Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Proposed decision

message: *Blnguyen (recused)
*Charles Matthews
*Flcelloguy
*FloNight
*Fred Bauder
*Jdforrester
*Jpgordon
*Kirill Lokshin
*Mackensen
*Matthew Brown (Morven)
*Paul August
*SimonP
*UninvitedCompany
With 13 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, the majority is 7. Updated by Newyorkbrad 16:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flcelloguy has changed status to "away", so now 11 participating arbitrators, majority 6. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jdforrester now listed as inactive, now 10/6. Thatcher131 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active arbitrators on this case 

message: Link #20 currently links to a diff of the RFM page. As we do not allow Mediation cases to be used as evidence in arbitration, I have deleted the mediation page for the time being. Any/all decisions must be made without this information, thanks.
::For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if this quirk were noted somewhere in the Arbitration policy. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the MedCom policy.  Should probably be cross-referenced in both places.  Essjay explained it to me once as not wanting to use people's good faith attempts at mediation against them.  I'll look at the policies tonight if no one beats me to it. Thatcher131 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the section you're looking for. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ^demon, you are free to go over the evidence page and do any necessary censoring there, too.  This case is somewhat unusual in that the parties have placed a lot of their evidence on subpages.  I'm not sure yet what to do with them. Thatcher131 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be better in the future to keep official mediation communications on RFM/case pages.  While I support the idea that editors' comments made during good faith attempts at MEDCOM-sponsored mediation should not be used against them, we don't want to extend that to unofficial mediation attempts (such as MedCab or other discussions on the article talk pages) without community discussion.  I'll remove the link, though, I'm sure replacements can be found if needed. Thatcher131 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to a different diff that predates his presence on the talk page; I assume that one won't also be problematic? Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Kiril, I was working on the page at the same time as you and didn't see that you had already fixed it. Thatcher131 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks,  Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link #20 

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

message: "11) As applied to this matter NPOV involves reporting of a controversy, comprising mutually generated derogatory information including allegations of torture, imprisonment of large numbers of people in re-education camps and exposure of the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder."
May I suggest the "...exposure of the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder." be changed to something like "...exposition of the doctrines and practices of Falun Gong and its founder." The word "exposition" seems to have a more appropriate connotation than "expose." At the same time, I understand that wikipedia gives itself more to precise, thorough and clear expositions, rather than anything in the form of a tabloid-style exposé. Newyorkbrad notes above the need to be clear on these things to ensure they are not used out of context at a later time. I think this would help too.--Asdfg12345 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "3.2.11 NPOV as applied" 

message: I welcome the upcoming decisions by this committee, because they will finally provide a definite focus to seemingly irreconcilable sets of agendas. Since arbitration was accepted, I have because of circumstances both internal (the hope that other, uninvolved, editors would be viewing the forest and the trees in the histories of these articles) and external (much less time to devote to Wikipedia in general) done practically no discussing of or editing on this cycle of articles. I'm sorry that anyone thinks I was edit warring, as I never went over 3RR, was always willing to discuss with those who disagreed with me (as long as they weren't right outside the pale of WP:NPA) and have quite often used the talk pages to explain my edits and my reasoning at length, especially after the "White House shouting incident" brought so much attention to these articles.  I tried to help and have had a lot of help from other editors, was agreed with and disagreed with, and tried, more or less successfully, to be courteous to everyone. Notwithstanding, I've managed to put out both pro- and anti-FLG editors and I'm sure more than one "neutral". I do feel my most useful contributions were my requests to bring attention to the issues being discussed by soliciting requests for comment, mediators and arbitrators to weigh in as much as I could all along the history of these disputes, at least until very recently. In conclusion, I have learned quite a bit about the limitations of verbal argument for persuasive purposes and the benefits to the articles of a binding arbitration in a situation such as this one. Which gets me back to the beginning of this statement. Thank you in advance. --Fire Star 火星 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to put in a positive word about Fire Star, that FS has in fact been very supportive on the FG-pages, since I started being involved in FG-related Wiki entries, thus I would support Paul August's assertion that FS has been a model editor rather than a disruptive one.  It is rare to find editors who are willing to suppress their personal POVs when editing such a controversial subject.  Furthermore I am also pleased that the ArbCom case is coming to a close, but wish that at least one arbitrator will care to answer my questions above!!! Jsw663 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire Star's comments 

message: I don't think User:Mcconn has done anything disruptive. Arbitrators please reconsider your decisions that would penalize him. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wooyi has shown evidence of being incapable of removing his personal POV on this subject time and time again.  His smile for pro-FG users who were 'let off the hook' by this ArbCom case shows that he only has an interest in furthering one side's cause, rather than the interest of Wikipedia in balanced articles.  Jsw663 12:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not letting my POV to influence my comments here. I'm just analyzing the current evidence and diffs. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Mcconn