edit saying "I recant. You win.”

Some conclusions:

• Asdfg continued blanking material he considered “fallacious” after he “solemnly sweared” that his previous post did not accurately reflect his real intentions.
• Asdfg had a mysterious change of heart on February 11th.
• Around this time, Asdfg, working with other Falun Gong practitioners, prepared an arbitration case against Samuel.
• Among the major obstacles to agreement between the two sides of the Falun Gong edit wars is whether Wikipedia should report Li’s own teachings “at the higher levels” which include the idea that his disciples, as a condition for their salvation during this period of Fa-rectification, must work to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by HappyInGeneral

Both Samuel and Tormananda share the same machine, IP, so how much of their activities are Sock puppetry is unknown. Both of them have a strong agenda and both of them ignore parts of a logical reasoning getting back to the same old propaganda style accusation of Falun Gong. See here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#Li_says_The_Dafa_is_judging_all_beings, and here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#.22advertises_itself_as_a_qigong_practice.22; these being just the latest examples which I encountered without doing any research on this. I think that the case presented by Olaf is on good grounds, because since we are on Wikipedia we should respect some of the rules, especially when dealing with a lengthy content debate. Having a list by with all Wikipedia Policy violations done on the Falun Gong related pages is fine by me, and actually I would really like to see it. --HappyInGeneral 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's accepted and everyone is checked, cool, what is the next step? --HappyInGeneral 14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jsw663

Oppose ArbCom action not because of relevance, but because not all dispute resolution steps have been tried sufficiently. I am aware that on exceptional grounds some users may be banned directly despite this, but this case is not that simple.

Mediation has nearly been impossible for Falun Gong-related pages. There have been content edit wars for years now. This case against Samuel by one camp is part of a wider picture - that two main camps (pro- and anti-FG) have been engaged in edit wars for years, and have sought to ban each other from Wikipedia in order to impose a POV edit of what is going on. There is a third camp that has sadly not had too much effect, which is trying to restore order and to focus editors on writing NPOV articles. This includes mediators, of which Armedblowfish is now the one, who is trying to reach compromise. Like the mediator Armedblowfish, I share the opinion that this ArbCom case does not help in reaching a final version.

Accepting this ArbCom case could also mean a flood of cases against pro-FG users. This is because they also have an agenda - to see that no critical content (or excessively little critical content) of anything to do with Falun Gong is on Wikipedia pages, including a disproportionate number of the anti-FG camp be banned so that their pro-FG POV can be enforced. Violations of Wikipedia policies have been tolerated in spite of their actions PRECISELY BECAUSE we want a finalized version of the Falun Gong-related page article. This is why greater tolerance has been urged.

It has already been established that Samuel Luo and Tomananda are different people in previous cases. Thus the sockpuppetry allegation by Happy In General above holds little water, unless the ArbCom is willing to overturn an administrator/sysop decision it made before.

So to put it in perspective, also look at pro-Falun Gong users like Omido whose actions have been infinitely worse than Samuel's edits. Andres18, another pro-FG editor, has condemned me for bringing a mediation (not arbitration) case against Omido who engaged in mass section blanking and absolutely no discussion, including announcing his intention of ensuring only a POV version was on Wikipedia. This shows his bias by the pro-FG camp in affecting the equality of application of Wiki policies too, saying we should clampdown on Samuel's actions but not Andres18's or Omido's. This is why I oppose on the grounds that not all dispute resolution steps have been taken to a sufficient degree as laid out by policies for bringing cases to the ArbCom. Launching an ArbCom case merely to seek someone else's view (see Olaf's reason in the Confirmation that Other forms of Dispute Resolution have been Tried) is clearly not valid. A third-party view can be sought on that, and does not need to waste the ArbCom's time for something so petty. Jsw663 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PS As a side note, and in partial response to Asdfg, the MPOV tag can also apply to all the pro-FG editors who insist their view is neutral now since they suddenly became the "masters" of Wikipedia policy enforcement. It is important to re-establish when rules should be adhered to, and when they are merely being abused by parties to enforce their POV edit. Jsw663 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Mcconn

