The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs) – filing party (on behalf of)
- John (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#RfC_on_naming
- 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)
- Is the pending RFC legitimate insofar as it seeks to bind the entire Wikipedia community so as to prevent certain edits until a future point in time (31 August 2015)?
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1- Can such a legitimacy question posed directly to the participating community?
- Per WP:RFC section on ending RFC's, Participants can choose to close an RFC and it can be closed by moving it to another dispute resolution forum. This leads me to ask two following questions as well:
Can a question of moving to another venue be posed to the participating community? Can a question of closure be posed directly to the community?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC) I'm going to back out. If John would like to bring this here himself I'd be happy to change this position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2014 (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. - I have filed this request on behalf of the filing party (without his knowledge, so his consent will also be needed) due to the importance of the nature of the question to the community as a whole. Though the RfC is itself a pending dispute resolution process which would ordinarily prevent the acceptance of this case, this request goes to the legitimacy of that RFC so is not precluded by it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (committee member)[reply]
- John has objected at my user talk page that "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content" and that this is not about about that per se. I'll leave it to my fellow mediators to decide that objection, but would argue that what we're really talking about here is content vs conduct. This clearly is not a conduct matter — John isn't being accused of misbehavior due to filing that RfC — so falls within the purview of mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In this discussion at my user talk page John has indicated that he believe that he rejected this mediation request by deleting the notification templates from his user talk page. I've told him there that he was mistaken and needed to indicate his rejection here, but we can probably consider that a rejection. On another note, I'm now too involved in this matter not to recuse myself and do so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]