Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Statement by uninvolved user Penwhale
One has to realize that FLG is itself a controversial topic. Unfortunately, this does not help the fact that we have to maintain neutrality (which is one of the pillar of Wikipedia). Based on the action-reaction, I propose a rename of the case to Falun Gong which is more appropriate, as I believe we need to look at actions from both sides, based on personal attacks towards Samuel. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by more-or-less currently uninvolved user Miborovsky
I used to be active on this page but have since given up. Arbitrators, please be aware that this is NOT a case on a single user, but a case on the entire plethora of FLG-related pages and articles. As such, this case WILL be used as "evidence" favoring inclusion of POV material and WILL hugely affect the "balance of power" heretofore more-or-less precariously maintained. This is a political case, NOT a user conduct case. -- 我♥中國 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wooyi
The account User:Samuel Luo clearly breaches conflict of interest in this case. He admit that he runs an anti-Falun Gong website. He should refrain from editing Falun Gong related articles. The current Chinese regime has persecuted Falun Gong, and this is an undisputed fact. In editing these articles NPOV is needed. Wooyi 03:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed solution to Samuel Luo is not enough. I think he should be permanently banned for inserting egregious and offensive POV to Wikipedia. Banning Samuel Luo would prevent him to further engage with this POV-laden smear campaign. Other editors should be treated more leniently, though. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just found out about the egregious revert warring committed by User:Jsw663, probably the arbitrators should consider strong action to admonish him as well. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:HappyInGeneral's image insertion, I believe, is justified because it's a well-sourced image, and it well illustrates the article. Also, I don't believe User:Mcconn has engaged in any "war" based on evidence, so arbitrators should rescind the unjustified penalties on him. WooyiTalk, Editor review 00:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal from Olaf Stephanos
In the recent Falun Gong arbitration case, User:Mcconn was placed on revert parole. However, according to CU performed by User:Dmcdevit, we have found out that the banned editor User:Samuel Luo has been using a wide variety of sockpuppets during the course of the last year. Among them are User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen (an involved editor in the ArbCom case!), User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He, probably newly registered users User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg as well. Most incidents of Mcconn's revert warring took place against these sockpuppets. Therefore, I plead the ArbCom to lift the revert parole that was imposed on him, as it hardly feels justified in the light of this recent information. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Mcconn needs to have the self control to deal with other users if they disagree about content. And follow the proper channels for dealing with problem users. This includes users that are using sock puppets. FloNight 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance for him to get his parole lifted if he now begins to edit in a completely respectable and proper manner? &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although, I'm not exactly sure why he needs to revert. If for a period of time (at least 2-3 months, I think) he shows self control in his editing, he can request his revert parole be modified or dropped. The key thing is for him to show that he can work collaboratively with other users. FloNight 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months.  Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it.  Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'.  This is direct contradiction in logic.  I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'.  Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars.  If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance.  Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors?  If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles.  Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users.  Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have apologized for all incivility I might be guilty of. The situation was quite tense with Samuel and Tomananda, and their legacy lingers on until we've reformed the articles. By the way, like I've said several times before (but never getting a response from you), it is quite uncivil on your part to keep accusing "pro-Falun Gong vandals/apologists" of vandalizing your user pages, even though we found the guy (User:NuclearBunnies) who made matching edits. I have nothing against a checkuser for all involved editors. I know for certain that none of "our party" is using sockpuppets. There will be no edit wars as long as everybody adheres to the policies. I'm not here to insist on blatantly substandard content like the puppetmaster(s) from Frisco. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to mention that your distinction between "less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen" and User:Samuel Luo per se sounds pretty twisted. We're talking about the same guy! Doubtless, "Yueyuen" had to act in a slightly different manner; he was a useful helper in some revert wars and creating illusory support for Samuel's position on the talk page. The same goes for User:Pirate101 and User:Mr.He. User:Chinatravel, on the other hand, was meant to cover up the fact that Sam was pursuing other agendas as well, such as defending the CCP's official viewpoint on the Tiananmen massacre. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an official response to my above paragraph(s). The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea.  See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses.  Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page.  It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right?  Or are you trying to censor me too?  Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?
 * I mention the less controversial alter egos because my above paragraph should show that I am still not satisfied with hazy explanations that link THAT many user accounts. If they all originated from SFO, does that mean they are necessarily the same user?  And why the finding that Tom + Sam are the same people after establishing they were not earlier???  I think linking User:Chinatravel is a perfect instance of what I consider to be dangerously similar to McCarthyism - witch-hunting all pro-China users and linking them in some conspiracy theory as some kind of ridiculous network or whatever.  Jsw663 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Six month topic ban to User:Olaf Stephanos from Falun Gong and related articles.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * (mediator)
 * (mediator)
 * (mediator)
 * (mediator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Amendment 1

 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 * Removal of topic ban.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos
I hold the view that the evidence presented in this arbitration enforcement case does not warrant such a sanction.

I agree that my tongue has been too sharp in some discussions; I have occasionally breached WP:CIVILITY by writing what I thought were seen as humorous remarks and stand corrected. I now understand that Wikipedia is not the forum for witty satire; my sincere apologies to all concerned parties, especially User:Colipon. I promise to treat others with more respect in the future and abstain from quirky metaphors.

However, in my opinion, a six month topic ban without a single warning of inappropriate behaviour does not seem fair. Also, I disagree with User:Shell Kinney's allegation that I would not know how to "write for the enemy". I feel my case has not been evaluated in the proper context – the extremely complex and long-lasting content disputes surrounding the development of these articles, the scars left by the ultra-hostile environment that lead to the previous arbitration case, the behaviour of other involved editors, and the signs of progress that are now unfolding, thanks to fresh outside input. As seen on the related talk pages, I have been very much favourable towards the recent mediation case, and have tried my best to develop these articles together with formerly uninvolved editors. I would also like the ArbCom to evaluate my recent edit history.

I feel that User:John Carter's opinions were decisive in imposing the ban. Contrary to what he says here, I do not believe that I have a severe conflict of interest in editing these articles; I am not a member of any related organisation, and can get no financial or other benefit whatsoever by taking part. I am merely interested in truthful, transparent coverage of a highly challenging subject, and I have always endorsed the use of peer-reviewed academic sources. See a comment regarding another editor on the CoI noticeboard: I also do not recognise myself from his characterisation of "being opposed to content which I beli[e]ve wikipedia content guidelines demand". In my discussions I have frequently raised questions about reliable sources and due weight, and I have never opposed to taking matters to community noticeboards. Furthermore, no diffs were produced as evidence of such an attitude.

My honest belief is that the diffs presented in this arbitration enforcement case were essentially dealing with legitimate content disputes, not "POV pushing". Even if a brief glance may lead to a different impression, several of them had been approved on the community noticeboards. I hope that the ArbCom will be able to examine the evidence point-by-point, juxtaposed with my own statement. Also, I would ask for a contextual review of the "sound bites" that have been brought forth as examples of my incivil comments to evaluate whether they were mostly proactive or reactive.

As a final note, I'd like to say that I was involved in some discussions (such as this one) whose outcome depends on my ability to continue the work. I am almost certain that editors who have taken an opposing position in these discussions may support the ban, because they would no longer have to deal with such hard-to-refute arguments. Even if my style on the talk page has been regrettably harsh in some cases, I feel that my contributions to the content-related discussions have been largely beneficial. By toning down my speech and reflecting on my weaknesses, I believe that I have all the skills to play a significant positive role in this workgroup.

