Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lindsay Lohan Punk'd Reference

The matter has been closed for failure of the parties to show good faith effort at mediation. Essjay Talk •  Contact 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:


 * Article talk pages:
 * Lindsay Lohan


 * User talk pages:
 * User:Backburner001
 * User:RadioKirk
 * User:JackO'Lantern
 * User:Rossrs
 * User:Buchanan-Hermit
 * User:Extraordinary_Machine
 * User:Maclean25

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * WP:RFC/ART

Issues to be mediated

 * Is a reference to Punk'd in Lindsay Lohan relevant?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Possible precedent: Does the Wikipedia policy outlined in Articles/Media/etc. for Deletion&mdash;that, if no consensus, default is to keep&mdash;extend to portions of articles ?

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * 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.


 * Agree. Backburner001
 * Agree. Buchanan-Hermit
 * Agree. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rossrs 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. maclean 25 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree JackO&#39;Lantern 09:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Extraordinary Machine 17:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Accept: Mediator will be assigned; there is currently a delay, so please be patient.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay  Talk •  Contact 03:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Essjay:

Question about RfM policy
Does the RfM policy require that articles accepted for mediation not be edited? Or does this only apply to the text posted to the RfM pages? I am currently involved in a dispute with RadioKirk and I made edits to the article involved in the dispute after my RfM was accepted. I did this under the impression that article editing was acceptable and that editing the request itself was not. I did not intend to violate RfM policy and would like to know if I unintentionally did so (as I fear that RadioKirk may be attempting to use scare tactics in an effort to harass me about the issue). Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- backburner001 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors may continue to edit articles involved in mediation while the mediation is ongoing; if it were otherwise, the article would be protected. It would not be out of the question for a condition of the mediation to be that both editors stop editing it, but it is not required. Mediation is a cooperative effort, and does not involve complex procedure; it is, for the most part, what the editors agree to in consultation with the mediator. Either editor may withdraw at any point, and may continue to edit the article while the mediation is ongoing; of course, continuing the actions that led to the mediation may make mediation less successful, but is not a violation of any policy.


 * It is not the responsibility of any party to a mediation to quote mediation policy to the others; there is no place for wikilawyering in mediation. If there are issues, it should be brought to the attention of the mediator, who will take the necessary action. If a mediator has not yet be assigned, it should be brought to my attention, and I will handle it.


 * Since you didn't mention the specific case, I don't know whether a mediator has been assigned or not; if one has, please bring this to the attention of the mediator, if not, let me know, and I will look into the matter. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification and the prompt response. The case involves the Punk'd reference in the Lindsay Lohan article.  An editor has not yet been assigned.  I discovered after posting my above comment that RadioKirk commented on this matter on Voice_of_All's talk page and stated the supposed restriction of editing articles under mediation was not a written rule.  However, on my talk page, RadioKirk insisted that such rule exists and refused to provide a link to such a rule when I asked him.  I find this kind of behavior deceptive and harassing and I'm having difficulty resolving the content dispute as a result of it.  I would still like to make an attempt to have the dispute mediated, but behavior like this makes such mediation a very difficult task.  If you could look into this matter and offer advice on how to proceed from here, I would be very appreciative. -- backburner001 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Essjay Talk •  Contact 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The stated "insistence" is incorrect. On Talk:Lindsay Lohan (not on User_talk:backburner001, by the way), I stated, "The instant data is the subject of the RfM and may not be altered during the process." Why not? Because it is vandalism and I will revert it. The answer to the unanswered question should be obvious: "You requested a mediator, now respect all six editors who signed an agreement to mediate (not counting the user who, indicentally, was the bringer of the RfM) and back off and let the mediation proceed."


 * Notice also that the user found and invoked template:Exclusion-Section&mdash;a convenient excuse to impose the stated intention that "this reference must be removed until it suits me." Upon reversion of the vandalism, the template was restored, this time with the data intact, probably to avert WP:3RR. I have since created template:Inclusion-Section in an effort to insure the subject of the RfM remains intact (as it was at the time the RfM was filed) and within the purview of the mediator.


 * Finally, there can be no one-sided harassment if indeed this is a two-sided edit war (I maintain that the user's "war" is of its own making and the actual "harassment" is to Lindsay Lohan specifically and to Wikipedia in general). This user will find consequences to its actions&mdash;as I will mine&mdash;and no amount of spin-doctoring will stop them. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to "preserve" anything, and certainly no need to edit war over doing so. Mediators are smart enough to look in the history of the article, we don't need the parties to cause more conflict in the name of assisting us.

All this brings me to an interesting conclusion: The behavior of the parties does not represent that of parties interested in working together to come to a collaborative solution. Edit warring, characterizing other's edits as vandalism, and making hostile postures towards other parties is not the way to enter into a mediation; rather, it is the precursor to a long and nasty arbitration that leaves all involved far less satisfied than they would have been if they had simply made an effort to get along. The mediation is closed for lack of good faith on the part of the parties, and referred to arbitraion to consider the matters of harassment, edit warring, and vandalism. Essjay Talk •  Contact 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)