Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-01/Tillamook Treasure

Where is the dispute?
Tillamook Treasure

Please take note of all referenced materials that were erased.

Who is involved?

 * User:Katr67
 * User:Vega625

What is the dispute?
Unreferenced material that was removed was reverted and referenced material that clearly showed artificial review inflation (director of movie giving 5 star review on Flixster using an alias and the same head shot as was used in the casting website was removed), negative review from neutral press also reverted and removed. Note encrypted in previous version of article saying something to the effect of do not alter this article without consulting with the discussion page, when information was publicly available and properly referenced according to Wikipedia guidelines.

What would you like to change about this?
The changes were authentic and referenced. Any unreferenced material that the tribunal does not agree with I will not contest, but I urge that the panel acknowledge the artificial inflation of the films reviews, look at the references I researched to contribute to this article, consider that the other user is quite possibly a sock puppet or family member involved in the production of this movie (husband, wife, two daughters involved directly in film and review process), add a neutrality of this article is disputed, and simply look at the facts.

How do you think we can help?
By assigning someone to watch this case as it progresses who has no affiliation with the film and is neutral to the article. The information added was not libel or slander and is clearly visible to any visitor to the referenced sites. The probability for conflict of interest as well as most revisions to the article coming with the partial name of the alias used by the director of the movie on the flixster review make this article suspect for sock puppetry. I have screen captures of references if they have been erased ahead of review and believe that the truth should be reflected in this and all articles.

As stated at the bottom of this note: "Encyclopedia content must be verifiable." All changes were made accordingly, in good faith, and I believe will be supported by appropriate referencing.

Administrative notes
I see no evidence that any attempt was made to discuss the issue with the other party. Before seeking mediation, you should try and discuss it on your own. Since mediators are scarce right now, I'm going to decline this case and close it in 24 hours. In a few weeks, if discussion breaks down, then you can post to my user talk page and ask to have this case reopened. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Wordsmith. Case will be closed. --Reubzz (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm not sure why this was brought to mediation before the person who brought the case consulted me or left a note on the article's talk page. Perhaps s/he did, but I've been away from the computer since the disputed edits, and I wanted to post here first. Let me state very clearly that I don't particularly give a rat's ass about this film. I noticed that some folks apparently affiliated with the film were attempting to use Wikipedia to inflate the article's importance, and I think those issues have been addressed. You can check the article's history for my efforts at de-spamming the article. It's true the awards section is unreferenced, but I did a spot check on those a couple years ago and they seemed legit. The hidden editing note (endorsed by WikiProject Spam) is addressed to those folks who wish to add all sorts of links to various film festivals and the like that have no direct relation to the film, in violation of WP:EL. Likely the same folks I mention above.

Note that I despise people using Wikipedia to promote themselves or anything else, whether it be for-profit or non. I also have a problem with people pushing their personal agendas--see WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. While it's clear there are some folks working to find ways to creatively market this film, the addition of some synthesis of some likely-to-be sockpuppet reviews on an obscure film review site and the mention of a lukewarm review did not seem to be encyclopedic or necessary to an understanding of the article's topic, which is a cheesy kid's film set in Oregon. Like I said on User talk:Katr67, find me a reliable third-party source about this supposed scandal and we'll add that info to the article.

I'd like to assume good faith but I suspect the person who brought this case has some sort of personal problem with the people involved in the film, especially because of this rather over-the-top reaction to my good-faith reverting of some unconstructive edits (as I interpreted Wikipedia policy and guidelines), and the assumption that I am somehow in cahoots with the nefarious scoundrels. I apologize for my irreverent tone, but I just don't get what the big deal is about this very minor film. Before mediation was attempted, a simple request to get a third opinion or two would have sufficed, say from WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Film. I say we attempt to hash this out on the article's talk page first, and free up the mediators to work on something else. Katr67 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly suspicious that the absolute first edit by was to create this case. tedder (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) (P.S. to my above comments) Note that there is also a hidden editor's comment that I placed about two years ago stating that people involved in the promotion of the film should discuss proposed changes on the talk page. You can see the page history for my efforts at damping down the filmmakers' promotional efforts and why this note was necessary. The note does not preclude all changes to the article and I'm not trying to own the article. It should be noted that the original author of the article appears to be involved with the film and that I don't believe any of the editors with apparent conflict of interest have tried to communicate with the Wikipedia community, so I was trying to encourage them to. That said, there's no reason why this article shouldn't exist, as it appears to pass notability. I will defend any article from POV from all sides, even if I don't care about the article's subject. Katr67 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)