---

P.S. Despite explicit requests, User:John Carter has failed to produce evidence to back up his allegations that I have violated the content policies. I have never tried to "stifle criticism of Falun Gong in the content" merely on the basis that it is critical. I have been very clear on this. For example, see this thread where I disagree with Dilip Rajeev's edit: "''[...] I consider it counterproductive and unprofessional. By Wikipedia standards, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a valid source. The same policies and guidelines must apply to everyone. Your reasoning could be used against any material "our" party tries to introduce, and then it will only lead to endless edit warring (you should know) and anomie. Furthermore, the article will not appear credible to any third-party observers if everything "critical" is deliberately removed. [...] If we assume that nearly every subject has a "majority view" and a "significant minority view", and that they're two different things, what would you call the "significant minority view" on Falun Gong and how should we include it in the articles? [...] Even if you feel something shouldn't be in the lead, you should not entirely remove it but perhaps replace it in another section, as long as it's reliably sourced and verifiable.''"

I find his reference to Jennifer Zeng's suffering extremely insolent and disparaging towards me as a rational subject, as well as towards the experiences of Zeng in the hands of her torturers. Even though he just recently used "Bestiality is good" as a "humorous" example of something that would be placed in the criticism article if it were found in Falun Gong's teachings, I would never have expected to see the persecution exploited as an argument in this amendment case. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have requested User:HappyInGeneral to strike out some of my comments on the talk page by this explanation. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Just to give you one more example. I have been 100% consistent with my views regarding "critical" sources: "Now we're talking. Let's incorporate that stuff. Can you offer some quotes, so that we can find start discussing their placement? We probably need to redesign the structure of these articles as well. As long as the sources are alright, the most serious obstacle has been removed, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with you. It's about time to move from discussion to actual work. [...] I don't stand in opposition to critical voices per se, as long as the material complies with the Wikipedia standards. When I talked about transparency, I meant it. A rational reader will be able to come to his or her own conclusions, as long as the articles conform to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR." &#10004; Olaf Stephanos  &#9997;  14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
It is hard to convey to anyone just how bizarre the above comments strike me. Olaf seems to have been one of the primary parties to the arbitration which placed the article on probation, as per here, and yet he tries to convey that somehow he wasn't aware of the sanctions. Any reasonable person would, I think, understood that he was notified of the sanctions then. It is also true that at least one editor has indicated on the article talk page that Olaf's recent egregious violations of even the most basic etiquette as per here are to my eyes sufficient to conclude that what in fact happened was that Olaf forgot the sanctions might apply to him as well. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that Olaf probably thinks of himself as being "witty" and "sarcastic". I remember when I was a college kid too, and I thought much the same thing about myself. The terms "arrogant", "abrasive", "abusive", "condescending", "egomaniacal", "insulting" and "completely unacceptable" were the terms other people used. In my case, "gutter humor" was included as well, and I think some similar phrase probably applies to Olaf as well. I am not myself saying that I necessarily agree with the length of the topic ban, and think that if Olaf displays over the next several months behavior without these concerns in the remainder of the wiki there is a very real chance that the length may be shortened. And if someone wants to begin enforcement proceedings regarding others, they are free to do so, but that would still be a different matter. While Olaf may have some grounds to see that the ban might be excessive, I'm not sure the circumstances he puts forward are cause to amend the ruling. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A few comments. Personally, I think HappyInGeneral's comments about how all editors involved should be giving a warning is a good one, but that the existing sanctions template on the top of the page already serves as such a warning. Regarding my contention that Olaf may have a conflict of interests regarding this subject, I have read in the Booklist review of Jennifer Zeng's book Witnessing History, which I have not yet added to the article in question, how she had to "come to terms" with the "painful conclusion" that, by signing a document saying she would no longer practice the tenets of Falun Gong, which was required for her to be able to flee the country, she had violated a central tenet of Falun Gong regarding "compromising with evil". Olaf has more than once proudly indicated that he too is a practicioner of Falun Gong, and thus, presumably, supposed to adhere to the same tenet. His actions and comments have certainly fairly regularly been of an totally uncompromising type. The viewpoint of the Chinese government, for instance, is I think clearly that of a significant minority, and thus deserves reasonable coverage, although he has I believe repeatedly objected to such information and indicated that adding such information would only serve or enhance the position of the Chinese government, when in fact it would, I believe, be what policy and guidelines demand of us. It could also be said that by trying to stifle criticism of Falun Gong in the content Olaf is himself guilty of "attempting to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy", which is one of the reasons for banning other parties in the extant arbitration ruling. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have expectedf to see Olaf indulge in the same sort of personal insults and attacks on this page as he has regularly done elsewhere, and can honestly imagine few better reasons to sustain the existing ruling than continuation to indulge in such clearly inappropriate behavior. Regarding his objection to what I at the time saw as being a clearly obvious, if lame, attempt at humor, he may have a point, but would suggest he pay more attention to his own failings in that regard first. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have I regret to say had no luck finding the link to the discussion, given the remarkable number of edits Olaf has had in recent days, so I am obliged to withdraw the statment until and unless I find it. Having said that, I also wish to state that I find Asdfg12345's misrepresentation of my earlier comment attempting to establish that any practicioner of Falun Gong would be obliged to adhere to what has been said to be a fundamental tenet of the faith in the way he did c0mpletely and utterly uncalled for and indicative of either very poor reading skills or some sort of willful intention to misrepresent the statement of others, either of which would be a very bad reflection on his character or ability as an editor. John Carter (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is merely a comment regarding some information I have recently discovered. I've only been involved at all with this topic for a few weeks. Olaf, who says on his user page that he has completed a masters degree and that he's been an editor here for over four years, could possibly be expected to in that time have consulted Stephen Jones' The Encyclopedia of Religion regarding Falun Gong, considering that I myself have found to be included in the reference section of every reasonably sized public or private library I have been to, and even online at the Gale Research website. It is, basically, the most highly regarded recent reference book on the subject of religion in general. This book contains a number of pieces of information which some might consider critical of Falun Gong, and it seems to me from his edit history that he has in general opposed addition of such information. It is possible that he never consulted this generally highly credited source, of course. It is also possible, at least potentially, that he did, but for whatever reason chose to not indicate as much, and, if he did know of it, and continued to oppose the inclusion of information he knew to be included in what is among the most reliable sources on the subject extant, I think that might speak very poorly of him indeed, were it the case. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Olaf has subsequently commented to me that he himself had not consulted this source, and I have no reason to doubt his word in this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colipon
This proposed amendment is not reasonable on any grounds. This plea is but another attempt to "outwit" the system. The WP:COI concern is very real. Despite what this user may otherwise claim, his edits and presence on this encyclopedia appear to only serve one purpose - to present Falun Gong in a positive light and to supress any criticism of the movement. Linking to a few superficial diffs of supposed "constructive edits" do not stand up against the vast array of evidence that suggest a very apparent pro-Falun Gong agenda (which has already been presented on WP:AE and do not need to be reiterated).

