Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-17 Transgender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-17 Transgender 1.1 Request Information 1.2 AlexR's perspective 1.3 Mediator response 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-17 Transgender

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: LishLash 09:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transgender

Who's involved?

AlexR and LishLash

What's going on?

The dispute is not about any edits made to the article itself; it concerns a hostile exchange on the discussion page. AlexR responded to a suggestion I (LishLash) made with the following: "I also must say that I don't feel there is anything to be gained by continuing this conversation - we just keep repeating ourselfes here. Should you edit any articles accordingly, I will look for formal outside intervention." This sounds like a threat intended to intimidate me, especially as I have expressed no intention of initiating an edit war.

AlexR previously posted a provocative dispute alert on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board complaining about the discussion. That post and my response were quickly deleted and replaced with a neutral summary of the dispute by AdelaMae. AdelaMae then posted a comment on that page's discussion board with the request: "Can we please at least try to be neutral and civil in listing disputes on this page?"

What would you like to change about that?

I would like AlexR to make a good faith effort to reach mutual understanding and consensus.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I'd like you to work in the best way you see fit. I can be reached here: lishlash@gmail.com

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes, I would be willing to serve as a mediator.

[edit] AlexR's perspective

Just what have I done to deserve this? (OK, consider that a retorical question directed at the universe in general.) I have several points to make here:

• First, a request for mediation over a debate that spans one edit (and revert) in the article space and a 2-day debate on a talk page that did not even go to the stage of insults and personal remarks? Not to mention that I am still waiting for any arguments from LishLash besides "I think it is the prefered use among FTMs in San Francisco" and "but homosexuality is such a well-known word, we just have to use it!" which I think can be safely regarded as not a good reason to make an already complicated article utterly confusing.
• Second, LishLash's summary is ... how shall I put it? ... a bit onesided. And that is putting it very politely.
  • There was, unlike eir claims, an edit in the article: [1]
  • I tried to be reasonable on the talk page, and remained reasonable. I merely declared it EOD after two days of not getting anything resembling a decent answer, or even a vague understanding of what I was saying. There was also no "suggestion" on eir side that preceeded the cited sentence.
  • The allegedly "provocative" edit to the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board read:
    • Talk:Transgender and Talk:Homosexuality and transgender - User:LishLash insisists to use "homosexual" to mean "the transperson's partner is gay, lesbian, or queer." because "That seems to be the preference of the FTM's I know here in San Francisco." It may be (or not), but the rest of the world sure does not use it that way. Maybe somebody could explain the purpose of an encyclopedia to em? -- AlexR 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That may not be meant to be the nicest thing one could have said, but hardly "provocative", and certainly not mediation material -- especially since the "explain the purpose of an encyclopedia" bit directly relates to what I already tried to explain to her on the talk page. Now, her answer, that one might call ... less to the point?
    • Aggressively mischaracterizing my discussion page suggestions hardly shows a good faith effort on your part to reach mutual understanding or consensus. (Please note that I've yet to "insist" on editing the articles with any of my own suggestions.) Is it your view that the purpose of an online encyclopedia is to provide a platform for provoking disputes with other users? --LishLash 07:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that she never even answered any of my arguments, I wonder who lacks good faith here - and even more so when I see her less than good-faith summaries of the dispute, here and there.
• She claims to want "a good faith effort to reach mutual understanding and consensus". Yes, well, that is exactly what I would have liked to see on the talk page, but since it was not forthcoming, I declared an EOD on my side. By now, I would also like an end to her slander and less-than-true claims.
• Eir claim "This sounds like a threat intended to intimidate me, especially as I have expressed no intention of initiating an edit war." is at best hysterical -- what I refered to was that I would look for 3rd persons to intervene if ey would start again to edit the article with the disputed use of "homosexuality", nothing else. Which is precisely what one should do when a debate on the talk page goes nowhere, as this one did. And since ey seems to be familiar enough with WP to be able to initate a cabal mediation, this claim is even less to the point.

Therefore, I am expecting LishLash making a good faith attempt to at least understand what I am trying to tell them, and by now, I am also awaiting an apology for eir "aggressive mischaracterizations".

I can be reached either via WP mail, my talk page, or IRC. On IRC, I tend to be listed 24/7 (as AlexTM), but obviously I am not at my computer 24/7, so let me know when you want to reach me or just try. -- AlexR 21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

No further response after around a month, consider case closed. - FrancisTyers 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion