The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User talk:SMcCandlish (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
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)
- SMcCandlish moved off-topic material in one thread at WT:MOS to separate the confused thread into separate discussions (both valid topics, but essentially unrelated other than both involving the same abbreviations; one is about MOS's own consistency, and the other is about what MOS should advise in articles).
- Dirtlawyer has repeatedly partially reverted this, objecting to refactoring. These reverts have been destructive, deleting intervening posts.
- Dirtlawyer's reasoning is that WP:TPO says "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
- SMcCandlish's reasoning is that "normally" does not apply here because the reverts are directly and intentionally confusing the two topics, and making both of them hard to follow and unlikely to come to consensus, while this refactoring is precisely what WP:REFACTOR advises.
- Dirtlawyer's response is that WP:REFACTOR is "just an essay".
- SMcCandlish's is that this is not valid reasoning on WP, in the face of both WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:TPO's wording ("normally" does not mean "always").
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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.
- Agree. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- DISAGREE. "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted." This dispute is a "grievance" and does not involve "article content"; there is no jurisdiction here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 both prerequisite to mediation #2 "The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page" and #3 "The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor" either of which would be a proper and sufficient reason for rejection. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