In addition, his disruptions on the article talk pages have been pervasive and on-going, and there were many warnings from the mediator, myself, and other uninvolved editors, which he now suddenly claims doesn't exist, using the pretext that "there was no warning" to justify his case. This is absurd. He claims to know a plethora of Wikipedia guidelines and policies yet somehow when this applies to himself, he is suddenly ignorant. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely interesting, if ineffective way to go about what is by nature an arbitration amendments case. First, Olaf apolgizes. Then he characterizes the case as "unfair". Then two other editors come onto the page and flood it with text supposedly "defending" Olaf, but in reality just making more ad hominem attacks. Except this time, attacks on me was not enough, so they have now extended these attacks to several other good faith editors, non-involved editors, labelling us as a collective ("cabal"), and even John Carter, who came to the discussion only as an observer on invitation, is now being targeted.


 * It is regrettable that such charges can be laid upon so many users in such a short space of time, especially when in the course of this discussion, noticeable improvements are happening with all Falun Gong articles - with very direct input from a wide range of participants. I once again ask the users that are levying these personal attacks to stop, in the interest of focusing on the topic at hand, in the interest of our arbitrators, and dedicate more energy into the articles' contents, which should be priority. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If anything, the amount of negative and inflammatory commentary on these pages actually call for a longer, more serious ban, not a lifting of the current one. Olaf's intellectual maneuvering has now placed John Carter at the heart of this amendment case, even though it was I who filed for it, and another user that carried it out. Notice how he subtly shifts the burden of proof for "content violations" to John Carter, a good faith editor who a mere week ago was not involved in these articles at all. In a case like this the burden of proof is firstly on myself, and then on Olaf, and in a case of amendments, it should be placed on the arbitrator who placed the ban. How John Carter suddenly becomes the centre of focus is quite evidently another game being played by Olaf to crawl through some logical wormhole. This is a grossly misleading characterization of the entire situation. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to caution the arbitrators looking over comments of "User:FalunGongDisciple". I have a feeling that this may be in fact be a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet - more attempts to play games the system. The user's sudden appearance in an arbitration enforcement case like this is extremely disconcerting. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Asdfg12345
[ec] Basically he has just been making clever and cocky remarks in discussions about content--well, give a warning and tell him that if he continues to do it there will be a ban. His edits to the actual articles are not particularly problematic; this is essentially a content dispute, with disagreements as usual. Just banning outright for such a long time seems to neglect the wider context. Smarmy remarks and personal comments have been a feature of the editing experience on these pages for some time now: Olaf's case should reinforce for everyone that this has to stop, but banning him from the topic just like that is definitely going about it the wrong way. Actually looking through the diffs shows he's only guilty of being a smart-arse, and that doesn't warrant a ban. Having realised the need to change attitudes, I'm sure you'll see a very amiable and civil editor emerge.

Just an addendum, given Colipon's remarks. As my mother said to me: "When you point the finger, there are three pointing back." Can we then say that Colipon is dedicated to "present[ing] Falun Gong in a negative light and to supress any positive comment on the movement"? Can we say that Colipon has done any edits that portray Falun Gong in a positive light? I'd like to see them. What about Ohconfucius, PerEdman, Mrund? Let's see their history of edits that portray Falun Gong in a positive, rather than negative, light. Such a consideration is not even within the scope of AE, really, because these should be rulings on behaviour, not content. Olaf's disputes, anyway, have always been about reliable sourcing, not about the content itself; i.e., just because something is critical of Falun Gong is no grounds for removing it, it's about whether that source is reliable or not. Unfortunately, since some people peddle sub-par sources critical of Falun Gong, some editors have gotten confused sometimes (like with the Rick Ross sources...).

Olaf hasn't disrupted the talk pages any more than others. What are termed here "disruptions" are the regular course of discussion/argumentation about the subject matter and sources. His remarks are no more disruptive than Colipon's. This is basically a clash of viewpoints that has been taken to AE, there is no real evidence of editing that violates wikipedia content guidelines. ScienceApologist has gotten away with far worse remarks about other editors. A lot of the complaint about Olaf just used words like "arrogant", "cocky", etc., which are well and true, but shouldn't affect the ruling. Olaf has basically just played the same games as the others, except he's played them quite well. Tell everyone to stop and things can move on; we'll get a civil atmosphere with no personal remarks, and strict, dead-pan content discussions; when there are disagreements they go to community noticeboards, and there will be no more of this nonsense. 2cents -- Asdfg 12345  20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Colipon is far from neutral on this subject. He is a declared sympathizer with Samuel Luo who has refused to retract his words, and has exhibited decidedly anti-Falun Gong sentiments during discussion, even when he has disagreed with the Communist Party viewpoint. His complaints about the current state of the pages always refer to their apparently positive representation of Falun Gong, and not to whether they are based on reliable sources. The only difference is that Olaf has always strictly referred to content policies and guidelines, while Colipon has felt that strict enforcement of such rules is just a real hassle and impediment to his agenda. Like this line: "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary." -- great, reference to and argumentation from policy becomes wikilawyering, and instead let's just ban the pro-FLG guys. This whole AE case is obviously about eliminating a perceived opponent. Can whoever looks at this case please confirm they have checked Colipon's 20 points against Olaf's 20 points, and can they confirm any fault other than smart-alec remarks? -- Asdfg 12345  21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I hope those who investigate this will note the fact that, as Dilip points out, the only findings of substance in the diffs provided by Colipon relate to uncivil talk page remarks, and not to editing. Contributions are to be judged by the policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc.; Olaf's contributions meet these requirements. If there were a claim that Olaf's contributions violated NPOV, since they clearly do not violate RS, that would have to be proven out. Presumably we are not saying that one particular editor cannot add sources which express a particular viewpoint, given they meet V and RS. If that is the basis on which Olaf is to be sanctioned (as in, because he has added sources which, for example, argue that the anti-cult movement has been a "lackey" to the Chinese Communist Party's campaign against Falun Gong, or which talk about the persecution suffered by Falun Gong adherents in China), expect a lot more AE cases. Would it mean that every editor has to make one "positive edit" for every "negative edit"? Will we have someone assessing whether edits are advocating one or another point of view, then tally them up? Most edits don't fit neatly into these categories, and a range of opinions and views should be respected.

The examples than Shell Kinney shows of Olaf's remarks fail to take into account the context in which they were made. For example, they were supposed to be "funny," there was a silly picture hyperlinked, and the word "your" was struck out; so the remark became "Ideological struggle blah blah blah" rather than "your ideological struggle blah blah blah" -- whatever the case, they're stupid remarks, but it's still important not to misrepresent them. Again, they are only talk page remarks, and I've seen far, far worse on wikipedia without a ban. The real issue here are the contributions, and I have not yet seen evidence of this user violating wikipedia's content guidelines. Everyone has a point of view on this subject, and their editing will reflect that, whether they like it or not; that's not a crime. The key is that people play by the rules and treat each other with respect. Any investigator of this case should be far more concerned with the recent blankings of sourced content on Falun Gong, despite protests and reversions.

