Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-13/Moon (film)

Where is the dispute?
Right here.

Who is involved?

 * User:UKER
 * Special:Contributions/71.77.21.198 (other IPs used)

What is the dispute?
The article deals with a film in which a Korean word is displayed (사랑, "sarang") in both its Korean form and its romanization, as the name of a moon base. This word is widely known to mean "love" and the article used to state that, but this anonymous editor shows up and decides it's not suitable to state so, somehow implying that the screenwriters might have meant it to mean something else, without providing any explanations of how it could mean something else, or what else it could mean. I have provided explanations that the real world meaning of the word doesn't depend on the movie writers' will and since Wikipedia is not written from an in universe standpoint, the word has that meaning no matter what the writers may have intended when they used it.


 * This is a simple content dispute. I have merely sought consensus to resolve it. Currently there is no consensus. UKER apparently does not wish to wait for the consensus process but instead stir up trouble for me by making false accusations about me, first at WP:ANI; please read WP:ANI and now here. The content dispute does not concern how "sarang" should be translated from Korean. The issue is whether the screenwriters intended for the use of the word "sarang" in a work of fiction refers to the Korean meaning of "love" or numerous other possibilities that can exist in fiction. I simply offered some other potential explanations, for example "sarang" could be an acronym that has nothing to do with "love"; "sarang" could refer to some future scientific project that has nothing to do with "love"; the possibilities could be endless. To arbitrarily decide that "sarang" could only refer to "love" in a work of science fiction simply because that's the way UKER sees it is utterly POV. If the Korean translation is allowed in the plot summary, then there could dozens or hundreds of other potential meanings of the word placed in the plot summary, none of which could actually relate to the film. I have repeatedly asked UKER to provide evidence that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to refer to "love". UKER has not once responded to this issue, which in my opinion, is the core issue in the content dispute. I have never disputed the translation from the Korean word despite the implication UKER has tried to present here. My dispute is whether the screenwriters intended that meaning in the film, and UKER has completely ignored that issue. UKER has repeatedly used subterfuge to skirt the real issue. He has claimed that it is my responsibility to provide a reliable source that the screenwriters did not intend the Korean meaning of the word, when in fact WP:BURDEN clearly indicates that UKER, who wants to restore the disputed content, must provide sufficient evidence for doing so. He has argued that translation of a word from Korean to English does not require a source or consensus, when that issue is completely irrelevant to the actual dispute: Did the screenwriters intend for "sarang" to refer to "love", not what the Korean translation of the word is. UKER also does not seem to understand the consensus process. It appears to me that UKER thinks that when no consensus exists (as is the case right now because only UKER and I made comments at Talk:Moon (film)), the default decision should be in his favor.


 * My opinion is that UKER decided to begin this discussion here for three reasons: First, he realized that he could not provide a source for his interpretation of what the screenwriters intended and sought to stir up some trouble for me. Secondly, I had cautioned him that if he continued to edit war and ignore the consensus process, I might refer the matter WP:ANI, so he decided to pre-empt me to give the impression that I am being disruptive. And third, I believe he hoped the page would be semi-protected so that he could then edit the article and I could not.
 * Two more points: First, UKER may be trying to give the impression that I am using multiple IP accounts to engage in some inappropriate behavior. I have never stated or even remotely implied that I am more than one editor, regardless of IP. My IP address changes sometimes beyond my control. Second, UKER's false accusation that I have been disruptive should be pointed out to him. Seeking consensus in a content dispute is not being disruptive; it's the way things are (and should be) done on Wikipedia. Note also that in his request for page protection (and I don't oppose full page protection), UKER gave the reason as "vandalism". Falsely accusing me of disruptive behavior and vandalism is entirely inappropriate. I also would point out that on the article's talk page, UKER has referred to cautions about not edit warring and violating consensus as "childish". That apparently seems to be his opinion of the way Wikipedia works, at least in this case.


 * I am not opposed to mediation, but I think it's premature when the dispute is only a day or two old and there is ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I am simply trying to let the consensus process play itself out as it is supposed to according to Wikipedia's policies and procedures. UKER seems to prefer doing things his way rather than waiting for consensus, and to try to silence me he seems to be making false accusations about me, or at least implying such false conclusions about my edits. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone may have finally done UKER's research for him. See Talk:Moon (film). If the information is cited and worded properly, I will not have any problem with adding the sourced information. But I think that someone should address UKER's false accusations of disruptive editing and vandalism. And I say that not just for my benefit; if he treats all contents disputes with false accusations, someone needs to put a stop to it. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You became a disruptive user when you disregarded the WP:BRD cycle by making a bold edit and systematically reverting to your version despite my reverting you and starting a discussion about it. About vandalism, I never mentioned anything about it, but it comes as no surprise that you're whining about me making false accusations given that you have shown a predisposition for making mile-long posts filled with baseless threats and boombastic demands for the honoring of a consensus that never backed you. About you not questioning the translation of the word but only its interpretation by the movie makers, that's just one of your many lies as shown by the diffs of your reverts (here, here, here and here) that show that the article never cited any interpretations of the word besides its literal translation. --uKER (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So please explain how I disregarded BRD any more than you did, when you reverted as much as I did, and when I discussed the issue with you repeatedly on the article's talk page, and when I asked that you wait for consensus when you were threatening to revert again, and when you stated that I was claiming consensus is achieved when in fact I had said several times that there is no consensus?
 * And please explain your use of the word "vandalism" here in response to my edits. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First question: go read what the BRD cycle is about. Second question, "vandalism" is a predefined reason when you request page protection using Twinkle. --uKER (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the BRD cycle many times. Neither you nor I violated BRD. So the accusation of "disruptive editing" is false. "Predefined reason" is not an appropriate excuse for a false accusation. You are responsible for your edits. You are responsible for your accusations. Why did you accuse me of vandalism when I did not vandalize? Do you consider it appropriate to make as serious a charge as vandalism simply because that is a choice you have with Twinkle? Do you think it's OK to routinely accuse someone of vandalism when no vandalism occurs because you wish to use an automated editing tool? Please answer these questions. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't be your drama partner. Sorry. You seem to get a kick out of it but I don't. Later. --uKER (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your choice to refuse to defend serious false accusations. It is my choice to pursue further investigation of your behavior. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, be my guest. --uKER (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No invitation needed. The process has begun. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
The article should simply state the translation for the displayed word.

How do you think we can help?
Make the user understand that if the movie writers had named the moon base "sayonara", it would mean "goodbye" in Japanese, regardless of whether the movie writers called it that after a nightclub they used to go to.