Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Preliminary statements

Statement by Moreschi

I had a look at the AE request and promptly ran away shrieking to hide in the corner. Ugh. Sorting that one out would probably require a decent-sized team of sysops all with large quantities of time we simply don't have. It would be definitely be nice if the AC could take this one on. Falun Gong has been a mess for years and it may be time to apply WP:TNT to a bunch of the active editors here. Could be wrong though. Moreschi (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I think most reasonable people could easily understand Moreschi's reaction to the AE request above. I also agree that Falun Gong related material has been problematic for years. One particular concern I have is the almost single-minded attention paid to the topic of Falun Gong in China, particularly the government's actions and other issues. I know some of the editors involved here work primarily if not exclusively on China related content, and I can easily understand why they would be unlikely to expand much effort in content about FG outside of China, as they deal with such subjects less often in general. I am less sure of the reason for similar almost single-minded attention by others. I regret that there is little attention, or even apparently interest, in developing content related to Falun Gong outside China. I also note that there have already been two rounds of banning of editors from this content, first of those who were Westerners who opposed Falun Gong, and the second time FG practicioners. I'm not sure how we deal with content where there is a history of, apparently, two groups, the Chinese government and the Falun Gong, who are actively engaged in a real-world conflict and which seem to be able to perhaps encourage their side to edit here. Falun Gong has both supporters and opponents outside the PRC, and I think that the dedication of both sides to this contentious topic is far greater than that of the majority of individuals who do not have some form of stake in the subject, and I don't think anyone other than ArbCom is necessarily in a position to make decisions in such a matter. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary motions (which did not pass)

Motion (Falun Gong: review)

For this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators, so 7 support votes are a majority.

2) The Arbitration Committee resolve by motion to open a Review of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, in order to examine the behaviour of users Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley.

Support

1. Proposed per my comment in Motion 1. First choice. AGK [•] 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support, might make second choice later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. due to duration of time between cases, second choice (though feasible). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Second choice; prefer motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not convinced that a "review" of a case closed five years ago is in any substantive way different from a new case; and, given that, I think we should keep to standard procedure as much as possible. Kirill ^[talk] 22:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Kirill, a review is not appropriate in this matter. Courcelles 23:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. No, per above.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Still deciding on the case, but no, a review is probably not the right tool for tackling this. Jclemens-public (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
5. A lot can change in three years. A review is not the appropriate venue to handle this. SirFozzie (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
6. I think too much time has passed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• Kirill and Courcelles, my own thinking is that we have been asked to adjudicate a very complex enforcement request about the old Falun Gong case. We were never asked to re-examine the wider topic area, and so far as I can see no suggestion has been made that we need to do so now. An omnibus enforcement request was submitted that our enforcement team could not possible settle, but it certainly does not necessarily follow that enforcement itself has failed (and that a new case is therefore required). Perhaps the appropriate intermediary stage is to open a case named Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley, unless we disagree about the actual scope of this request for arbitration. AGK [•] 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would have no objections to opening a named case on the conduct of the specific editors; that's essentially how I interpret the first motion anyways, albeit with a different case name. Kirill ^[talk] 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.