Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong

Falun Gong edit

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Mediation, in addition to being stale, has been affected by the findings and rulings of the Arbitration Committee, including the banning of a number of participants and putting Falun Gong-related cases on article probation. Despite numerous requests over several months by numerous members of the Mediation Committee for clarification, none have been forthcoming about how the remedies and findings of fact can apply to mediation (with regards to party inclusion and content inclusion). Given this, the long period of time on hold, and the fact that some users have indicated that they want the RfM closed below, that is what is happening.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

view edit delete watch
Filed: 13:40, August 8 2006 (UTC)
Deadline: 13:40, August 15 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties edit

Tomananda (talk · contribs)
Yueyuen (talk · contribs)
Mr.He (talk · contribs)
Miborovsky (talk · contribs)
Samuel Luo (talk · contribs)
Mcconn (talk · contribs)
Fnhddzs (talk · contribs)
Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs)
Cj cawley (talk · contribs)
Fire Star (talk · contribs)
Sumple (talk · contribs)
Omido (talk · contribs)*
HResearcher (talk · contribs)
Kent8888 (talk · contribs)
Yenchin (talk · contribs)
Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs) Olaf has been a long time contributor to the discussions and it was an oversight on my part that he wasn't on the original list. I strongly agree he should now be included. --Fire Star 火星 19:41, 8 August 2006(UTC)

Andres18 (talk · contribs)

Otomo (talk · contribs)*

Colipon (talk · contribs)

Jsw663 (talk · contribs)

HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs)

Articles involved edit

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: edit

WP:RFC [1]
Also, most of the editors involved have previously agreed to informal mediation by an outside editor, CovenantD, who has since left the FLG project.

Issues to be mediated edit

Long standing and seemingly intractable differences about how the article should be presented and worded between pro- and anti-FLG editors (for example, how to contextualise direct quotes from the founder of FLG, Li Hongzhi) that has led to the article being protected since 27 June 2006.
Disagreement on validity of sources for citations in the articles, Chinese government, FLG websites, Epoch Times, Rick Ross, etc.
Organ harvesting allegations.

Additional issues to be mediated edit

Daughter articles; amount of, titling of, POV intent or not of their creation
Discussion on editing the article at Talk:Falun Gong often devolves to acrimonious argument on FLG itself, not the article

Parties' agreement to mediate edit

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Agree. --Fire Star 火星 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Tomananda 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -----Yueyuen 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -- Миборо в ский 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ----Kent8888 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Sumple (Talk) 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ----Cj cawley 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -- Fnhddzs 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Yenchin 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ----Samuel Luo 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ----Mr.He 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Mcconn 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ---Dilip rajeev 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.-----Andres18 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --HResearcher 03:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Colipon+(T) 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --alanmorney 5 October 2006
Agree. --Jsw663 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --HappyInGeneral 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guan aco 03:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to mediate this, assuming it's not a stale issue. Since there are so many of you, I hope you won't mind if I assume you all agree to me mediating until I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless one of you asks for private mediation, or I come to the conclusion that private mediation might be best. Anyways, I'd appreciate it if a few of you let me know if you still need a mediator, or if this has come to some kind of resolution. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see that you all went to ArbCom, but that your request there was rejected. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The case is currently on hold due to ~~this Arbitration Committee request~~ this Arbitration Committee request. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom has decided to place Falun Gong and its cycle of related articles on article probation, which will draw increased attention not just from Arbcom members but from more admins, and hopefully other editors, as time progresses. This attention has allowed me the luxury of withdrawing from the article, as I am now reassured it won't be as easily hijacked by single subject editors, either FLG practitioners or virulent critics. So, unless there is a direct conflict of opinion between editors actively contributing to the article that can't be solved by the newly imposed strictures, I don't myself see a need for continued mediation. --Fire Star 火星 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fire Star; mediation is not necessary at this point, especially after several editors have been revealed as sockpuppets of User:Samuel Luo. I hope that the light of reason will now shine through and the involved editors get back on a relatively cooperative track. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.