Re John Carter's recent remarks, where is the evidence of the claim that this editor has opposed appropriate placement of material from the Chinese Communist Party? Apart from that, the spurious connection between Olaf's beliefs and the Zeng book are simply ridiculous.-- Asdfg 12345  20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: sorry for leaving such long notes!! That's embarrasing...-- Asdfg 12345  20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PerEdman
A very strange counter-case. Olaf Stephanos is obviously aware of his own behavior and that it has taken place in a probationary article. If he wants to show others how well he has learned from these realized mistakes, he has plenty of time to do so in articles on all other subjects than the one on which he has hitherto failed. The Falun Gong pages are indeed showing signs of improvement, which is another reason why Olaf Stephanos, considering his past behavior, should not be allowed to be active on those pages at this time. PerEdman (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Because Olaf has added a final note to his statement since my statement, I add that the discussion he uses as an example above reflects badly on us both.. That discussion needs resolution, but I do not believe it will benefit from Olaf Stephanos' presence. PerEdman (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by Olaf Stephanos : The behavior exhibited on this page is in line with the behavior that lead to the Arbitration Request. The articles are improving with freer discussions and boldness, so please do not repeal this ban. / PerEdman  21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by FalunGongDisciple : I would urge admins to ignore this brand-new user for now. Something decidedly fishy is going on and I don't know who thinks there is anything to gain by doing it. / PerEdman  17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PerEdman, please ignore this new user, his edits are not constructive under any standard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
The sanction was clearly not focussed on the content, but on some rather toxic behaviour of Olav. Already, I am happy that the sanction seems to have brought Olav down a peg or two from this very arrogant comment, and elicited an unprecedented outpouring of contrition (albeit measured), above. The sanction may look like a 6 month block for a WP:SPA, but it's only a topic ban which covers about a dozen articles, so I think it is acceptable and appropriate bearing in mind there are nearly 3 million articles now on en:WP; Olav could gain immensely from working unrelated articles and with a wider pool of editors. I look forward to working with him when the topic ban is lifted in six months. It goes without saying that we will expect a high standard of behaviour from him then. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on this edit here by Olav. I see great significance therein, as he qualifies his absence of conflict of interest, effectively owning up to a potential lack of objectivity. Of course, he is also correct in saying he is not a member of any related organisation even if he was a practitioner - we are frequently reminded that the concept of membership is inapplicable to Falun Gong. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I am displeased at how some of the comments in this amendment appear another unacceptable character assassination of Colipon. Some comments now include bitter attacks on myself (without mentioning me by name), and all those newcomers who do not align themselves with the Falun Gong; there are also assorted red herrings to deflect the blame for the toxic behaviour of Olav. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney
(Perm link to AE report)

On reviewing the report at WP:AE, I felt that the diffs given showed a pattern of strong POV pushing and incivil talk page commentary that created a hostile environment. As Olaf Stephanos was a party to the arbitration case, I didn't believe further warning was necessary in this case.

Samples:
 * The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose
 * I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly?.
 * "Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths...
 * In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull.
 * regarding your comment about what I "insist", perhaps you'd better check your eyesight

However, I have no objections to ArbCom modifying or removing the ban as they see fit if they feel there's a better way to handle the situation. Shell  babelfish 09:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral
Olaf has had a significant role in the discussions, and he has been taking part actively, with substantiated arguments, based on policies that drive value into Wikipedia. Given that several editors have engaged in breaches of WP:Civility, not just one. if we single out one participant the problem remains with an empowerment to those who issued the AE. In order to restore WP:Civility I think that the best practical approach is to issue warnings to all parties that engage in WP:NPA, followed by a topic ban if this does not help. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dilip Rajeev
While I certainly agree that Olaf needs to tone-down his commenting style, pay attention to his conduct on talk, put things across in a manner more appropriate for discussion on an encyclopaedia article, and refrain from resorting to his "carnivalesque" style of commenting, I am of the opinion the contributions he has made to these articles should also be taken into consideration.

I'd request the arbitration committee to give due weight to the fact that Olaf's contributions to these articles themselves have, it may be verified from his contrib history, always been well sourced, well-written and adhering to wikipedia policies.

Among the 20 arguments presented by Colipon in making the case against Olaf - the only ones with any basis are those pertinent to talk page comments( this may be verified by considering the context of the edits, the sourcing of material added by the user, etc. ). Olaf makes this apparent in his response to these allegations. Further,on the talk page, other editors, including User:Colipon, have been equally, if not more, acerbic- calling for bans on all editors not agreeing with his POV, labeling legitimate changes "blatantly POV", etc. These attacks are harder to see through - as they do not involve blatantly acerbic language on the surface - but baselessly accuse and attack editors to promote a personal agenda.

Another major concern I have is what Olaf points out here. An activity, which, as far as my limited understanding of Wikipedia policies can tell, is in blatant violation of WP:CABAL. And the activity is happening on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom. There have been very serious and problematic issues in edits by these users, in terms of content removal etc. One such very recent instance is here, a revert of a stable article to 1 year old version, on the basis of demonstratably misleading claims, in the process deleting several paragraphs of content sourced to mainstream academia, a centrally relevant image, and adding material from CCP propaganda sheets.(I consciously refrained from reverting the disruptions, to avoid a revert war, and hoping the admins will take notice.) The same user who reverted the article blanked out 20 K from the stable main-article claiming to make a "bold change", based on a comment by "Seb az86556."

I realize this is not the place to get into such discussion, but it seemed appropriate that I point out such behavior - particularly since these very users attempt to inculpate Olaf for talk page comments, while themselves demonstrating a pattern of editing, on the articles themselves, that is, to say the least, extremely disconcerting.


 * Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..."
 * Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?"
 * Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)"
 * Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you."

Clearly, the editors who started this campaign have a rather strong agenda of their own. How does a few haughty talk page comments even compare to rallying for "total war", outside of wikipedia, on articles placed on probation by the ArbCom?

Regarding the agenda held by the above editors, I consider it at least peripherally relevant that User:Colipon  has identified himself as a supporter of User:Samuel_Luo and has not retracted his comments.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
The only agenda that Colipon, Ohconfucius or anybody else, has on this issue has been an honest and earnest attempt to make the FLG articles have some semblance of neutrality. Sorry, I don't want to go into an extensive discussion on the matter but, the record speaks for itself.Simonm223 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seb az86556
One example of the progress that's been made since the imposition of the ban can be found here: New Proposed Outline Seb az86556 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana
This appears to be part of a move from away from the long-standing dysfunctional environment, which includes a failure to utilize appropriate resolution options and pervasive personal accusations in article talk. Complaints about behavior were moved away from the article talk to an enforcement venue. An uninvolved administrator with significant experience and a solid reputation concluded that the evidence supported a commensurate sanction. Regardless of individual opinions, an appropriate process and review was utilized to address the disputed conduct. While this matter is an arbitration enforcement, unless arbitrators believe Shell Kinney has seriously erred or that the process was misused/gamed unduly, they should leave the matter to the enforcing administrators and community. Reversing the proper utilization of appropriate venues would be seriously damaging to the (slow but still substantial) progress being made in the topic area. There may be conduct issues involving other editors, whether it is accurate accusations of misconduct or problematic behavior by way of spurious accusations. However, there is no need for ArbCom to address those issues at this time. Other complaints can be similarly handled by the complainants and community through discussion, a request for comments, and/or enforcement venues. Vassyana (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor
I do no think that Olaf should be banned. He is such a great editor who fights against communist CCP agents. Letting Wikipedia enlighten the people on the greatness of Falun Dafa will be beneficial to all.

I think we should change the topic ban to ALL the CCP AGENTS. They are being disgusting.

