Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
 | Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.
|
Resolved:
For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee
- This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
[edit]| Formal mediation case | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident (talk) |
| Opened | 03 Apr 2012 |
| Mediator | Not yet assigned |
| Status | Rejected |
| Notes | None |
- Users involved in dispute
- TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs), filing party (not involved in editing)
- Ohconfucius (talk · contribs)
- Zujine (talk · contribs)
- Shrigley (talk · contribs)
- Colipon (talk · contribs)
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
- All Falun Gong pages are subject to arbitration. See: Wikipedia:AFLG
- Since then there have been numerous AE cases filed with serious repercussions.
- The purpose of this mediation request is to get a proper, structured process of discussion and consensus building, before this current dispute escalates into another AE incident.
Issues to be mediated
[edit]All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
- Primary issues
- There is currently not proper consensus-building and discussion happening. Changes that significantly alter the tenor of the article are being made without proper discussion. There is no proper process of registering the various disputed content elements, and tracking the discussion of each of them. Thus, one user writes a long series of notes about all the things that another user made undiscussed changes to, but that other editor only responds to one or two points, and continues making fast, significant edits. There needs to be a proper process of discussion so that the dispute does not escalate and require another AE action.
- The content issue is another: there is a basic disagreement about the appropriate weight and placement of the competing claims about the incident. The Chinese government claims that the individuals who burnt themselves were Falun Gong followers; the Falun Gong says that it was a hoax meant to turn public opinion against the practice and escalate the persecution. There is a basic disagreement among the editing parties on how these various sets of claims are to be presented. Certain sources have made material errors in certain characterizations, and there is disagreement (or not, since discussion is not always happening as it should) about how these should be presented. There's a tangle of such issues. Though if the first primary issue can be dealt with properly, by intervention of an outside party, the second primary issue will itself be resolved.
- Something of a background to this specific dispute, at least my take on it, can be found here.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- This article is a featured article on the homepage today, which makes the need for intervention more pressing.—Zujine|talk 04:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Additional consideration: commenting a day after initiating this, more editors have become involved, so perhaps in the end this may not be necessary? The problem has always been a lack of wider community participation, and that seems to have been partly mitigated with the article appearing featured on the main page. Several uninvolved editors have commented on a few longstanding issues that could not have been resolved without wider participation. Further, Shrigley and Colipon haven't edited the page all that much recently. And the page is looking a bit stabler. We may want to see how things develop over the next 48 to 72 hours before concluding that formal mediation is necessary going forward. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please let me know how this works out! Xavexgoem (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation
[edit]All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Shrigley (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. —Zujine|talk 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Colipon+(Talk) 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee
[edit]A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
- Accept. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that it may take some time to assign a mediator to this case.
- Case has been accepted, we will have a mediator(s) assigned to the case shortly. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC).
- Rejected due to lack of activity. See this. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed, filing party states mediation no longer necessary. For the Medication Committee, WGFinley (talk) 13:47, 17 April 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.