Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 External links in bellydance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-15 External links in bellydance 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-15 External links in bellydance

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Cassandra581 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

In the external links section of the bellydance page

Who's involved?

Myself, any other user who tries to add a link and Mel Etitis

What's going on?

Mel Etitis will not allow people to add links even if they are highly realavent to the topic and follow Wikipedia's guidelines. He will only allow 5 links even though there is no specific limit on links even though some of the links that people attempt to add are possibly better resources than some of the ones listed. Now he is accusing me of trying to promote my own site and I don't even own the site! Even so the owner is not getting much out of it since she does not sell anything or promote anything on her site. It's all free and doesn't even mention the owner except that you can e-mail her with questions.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like for him to stop removing "helpful" sites.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

cassandram581@yahoo.com

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

I suppose so. I don't know exactly what's required but probably I would be willing to do that.

[edit] Mediator response

Here's what I can see about this case:

• Limits

1. 1. There are no limits written in WP policy about the limit of external links
   2. You don't want too many external links because it is better to expand the article instead of just linking
   3. The belly dance article is plenty long enough and has more than enough information

Result: You should be able to put (almost) whatever link you want in the external links section and Mel Etitis is incorrect in removing them

• Eastern Dance

1. 1. This link is currently under construction, so it doesn't actually provide any information
   2. The URL indicates that it could potentially be a good source

Result: For now, leave the link off, but keep an eye on it and if the site comes back, go ahead and put it on

Make sure to point Mel Etitis towards my response. If you continue to have problems, let me know and we can escalte the problem. Amalas =^_^= 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry link was not written correctly I forgot to space it properly. should be [Middle Eastern Dance] Cassandra581 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

As it states in the wikipedia external links guide: "What should be linked to: 5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." and "6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." One of the sites I think should be added is [Middle Eastern Dance]. Middle Eastern Dance IS copyrighted so it cannot be reproduced in the article. Middle eastern dance offes neutral and accurate information that is not already in the article and could not possibly fit in the article (Middle Eastern Dance has OVER 200 pages of information!). It says "Ideally" they should be worked into the site... keyword "ideally" but that does NOT mean they absolutely have to be. In regards to #6, Middle Eastern Dance offers a lot of meaningful, realavant content that is not neccessarily suitable for inclusion in the article such as how-to's on dance movements, music, costuming, and more. It also contains reviews of various bellydance products available such as books, movies, and performance/instructional video's. This is only one of many sites which he continues to remove which could really help people wanting to learn about this topic.

When asking around Wikipedia this is the response I've gotten: "The content of Wikipedia pages, including external links, is determined entirely by our volunteers rather than any official editorial team." it's not an official statement by wikipedia but it seems to be the answer I recieve when I've asked others about the external linking policy.

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

I think one point to be considered by the mediator in this case is #9 on the list of Links to Normally Avoid -- "A website that you own or maintain ..." I've posted a request on the Talk:Belly dance page for information on Cassandra581's relationship with the owner of the site. Easily found information relating the two identities is also posted on that page. SteveHopson 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

When I had read the talk page, Cassandra had claimed that they were 2 different people (this was prior to Steve's link to profiles and such). At that time, I assumed good faith and considered that link to be valid. However, after viewing the profiles that Steve linked to (and knowing how maiden names still float around on the internet), I will have to say that http://www.middleeasterndance.net/ probably should not be listed. Please see [[[Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid|this very important section]].

My recommendation Remove the link to http://www.middleeasterndance.net/ until you show better proof that the site doesn't belong to you. I know it's a good resource, but it's probably not worth fighting over.

How would I be able to prove that a site does not belong to me? If I contact the owner and aske her to come and tell you that we are not the same would that do anything for you? Or would everyone still try and say "Oh, your just signing on as two different people." I don't even have a website of my own. Should I post a picture of myself to compare to the ones in the profiles? It would be just as pointless since you probably would still say I'm posting someone elses picture as being me. I think the fact that none of those profiles mention MY name should be proof enough. Just because I used a username she uses does not mean that I'm her. I'd say that you should have better proof that we are the same before saying we are. If someone has suggestions as to how I can better proove that we are not the same person I'm open to suggestion. Oh and as for maiden names my maiden name was Cassandra Roatch not Cassandra Strand and I've only been married once.

Cassandra581 06:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just left this comment at Talk:Belly dance:

I have no idea who "Amalas" is (aside from apparently not knowing enough to sign his/her comments), but his/her reasoning is not only obscure (though it suggests a peculiar lack of logic) — it ignores the plain fact that Cassandra581 has been trying to add a link to her own site (as SteveHopson has pretty conclusively demonstrated) and then has been dishonest about that fact. That Amalas threatens to escalate the problem doesn't fill me with confidence either; nor does the fact that he/she seems to have chosen to issue a "verdict" on my action despite having failed to contact me.

I would have come here first, but no-one had the courtesy to let me know that this was going on. As Amalas' "verdict" is difficult to follow, but from what I can understand misses much of the point of the dispute, I consider that no-one is in any way bound by it — and that most certainly includes me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion