Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-21/Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)

Where is the dispute?
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting), but note that the "actual speech" part has been dropped in favor of requesting a more general change to the guideline.

Who is involved?

 * User:Tbrittreid
 * User:Rrius
 * User:Ckatz but to a lesser extent

What is the dispute?
Whether or not italicization actually creates emphasis (and even just what the definition of emphasis is, despite my having quoted and cited one) in Wikipedia's font. I say it does not, that italics are lost in running text here, and we should use boldface. The responses have been to cite outside style guides that are not dealing with our specific font (if indeed their writers were aware of it at all), to claim that boldface goes beyond emphasis and brings readers to a halt (which I fully deny). My assertion of the actual, physical problem in Wiki text has not been genuinely addressed, and was not even acknowledged for several days until I pressed it to a point that Rruis could no longer ignore it.

What would you like to change about this?
The refusal to directly address my bottom line assertion is, I feel, totally unacceptable behavior, and I would like it to be addressed, and outside style guides cease to be referenced.

How do you think we can help?
"We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute."

If you aren't going to look at the dispute itself and resolve it, what do you do? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What Medcab does (if it existed, which it doesn't) is get users talking to each other to help them agree upon something. We do not take sides ourselves. What you're looking for is probably a Request for Comments, where other editors are invited in to discuss the merits of a proposed change. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was planning to post a request for arbitration, since the problem there is a lack of good faith (a term I have avoided using in connection with this as long as I could) but this was identified as a requisite preliminary step. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We deal with content disputes, not user conduct disputes. If you open an RFC and get consensus for a change (or consensus to not change it), that would be the best solution. The mindset that this is a prerequisite to arbcom is not the correct attitude to take when requesting mediation. Mediation is for people who are making a good-faith attempt to resolve a content dispute. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)