Falun Gong must be shown not as a cult either. Nor should it be called a religion. It is just the ultimate spiritual practice that nothing else can compare. It has no political agenda either. Please reconsider Olaf's case based on the fact that Falun Dafa is the Great Law.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) --FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the ban be removed because Olaf is not a bad editor. He can be a great help to the Falun Gong articles.--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Does anyone else want to make a statement? Will aim to review this tomorrow or the day after. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the delay - will aim to review this today - and will ask other arbitrators when/if they intend to comment. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments so far below from Casliber, Coren, Risker and FloNight. They've all said this better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uphold sanction. Vassyana's comments and others are noted. We are not talking about a total ban from WP, the editor has an opportunity to show they can edit in a constructive manner elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to alter the sanction; the behavior on display certainly does not encourage it and, as Casliber has correctly pointed out above there are millions of other articles where one can contribute constructively. Someone unable or unwilling to contribute outside a specific issue should probably give serious thought to whether they are here to build an encyclopedia, or to evangelize.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason to alter the sanction, either. This was a reasonable response taken in a measured way based on a good analysis of the situation. Risker (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No action needed by the Committee at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coren, no action needed. Wizardman  21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request:
 * Ohconfucius
 * Dilip rajeev

Statement by John Carter
Requesting clarification of whether or not the terms of probation on Falun Gong related articles allow for uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban on the basis of the terms as is currently being requested at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I'm not sure if I have to notify all the other parties who have already commented on the request for enforcement there, but will do so if such is requested. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please also note that I have amended the sanction requested from indefinite ban from wikipedia to indefinite topic ban from all Falun Gong related articles and talkpages, construed widely. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I was the one to first raise this question, and refer the Committee to my comments at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I would also appreciate a clarification of this point. In reply to Ohconfucius, any previous sanctions do not by themselves constitute sufficient authority for new sanctions; it may well be that these previous sanctions were themselves unauthorized under the remedy.  Sandstein  09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana
This has been generally treated as a standard article probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. Please note the examples above and listed at the case log, as well as Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. If this is inccrrect, I expect that ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or enforcement admins would have long-ago corrected the misuse of the remedy. A clarification to explicitly state the status quo handling of the remedy should not be necessary. It should suffice for arbitrators to uphold the standard interpretation, as they are doing in Olaf Stephanos' specific case. If it is really considered necessary to deal with this by way of formal clarification, then please resolve the matter by motion ASAP to prevent this from becoming an in for all previous and standing sanctions to be wikilawyered. --Vassyana (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noting that John Carter has requested Kirill's input, per NYB's request.

Statement by Kirill Lokshin
The intent of the remedy, as written, was to both (a) place the article on standard article probation, which allows administrators to enact topic bans on their own discretion and (b) provide an explicit provision for further review should the probation prove unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators voting for this remedy believed its meaning to be different from this. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd appreciate if someone could ask Kirill Lokshin for his thoughts on this request, as he drafted the decision. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Kirill's interpretation is consistent with the decision and the intent of the arbitrators who voted for it. If other arbitrators agree, hopefully this will be a sufficient clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Brad and Kirill. Would note, however, that the issues being discussed in another case (Abd-WMC, in the final stages of voting) impact on the issues of article probation, and discretionary sanctions, and whether admins have the discretion to impose topic and page bans outside of probation or discretionary sanctions (this is not the case here). If anyone commenting here thinks there is the potential here for inconsistency in ArbCom rulings from case to case, then that needs to be clarified urgently. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this comment is well-taken. I think this may help demonstrate the need, not only for us to be clear as to the Arbitration Committee's own interpretation of policies and practices in this area, but for the community to develop a policy in this area as discussed in the Abd-WMC proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong
Initiated by   Sandstein   at 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong (remedy 1)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * No other specific editor.

Amendment 1
I ask that remedy 1, Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, be vacated and replaced by a standard discretionary sanctions remedy, such as e.g. WP:ARB911.

Statement by Sandstein
Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at WP:GS ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at WP:AE, I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, a maiore ad minus, the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.

I make this request as an administrator active in WP:AE (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong.  Sandstein  22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana
I have reviewed the editorial history of this topic area in some depth. Fulfilling this request would be immensely helpful to the editors trying to help resolve the disputes. This will be encouraging to administrators already trying to make headway in the area. It will also encourage more administrators to intervene, especially those who may have been ambivalent about the more limited enforcement options. This will also be beneficial to editors in the area, with the conditions and sanctions better tailored to the situation. The resulting improvements and normalization of the editing environment will allow dispute resolution efforts a great deal more traction and success. The long-running and intractable nature of the overall dispute in the topic area should justify the expanded measures. Vassyana (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Discrectionary sanctions would be good, to fine tune sanctions. (I think that this request was raised for the wrong reasons, but that's a different topic)

Statement By Simonm223
Quite frankly I shouldn't even be given a revert restriction for protecting the neutrality of the FLG articles from blatant efforts to insert a strong POV. Notwithstanding that this is still a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral
No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest example (food for thought):
 * Here is the section to discuss point by point 14 changes Talk:Falun_Gong comment added at 15:29, 14 January 2010. In these changes Asdf put some effort, 14 diffs, and if any of those would be objectionable it could be pointed out, it can be clearly pointed out.
 * However, even though request for discussion was clearly expressed on the talk page, and in the edit summaries there where 3 reverts, , and no discussion about the actual changes.

In my understanding Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I cross posted the above here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse. I wish to remain uninvolved as an arbitrator, because I have been involved in the past as an outside editor/informal mediator and wish to engage the area on that basis. I will make a brief statement as a regular editor. Vassyana (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable and uncontroversial; I'll make the appropriate motions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions
1) Imposition of discretionary sanctions
 * Motion enacted - Tiptoety  talk 07:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:
 * (a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.
 * (b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.
 * This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.


 * Support
 * 1) As proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Steve Smith (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Mailer Diablo approves this motion 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Sandstein's rationale above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Shell   babelfish 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Sandstein's rationale fits here. Folks working at AE and to follow up these things need all the support the Committee can give them. SirFozzie (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) KnightLago (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong
Initiated by  Asdfg 12345  at 04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) banned from editing Falun Gong and related article or template content for six months. See AE thread.   Sandstein   22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Sandstein
 * Enric

Amendment action requested

 * I argue that the sanction was mistaken and ask that it be rescinded.

Statement by Asdfg12345
Sandstein said he banned me from editing Falun Gong articles for three reasons: “edit-warring (less aggressively than some of his opponents, but still), single purpose account (editing only FG topics) and advocacy (editing only to present FG more favorably)”

I will respond to these points with explanation and diffs.

'''1: On the edit warring charge. ''' I have had a policy of 1RR for a long time now. I think the only time I broke it was shown in the complaint against me; I crossed 1RR a couple of times then. That was under the circumstance that the other editor had ignored a consensus, derived from an RfC, which supported what I had suggested from the beginning. I felt justified, but in hindsight would be more careful. I’m not aware of any other edit warring on my part—none was presented in the original AE—and it is my intention to maintain the 1RR policy and not revert at all when it can be avoided. I try to always discuss things cogently and civilly. I do not edit war, do not intend to edit war, and know edit warring is bad.

2: On the single purpose account charge. Since being banned I have taken a broader interest in other topics related to Chinese politics and governance. Whether I edit Falun Gong articles or not, I will continue to edit other articles unrelated to Falun Gong.

I note that the page on SPAs is not a policy item, but an essay. Of course, Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and advocates coming to push their POVs should be shown the door. I am here to help build this encyclopedia on the topics that I know about and that interest me, not as an advocate of an outside cause. I know the rules and play by them, and I want to build professional articles on the subjects I edit. (Though I’ve also been accused of “wikilawyering” when citing policy or providing sources to support my views.)

