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)
Should the article on Silicon Alley include content about the biotech industry and biotech companies? (I (Jytdog) say no per this removal on Nov 1); yes per Castncoot who originally put it there and who reverted the removal on Nov 1)
The crux of the issue is that Castncoot understands that the "tech industry" includes "biotech" and so the Silicon Alley article needs to discuss biotech; this is (as I understand their position) a basic definitional thing. In my understanding, the reliable sources about Silicon Alley discuss the "tech industry" in terms of companies that work in the IT/digital/software etc. space, and don't discuss biotech, and sources about the biotech industry in NYC don't associate it with Silicon Alley.
In Castncoot's view, if my (Jytdog's) view is correct, then we have to revise a lot of articles in WP including the Biotechnology article. I don't agree. But Castncoot believes the dispute extends to the Biotechnology article. I have proposed no changes to that article and do not see that we have a content dispute there at this time.
The tech/biotech definitional clash originated earlier than the Silicon Alley one, when I noticed Castncoot building a Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area article, and adding links to it as "See also" to articles about biotech companies in the NYC region and vice versa, adding biotech companies in the list article (e.g dif by Castncoot earlier on Nov 1, reversion by me (pls see edit note), restoration by Castncoot (pls see edit note). This was resolved when Castncoot built a separate List article: Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area.
we also disagree about the DR process itself. Discussion at Talk:Silicon Alley, then ORN, then Talk:Biotechnology has drawn minimal third party involvement (one each at each page, none with clear input). I believe this is ripe for formal DR and Castncoot believes the discussion at Talk:Biotechnology should go on longer. I do not think an RfC will productively address the question at Silicon Alley or I would have done that by now. So there is disagreement about what we are disagreeing about as well as process.
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.
While I believe that formal mediation represents a highly effective process in appropriately indicated circumstances, I believe that Jytdog fails to mention other forms of dispute resolution which either need to be pursued first and/or alternatively are already in process. There is a third-party discussant process ongoing on Talk:Silicon Alley, and Jytdog will not acknowledge his responsibility and/or inability thus far to gain WP:CONSENSUS to delete longstanding WP:WikiVoice material. I respectfully request deferment of mediation simply on these grounds and question why he won't pursue consensus rather than mediation. Castncoot (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2016 (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 prerequisite for mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