I've noticed a process for most regular editors. When they first start editing they aren't aware of the rules or principles of wikipedia and naturally make edits in violation of them, but as time goes on they learn more about these rules and begin to edit more in compliance with them. I've been working on the Falun Gong pages since before Samuel started editing, so I've been around to witness his whole development as an editor. There is a big difference between Samuel and the other editors who have been involved in editing these pages for some time, which is that others have developed in this regard while Samuel hasn't at all. With regard to his talk page behavior, edit summaries, and general attitude, the others in support of this case have already said it well. Overall, I think that an editor like Samuel needs a wake-up call like this to get him on the right track. Moreover, I think that this "wake-up call" would do well to encourage others involved with these pages to be more mindful of their own behavior. With regards to what Jsw and Tomanada have said about others being equally suited for a case like this, I highly disagree. There are no other editors currently involved as regularly as Sam who have a track record anywhere near as bad as his. Mcconn 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Samuel Luo

To keep this short I am not going to respond to Olaf’s statement point by point but just state my objection to this action.

I began editing the Falun Gong page on March 23, 2006. My first edit was on the Falun Gong talk page proposing to add sourced material. I respect Wiki editing principles and the opinion of fellow editors. However, quickly, I found that there was, and still is, a group of Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors (here after, FGers) on Wikipedia trying to prevent anyone from exposing the group’s concealed core teachings and critical comments from western critics by blanking. On April 2, 2006, after only a week, I had to post a message objecting to FGers blanking on the talk page.

Unfortunately, FGers have continued to blank sourced material without any consequences. It was under that influence that I too became more aggressive. In the past year, I was blocked a few times, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. As a result I have come to respect Wiki editing rules. In my last edit conflict with FGers I provided a list explaining my edits on the talk page. I have also tried to initiate a dialogue with FGers to work out our dispute. Despite my repeated attempts, I was ignored and am now met with this complaint.

There has been a series of edit-wars on Falun Gong pages, for months we have been begging for a formal mediation. This action against me comes at a time that Armedblowfish is making progress in resolving our disputes. [9] It seems to me that this action is intentionally taken to derail the work of the mediator. Sure enough, as a result of the filing of this complaint Armedblowfish has announced officially putting the mediation on hold.[10]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, because the filing of this complaint interrupts the mediation work in progress. I do not believe it should be accepted. I urge you not to accept this case not because I am guilty of anything, but rather because this complaint does not address the fundamental problem of the dispute on Falun Gong pages.

If this case is accepted I will provide a argument to defend myself and if the committee rules that I am not suitable for editing Wikipedia, I have no problem with leaving. As Wikipedia editors, we are all volunteers. While FGers are working hard on these Falun Gong pages because their master has promised them eternal salvation, I am here with a desire to stop this group of editors from turning these Wikipedia pages into propaganda for their cult. --Samuel Luo 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the change of the title to Falun Gong; even thought I may still be scrutinized, but because this case looks into the behaviors of editors on both sides, I now also urge the Arbcom to accept this case. --Samuel Luo 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State by Yueyuen

This is absurd. Falun Gong editors have routinely blanked sourced material. They have violated many more Wiki rules many times over than Samuel has ever did. Samuel's parents are both falun gong practitioners and because of that he has done serious researches on this group. Samuel has contributed a lot to making these articles educational for the public. For his contribution he is hated by falun gong editors and they have singled him out.

falun gong people have left hateful messages on samuel's talk page. The following was post just two weeks ago: "Fuck you Samuel Luo, may yuo rot in hell motherfucker."[11] I don't believe accepting this case would do anything to resolve the problem on FLG articles. --Yueyuen 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Fire Star

I am glad to see that Samuel Luo's name has been taken off the headline of this arbitration request. I am still involved in the process of monitoring and editing the FLG articles somewhat, but otherwise I agree with Miborovsky. There has been a swarming of the Wikipedia FLG articles since the White House shouting incident a year or so ago, with very selective attention paid to WP policies by a dozen or so almost exclusively one-subject editors. I am optimistic that if this case is accepted there is going to be more attention (and perhaps an actionable decision) from long-time, multiple-subject editors on the issue of how the FLG articles should be approached on Wikipedia. --Fire Star 火星 15:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

• Recusing because of my frequent blocking and locking of the parties and pages in question, although I would urge the ArbCom to accept. The edit-warring has been endless on these FLG pages, and the reverts appear to significantly swing the bias-balance. There are also major COI issues to be investigated with respect to the affiliations of the parties as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. I appreciate the concerns that some of the other editors have in urging us to decline this case, but I think that at this point the best course of action would be for us to take a look at the case because of some of the allegations, especially given past events. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, to review the conduct of everyone involved. Essjay (Talk) 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] 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.

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.