Editors involved in this dispute

1. BernardZ (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Ianmacm (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Torrent Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

We have discussed it here and reached a dead end. I can see his point and he can see mine but we cannot agree on a resolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ianmacm#TORRENTPROJECT

I think that the wikipedia often has to accept sources with the term clearly marked speculation from place it would not normally accept because the information is not available anywhere else. I think the point is clearly stated in this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ianmacm#TORRENTPROJECT

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

The problem here is that we have no wikipedia considered reliable sources on this subject as mainstream media isn't the slightest bit interested in whether Torrent Project is online or not. Now that the website is down can be listed as a reader with a browser will find this out anyway, but for the new sites, whether it will or has return we must either use in good faith source which can be called speculations or we cannot talk at all on the subject. The same problem occurs I know in historical pages when the only source is public advertising, so often these are allowed.

I think the wikipedia is better with the information in clearly specified that it is speculation then not. On this we do not agree. Can someone help out here. I think both of us have shown good faith.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

1. Agree. BernardZ (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. Reject. This case is rejected pursuant to prerequisite for mediation #9 that "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." I'd strongly suggest filing a request at third opinion in this particular instance. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]