3: On the advocacy charge. I do not and have not edited only to present Falun Gong more favourably. Most of my ideas for improvement, and many of my edits, are not structured along the lines of favourable/unfavourable, which I think is most often an unproductive dichotomy for categorising edits or editors. That said, it may appear that many of my edits make Falun Gong look favourable because a lot of the information which paints Falun Gong in an unfavourable light, whether reliably sourced or not, or in accord with due weight or not, is already in the articles, or has already been added by other editors. Making Falun Gong look favourable is not my purpose for editing Wikipedia, and I of course know the job of Wikipedia isn’t to paint Falun Gong in a favourable light—I don’t support including material just because it is perceived favourable to Falun Gong, and excluding material just because it is perceived as unfavourable. Making this accusation has become a common way of deflecting attention from the issues at hand onto the individual raising the problem.

Here is a small collection of edits meant to counter the idea that I’m editing Wikipedia to promote a pro-Falun Gong point of view:
 * Here I removed some effusive praise for Falun Gong that was inappropriate for the lead of an article. Here a paragraph of defense of Falun Gong’s founder’s financial situation.
 * Here I reverted what appeared to me an attempt to replace material critical or derisive of Falun Gong’s teachings with material that did not include such remarks. This was cited by Enric Naval as an example of how I “remove criticism,” but the opposite is true. I initially wrote that section summarising the views disparaging of Falun Gong's teachings.
 * Here is one edit in a section that I wrote about the debate about psychiatric abuse of Falun Gong practitioners in China, including the voices that were more sympathetic to the stance of the Chinese Communist Party. Previously I had also outlined the CCP's claims against Falun Gong, including phrases like "...the practice has exploited spiritual cultivation to engage its practitioners in seditious politics. They also allege that manipulation via their "lies and fallacies", Falun Gong "caused needless deaths of large numbers of practitioners"" etc. none of which I considered unusual to have done.)
 * Here I got a barnstar from my sparring partner, Ohconfucius. (He must have figured I can’t be all bad, then).
 * Here an editor uninvolved in the Falun Gong pages took the initiative to defend me in a discussion: "I know the Asdfg12345 has edited things other than this; while his edits may be 90% FLG-related, I know he's also worked on other general Chinese culture pages (not to mention he once AfD'ed Masanjia Labor Camp, which is not something you'd expect from someone who is a blind FLG follower, given that pretty much all of these RTL-related articles are anti-China")
 * Here are some of the edits, I made to the main Falun Gong article before I was banned. These edits were cited as an example of how I’m a POV-pusher when I numbered them all and asked for discussion before they be removed. They were removed without discussion. Then I added them back, and they stuck (above are the second round). It’s not that I only put in things I believe. I don’t believe some of that is true, some of it depicts Falun Gong negatively too, which I have never opposed, but it’s from reliable sources and in that context is relevant.
 * Here are some of the recent proposals I have made (while banned from editing those pages) for improving the pages. I haven’t put on a special show of neutrality since being banned to curry favour. If that is pro-Falun Gong advocacy then I have a lot more reflection to do than I thought. Several of those posts were simple exercises in research, like finding how many sources categorise Falun Gong as "qigong," and how many as "new religious movement" etc. Some of the ideas were ignored anyway.
 * The above are just a sample after a quick scan of my contributions to Falun Gong articles.

Final remarks Those are just some examples. I wrote a long response to the arguments presented by Enric Naval that attempted to show that I am a tendentious editor who lavishes praise on Falun Gong and deletes anything perceived negative. Most of the complaint and belated response is straightforward, I think, except the second complaint. That is more complex. The quickest way to sum it up, though, is to see the two RfCs I started, and note that the opinion of the uninvolved party was exactly what I had been saying. There was a second RfC because Simonm223 ignored the first.

When writing this, I made a choice to say little about the editing dynamics on the pages, the issues surrounding Falun Gong and how they may relate to Wikipedia, perceived biases on the part of some editors, which usually dominate discussion on this subject. Based on some of the unwelcoming remarks to newcomers though, I think the environment will have to improve to avoid further litigation.

I think my being banned was a mistake, and I hope above to have shown why. I have learned from the experience, and will continue to cultivate a more nuanced approach to editing Wikipedia, including doing better with research, and editing a wider variety of articles. I feel like I have gotten some perspective in this month, thought about the issues, and so decided to request an amendment. Please advise if further evidence would be helpful in deciding my case. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully, -- Asdfg 12345  04:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughtful remarks on the subject from an outside editor:


 * Steve Smith and SirFozzie, the discretionary sanctions page says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." I was given no such opportunity. My dispute is, or was originally, mainly with the substance of the charges, and I responded to them as best I could above (it would be of some small comfort if I knew that the people assessing this had checked the diffs and considered whether the three problems actually existed or not). However, this procedural point is rather important if justice is to be served. The ban was made under the circumstance that I was not "given a warning" or "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take." That means it violated the terms under which these discretionary sanctions are supposed to be imposed.
 * Maunus, I have never meant to give anyone mental grief. I think {user|PelleSmith} stopped editing the pages after encountering the intransigence of several anti-Falun Gong editors. Making RfCs and Noticeboard posts are legitimate ways of attempting to resolve disputes, as far as I understand. I've just tried to edit and discuss issues on Wikipedia in good faith, backed up by strong research. I hold that in nearly all cases disputes can be brought back to the reliable sources and resolved through good research. Some of the issues involved in this subject are complex and specific, and it takes some time to resolve. As far as I understand I have followed all the rules and been civil nearly all the time. Should I be banned for assiduity? -- Asdfg 12345  12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could understand how this was a reasonable use of admin discretion, given the evidence above, and lack of evidence for the opposing views which were the reasons for the ban. I find it extremely confusing that arbitrators think my case is not only "comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion" but that the "decision appears reasonable" as well. And there is no way to actually determine whether they have evaluated the case on its own merits or not; they fail to comment on the evidence or elaborate on the rationale of the case.

Sandstein's rationale for banning me makes three claims that are provable/disprovable. They are specific claims, the truth value of which can be evaluated objectively. I was said to have edit warred, but the only evidence for that is breaking one revert of the same content within 24 hours, after having sought a third party opinion that was ignored; I was said to only edit Falun Gong articles, something that is allowed, but my contributions indicate otherwise anyway; I was said to have edited only to make Falun Gong look favourable, but a string of diffs above also indicate that this is not the case. At the moment the process is slightly bewildering, and it's completely unclear as to what, precisely, I have done wrong. I have been given no ideas about how I'm supposed to "improve my editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines," since no specific problems have been pointed out. If the arguments were a bit more slippery, it would be easier to justify them. For example, that I'm an inveterate Falun Gong apologist no matter what I do or say, editing other articles is just covering my tracks, and the times when I edit against Falun Gong, that's also to cover my tracks. Then I would be a class enemy. In that case, I wouldn't have much to say; it would be an impenetrable argument. But they are three quite specific claims, and I believe I have shown how they are untrue above. At the moment it just seems like I'm being treated as a class enemy without that being openly stated.

I suppose this format is very limited for being able to understand the processing of all the information that I presume is going on in people's brains.

