Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender identity in the MoS

Gender identity in the MoS

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs) – filing partyFrancis Schonken, others
2. Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)
3. Wavelength (talk · contribs)
4. SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)
5. Peter coxhead (talk · contribs)
6. Georgia guy (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Wikipedia talk:MoS#Gender identity: subsidiary articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Support ALWAYS PREVIOUS ONLY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Gender identity: subsidiary articles

We've brought in other contributors to the discussion, asked the editor who closed the discussion for clarification and submitted alternate version of the text.

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. This is less of a dispute and more of a discussion that has stalemated. Issue concerns how to word the results of a recent Village Pump RfC. We'd like a neutral third party to read the existing proposals and provide a suggested text for use in the Manual of Style. Links to RfC and closer's text are provided. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• To my knowledge there has been no outright misconduct by any party.
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Agree – Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Agree – I'll always agree to mediation, brought in good faith.That said, I'm quite busy right now, so my participation may be sparse and not as timely as some might like. I'm skeptical that any of our mediation processes other than WP:ANI and WP:ARBCOM actually consider that they have scope or "jurisdiction" over this matter, because it's not a content dispute, but a WP:POLICY dispute about the wording of the WP:MOS guideline. I've had these forums previously reject MoS-related dispute resolution attempts on the same basis. However, I think that's a bad idea, because MoS, along with the content policies and guidelines (vs. the behavioral ones) directly affects content; it's meta-content, and should be subject to mediation, including under WP:MEDCOM. So, I support WP:RFM taking this request, and future MoS-related (and sourcing-related) mediation requests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Agree – though I'm not at all sure what a mediator is being asked to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To look at the closer's rationale, look at the texts that have been suggested so far, and suggest a rule for use in the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #2, "The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page". The committee does not accept cases relating to the formation or amendment of policy or guidelines. Such being the case I will, however, send an email to the committee members via the committee's internal mailing list to inquire whether any of them would care to do a private mediation on this issue outside the confines of MEDCOM, but I do not guarantee a response (which if it is made, will be made at one of the Village Pump sections). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)