Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-04 Tori Amos

Mediation Case: 2006-05-04 Tori Amos
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Pacian 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * At Tori Amos


 * Who's involved?
 * Pacian and the user at the IP address 199.201.237.2


 * What's going on?
 * There was an extremely low budget independant film made called "Too Far Gone". In the film an unshaven apparently insane man runs around in a bathrobe claiming the he is "The Real Tori Amos". He goes to a variety of Tori Amos concerts and accosts fans. It is essentially a pastiche of the stereotypical Tori Amos fan. However, the film has recieved no critical note, no mainstream distribution...it is basically a homemade movie by a fan that is sold exclusively by that fan on his website. The person at IP address 199.201.273.2 has on three occasions added information about this non-notable film to the Tori Amos article, and I have three times deleted it. I left a message on the user's talk page which went unresponded to. I added a section to the talk page of Tori Amos about the film so that discussion could be opened. The user has not responded, but keeps adding this information. The act of adding this information is the *ONLY* edit this user has made to wikipedia, leading me to believe the user is involved with the movie somehow. It is a clear act of self promotion, and the film is simply not notable enough to be included in the article.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Please see above.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Discrection not required


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * Yes


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.



Mediator response
Hi there, I am Cowman109Talk and I have volunteered to mediate this case. It seems you're unable to contact to the user, and there is little I can do and there would be nothing to mediate if there is only one user involved in a dispute. If that IP is the only user who is adding that link and is working against a general consensus, his actions could be considered vandalism or a possible violation of the Three Revert Rule. I would suggest you seek help from an administrator in this matter as the Mediation Cabal cannot deal with blocking users for their actions. If you would like me to give you the name of an administrator you may be able to contact, feel free to ask. Cowman109Talk 13:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from my talk: Thank you for your assistance. As you can probably see, I have explained to that user WHY I feel the edits are inappropriate. I have also asked the user to register for a free account as anonymous edits are discouraged. It's hard for me to define the user's actions as vandalism since I don't the user intends to cause harm. I think the user is very likely tied into the low budget film in question and just wants the film mentioned on wikipedia somehow. I can relate to this, but the film just simply doesn't qualify for the merits of inclusion in any fashion. I guess the best idea is for you to refer to me to an administrator who can intervene. Thank you again. Pacian 23:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An administrator who seems to be pretty involved in WP:3RR is William M. Connolley. However, after taking a glance at the Tori Amos page, I could only find evidence of the user adding the link twice. I would suggest that you don't take any further action unless the user returns and continues adding the link against general consensus, and afterwards speak with William concerning his opinion about what should be done with the situation. From what I see now, though, the user's edits are not of any major concern unless they repeatedly revert other edits to put the link back in. For now the best option seems to be wait and see if he or she comes back.


 * Another option to pursue would be to get a third Opinion to verify that the link in question is not beneficial to the article. Administrator action should be the last resort, though, as the user does not appear to be causing too much trouble at the moment. Cowman109Talk 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC) The user appears to have stopped editing the page. I'm closing this case as the matter seems to be settled. If you need anything else this page will be on my watchlist, or you can speak to me on my talk page. Cowman109Talk 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.