My other concern, though, is that the major procedural flaw in how this case was decided still appears to have been overlooked: I was not "given a warning" before sanctions were imposed. The page outlining discretionary sanctions mentions this twice. Whatever the merits of the decision, I do not understand how sanctions which didn't follow the rules of how they were meant to be applied can be upheld.

I could not think of a more effective process for making someone get a sense that their rights had been tossed aside and due process ignored. If we want to carry the working logic forward, given that I am such a bad egg who would not even benefit from a clear explanation of how they can improve before being banned, or precisely what they have done wrong, or even deserve to be accorded due process, why not just ban me from Falun Gong articles forever? Why would six months make any difference? And why should I be able to edit the talk pages? At least then there would be some consistency in the autocracy. Whatever the decision, to whoever can give a clear, reasoned, response as to how Sandstein's three arguments are still valid in light of my response, and answer my complaints about due process, I would be grateful.-- Asdfg 12345  03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By "class enemy," broadly speaking I mean someone who is to be punished for who they are, not for what they have done. I say that because it appears to be the most useful model for understanding the current situation in my view, based on the discussion and respect accorded to evidence and process so far. -- Asdfg 12345  03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't apply for any kind of community appeal, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time, my time, and the time of other editors and admins. I saw an exchange between Shell Kinney and Olaf Stephanos which makes the situation very clear. I had thought that the policies were like a book of law that you just had to stick to and keep within. But it's actually much more about perceptions, social capital, and branding. And nonconformists may have extraordinary measures applied to them. Never mind when propaganda comes from editors who are integrated into Wikipedia, and "outsiders" wish to fix things and explicitly follow all relevant rules when doing so. If you are seen as an advocate, especially for a perceived NRM (but not for science) you are not welcome. It doesn't matter if you are reasonable and law-abiding or not. This is probably just a necessary evil and compromise given Wikipedia's openness and potential for real bad guys to exploit the system. I maintain that I am not one of the bad guys, have kept strictly within policy, and have only ever wished for a professional treatment of Falun Gong. I have been polite nearly all the time, and frequently compromised, shared ideas, and worked with whoever was interested to build the pages. I do not want to see a whitewashing or exclusion of criticism. But doing Wikipedia properly means no propaganda, stringent sourcing, and inclusion of every significant perspective. All that is explicitly within Wikipedia's policies. I am not sure who will have the mettle to challenge the editors dedicated to promoting a negative view of Falun Gong - and their sympathisers - who are seen as part of the community. The silent consent to these ideologically motivated activities allows a page to go from this (11,200 words) to this (2,500 words).-- Asdfg 12345  23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusion (posted from SirFozzie's talk)

Statement by Sandstein
I'm not sure whether, in view of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, this is the right venue for an appeal of a discretionary sanction, but if arbitrators would like my opinion about this request, I'll give it.  Sandstein  06:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
This request belongs to WP:AE.

The content disputes belong to the talk pages of articles (and, for the record, I will reply much better to requests about content that are not filled with bad faith assumptions cannot be easily interpreted as being full of bad faith assumptions about how I'm trying to smear Falun Gong for some unspecified reason). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Olaf Stephanos
I will give my brief comment. Asdfg12345 has worked constructively on the Falun Gong articles for several years. He has always been polite towards other editors, and has taken a methodical approach to NPOV, ensuring that no relevant point of view is left out and that sources are given fair treatment. His insistence on high-quality sources has been categorical, and he has repeatedly made use of peer-reviewed journals and other reputable academic publications.

I am afraid that the involved administrators do not fully understand the delicate balance of the overall situation. The neutrality of the Falun Gong articles has seriously degraded after Asdfg12345 was blocked. As many of us have observed, this is not a simple matter of "neutral-minded" editors seeking to honestly work towards an article that gives fair and due weight to all relevant viewpoints—and who follow neutrality as methodology—against "biased" SPAs who only work to "promote their cause". Indeed, practically none of the editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles has taken a totally cool, dispassionate approach to the subject matter. This is partly due to the editing environment and its long-standing disputes that have never been resolved properly, in spite of numerous attempts. Yet, among the group of editors who have been involved with the Falun Gong articles over the last few years, Asdfg12345's track record is among the very cleanest. He has proactively initiated rational and argumentative discussion, and I feel that this may be one reason why some would rather see him blocked. Asdfg12345 has kept up the true spirit of Wikipedia against those who have a preconceived notion of how the Falun Gong articles should read, and who fail to regard the true depth of high-ranking research out there. Moreover, there are always those who'd rather cut the corners than engage in real discussion.

My opinion is that the Arbitration Committee, or other Wikipedia officials in positions of comparable power, should put in the effort to investigate the situation from a pragmatic perspective. I would argue that Asdfg12345's case is too susceptible to an individual administrator's impression of the subject matter as such; in other words, I strongly feel that the case has not been evaluated on its own merits. The produced evidence does not warrant a block, and a six month topic ban is simply inconceivable. Just take a look at Asdfg12345's edit history: it can only prove that he is here to truly construct an encyclopedia. Even though his focus has been on the Falun Gong articles and related subjects in the past, his contributions have been extremely solid, balanced, well-sourced, and transparent. He is a real expert, and these articles and their informed readers sorely miss him. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Comment by previously involved user User:Maunus
Having previously involved in the diting of Falun Gong related articles I was acquainted with User:asdfg and his/her editing style. User:asdfg is very polite and forthcoming and never stoops to civilty violations or other kinds of overtly abusive or disruptive behaviour. However, I think there is every reason to maintain the ban on the reason of asdfg's being a clear instance of a Single Purpose Account - of the most tenacious variety. I arrived at Falun Gong with out any preconceived notions (except an interest in presenting the issue in a academically adequate manner from the POV of a sociologist of religion (if anything I was prepared to possibly have to defend the viewpoint of Falun Gong as minority religion as these are often prone to attacks from "anti-cult editors")) - I was soon so completely exhausted by the constant pressure and civil disruption (in the form of disregard for consensus, continued argument over issues already determined by consensus and different kinds of vexatious litigation (in the form of rfc's, etc.)) from asdfg and other openly pro-Falun Gong editors that I decided that continuing work on that article was not worth the costs to my mental health - I know that several other editors have had similar experiences. I believe that topic banning asdfg from Falun Gong related articles is the right way to protect wikipedias integrity and the mental health of its neutral-minded editors. In short, I believe that no amendment to this arbitration decision is required or warranted·Maunus· ƛ · 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This should go to WP:AE, but at an initial examination this looks to me like a reasonable exercise of the discretion granted to administrators under the January 19, 2010 case amendment. Steve Smith (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Steve Smith. We give administrators working in the area of AE reasonable discretion to interpret arbcom remedies. SirFozzie (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well within the realm of administrator discretion and from review, looks to be a reasonable decision as well. Shell  babelfish 14:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with my colleagues that the decision appears reasonable and, in any case, is comfortably within the reach of enforcement discretion. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Amendment request: Falun Gong. (September 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by PCPP at 05:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * WP:FLG-A.


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011
 * 2) Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011
 * I request the sanction be lifted


 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by PCPP
I was previously topic banned in 2011 from editing the Falun Gong articles wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Discretionary_ sanctions/Log/2011#Falun_Gong for at least one year, after which I could appeal. Currently I have no further desire to edit the FLG articles, however, since it is mentioned in many of the China related articles, I wish to have the freedom to edit the articles without triggering a violation.

Furthermore, I would have to have the rights to file cases against users who I find might violate the FLG arbitration case. Last month, I filed a case incorrectly without appealing my own topic ban, which resulted in a temporary block.

Statement by Hijiri88
I find it suspicious that PCPP has two TBAN-violation blocks in his log but has only made only 246 mainspace edits since the ban was imposed. Additionally, it would seem that a number of edits that went unnoticed (did not result in blocks) were also violations, as they edited articles with "Falun Gong" in the titles 20 times between February 2011 and October 2011 but were not blocked until January. There was apparently a hubbub following these violations that resulted in several other editors being TBANned, but I have not figured out how PCPP avoided getting blocked.

Typically, the way one goes about appealing a TBAN is to demonstrate one is capable of working on building an encyclopedia in a constructive manner without violating the ban, but in this case it appears PCPP continued editing as though nothing had happened, then once they were finally blocked continued making piecemeal edits for a couple of months before essentially dropping out of the project for four years and coming back to get blocked for violating the TBAN and immediately appealing it.

Can you explain why you think your TBAN was put in place in the first place and why you have barely edited Wikipedia since your TBAN was enforced?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Looks to me like a clear-cut case of biding time until allowed back into the same fray. If the editor was not interested in getting back into Falun Gong editing, they wouldn't be trying to pursue Falun Gong-related grievances, and would have done something constructive on the encyclopedia in the intervening time. Looks like a WP:NOTHERE / WP:5THWHEEL matter to me. I'm not unsympathetic to feeling one has been wrongly accused and taking a long break, having been in that boat once myself, but the editor isn't even making that case. Just vanished for years and is now back arguing about FG again while disavowing an intent to get into FG matters. Seems just like yelling "I am not yelling!", which is funny in a comedy but not in real life. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Falun Gong.: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Falun Gong.: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * OK, not a lot of community comment here, but that's understandable given the activity levels involved., it appears that you haven't made a mainspace edit since December 2013, and your only recent activity consists of attempting to file a complaint in violation of your topic ban. Given that you say one of the reasons you want your sanction lifted is so you can file complaints, I'm not inclined to grant this request. I suggest reacquainting yourself with the encyclopedia after your time away by doing some editing in mainspace in an unrelated topic area and filing a new appeal after six months of productive contributions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Opabinia, lifting a topic ban so that someone can file complaints is not to anyone's benefit. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per my colleagues above. Doug Weller  talk 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline as above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline from me too. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Falun Gong (August 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Marvin 2009 at 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * diff of notification PatCheng
 * diff of notification Guerillero
 * diff of notification Guerillero


 * Information about amendment request
 * indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed

Statement by Marvin 2009
Can an editor who has been under a topic ban use a sock puppet to report another editor to arbitration enforcement? Clearly not. And if the editor do so before the sock puppetry is uncovered, should any sanction arising from his or her complaint be nullified, after the sock puppetry is uncovered?

By the end of June, I was informed for an indefinite topic ban from Falun Gong in response to PatCheng's arbitration enforcement request. On July 27, both and   were blocked, as PatCheng has been confirmed to be a sock puppet of PCPP who. I am requesting a clarification that whether the topic ban enforced on me due to PatCheng's AE request should be nullified? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to PatCheng's complaint, yes, in the beginning one admin was concerned about edit warring and aspersions casting.I replied to the admin right away at that time explaining how each of my altogether 7 edits in June was not edit warring (even not 1RR), and nor did i cast any aspersions in communicating with others. On the contrary, I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. After that, there has been no further response from that admin. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 13:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
You may also want to take a look at Marvin 2009 has been trying their darnedest to reverse their topic ban; this is the fourth try in a month to reverse their topic ban. I stand by the topic ban and point to the fact that each of the 4 have failed to follow WP:NOTTHEM. Marvin 2009 interacts with dispute resolution as if it was a court or justice system instead of as a system to prevent disruption. The topic ban is from an area that is plagued with edit warring, aspersions, and general intractability. The whole area may need an additional arb case shortly to do another round of site/topic bans and place 30/500 over the topic area -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/July (posted 17 July 2020)
 * Arbitration enforcement log
 * Ongoing ANI thread
 * AE Thread that lead to the existing sanctions

Statement by Newslinger
See the following discussions for context: This amendment request is Marvin 2009's third appeal of their topic ban this week. —  Newslinger  talk   09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – posted 27 July 2020
 * – posted 28 July 2020

Statement by Tantusar
That PatCheng was a sockpuppet seems to me to be largely irrelevant to whether Marvin 2009 should or should not have received a topic ban. The administrators on the enforcement request found that Marvin was edit warring and casting aspersions. PatCheng's behaviour does not change these findings. Suggest amendment request be denied. Tantusar (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I do not see any particular relevance to the fact that the AE complaint was brought by someone later found to be a sockpuppet. Even at that request, the three of us who discussed it did note that the PatCheng account seemed awfully fishy in the way they were behaving, and for that reason (among others) they were sanctioned as well. Marvin 2009's sanction has already been subject to, and upheld by, community review at AN, so I think it is shown to be valid. It is not unusual, at AE, for a filer of a request for sanctions to themselves have engaged in misbehavior too, but that cannot mean we just ignore what they bring up if the concerns are indeed legitimate. It may mean, as in this request, that both parties wind up sanctioned.

That aside, I'll reiterate my concern that there has been a lot of unusual behavior in regards to Falun Gong, including sleeper accounts popping right back to activity the moment a serious dispute starts. I still think that warrants a closer look, and finding the sockpuppetry here makes me think so even more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I think is right. Socking to report other users is a high risk strategy, and any report is unlikely to result in sanctions unless the behaviour merits it. Which in this case it seems to have done. Marvin was edit-warring to advance a POV, and his only excuse was "but look at all this bias". He has under 5,400 edits, over 11 years, and FG topics dominate. I don't think he's here to be part of the wider project. Guy (help!) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Falun Gong: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * This request seeks to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. I have therefore reformatted this request as an amendment request for the original case and named the administrator who imposed the sanction as a party. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This would be akin to fruit of the poisonous tree if this were a judicial system. Since it's not, overturning an AE topic ban for that reason alone is not required (and from what I understand, the appeal has already been declined for other reasons). Looking at it another way: If a non-topic banned party had requested the enforcement, would it still have been applied? Since the sockpuppetry was not known to the placing administrator at the time, the answer seems to be yes. –xenotalk 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For convenience, link to the topic-ban discussion is here. My approach is similar to Xeno's (and continuing the American legal metaphor for a moment, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has its inevitable discovery exception). We obviously don't want people creating or using sockpuppets in edit-wars or to get people sanctioned at AE (or for any other reason), and if the editor's problematic behavior was largely provoked by the since-revealed sock, that fact might be relevant to a sanction decision. But if an editor is behaving so poorly in a DS area that he or she would have been brought to AE by someone else in any event, then it would be pointless bureaucracy to vacate the existing sanction and wait for another AE complaint to be filed with the same result. Pinging the other admins who participated in the AE discussion in case they have any thoughts to share. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree with the above remarks. The topic ban was imposed based on the sanctioned editors behavior, who did the reporting doesn't change that, this is a website, not a court. The best way forward if you want a topic ban rescinded is to completely ignore said topic for a prolonged period while making positive contributions elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Xeno. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above. Katietalk 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with those who commented above. There is no indication that the reporting user being a sock in any way influenced the sanction (as NYB points out), so overturning it just because of that seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Regards So  Why  07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)