User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 12

Guilty, as charged
I know I'm not around much anymore. Being on the board of WMAU (along with work, family etc) takes up so much of my time that I struggle to find time to scratch my ass, if you know what I mean. I hope to have more free time soon; where it will come from I have no idea though. It won't always be like this though... Steven Zhang (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you know that I had no intent to bowl you under the coach in that comment, mate. On a more serious note, do you think that you are going to have the time to take your April-May DRN coordinator shift, or do we need to open it for someone else to take? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It will be a motivator for me to pull my finger out. I'll have time to do it. Steven Zhang (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

basic income dispute resolution
I don't understand the finding "futile", or how to proceed to resolve the issue.

Regarding the [Wikipedia,_bicycles,_and_wagons] reference, its my understanding that I am building a bicycle, that may be slightly off spec, and the editors are ordering the steel melted and shipped to hell, instead of allowing the bicycle to be refined into spec. I point out also that the [basic income] is listed as a priority by four wikigroups, and so it is a pretty important bicycle. Also the nature of basic income is at a theoretical philosophy stage, and the highest quality references possible are available to verify and preferably succinct, and high quality blogs provide the best verifiability, IMO, but regardless of this opinion, a section on proposed benefits does not need prestigious academic references if the claim being made is that the ideas and rationale has merely been proposed. To keep the bicycles/wagons analogy, the page was a high quality bicycle, and an important bicycle to 4 wikigroups. There is a difference of opinion over whether the bicycle meets specs, but it is a functional bicycle that is more useful than a pile of melted metal shipped far away. Godspiral (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Moderated content dispute resolution is a process in which we try to help the disputants come to consensus through facilitating discussion between them. When some of the disputants do not wish to engage in that discussion, any effort on our part would be futile. It was pretty clear that no one in your case wanted to be at DRN other than yourself, so the listing was futile. If they continue to take that position, which is their right since no one can be compelled to participate in dispute resolution, then a filing at the mediation committee will fail as well. The only form of quasi-dispute resolution which can go on without the willing participation of everyone in the dispute is a request for comments. (Third Opinion also does not require willing participation, but there can only be exactly two editors involved in the dispute.) So, in terms of how to resolve the issue, I think you're down to either a RFC or continuing discussion at the article talk page or if the issue is about sourcing, you might be able to get some expert advice at the reliable sources noticeboard. No form of dispute resolution is binding. As for the rest, if that essay didn't fit, then I just guessed wrong about what's going on; sorry that it didn't help. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi! Do you feel, as I do, that 3O isn't working as well as it has before? Looks like there are quite a few people who needed neutral help but didn't get it because of one more-or-less poor excuse or another. In my opinion 3O has by far been the most helpful dispute resolution tool we have. Is there a new tendency now not to help but just to ignone and/or block people who actually needed help? Your thoughts? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I think it works about as well as it always has. Most of the removal rules are very well thought out. What does happen is that we have an ebb and flow of the number of volunteers and their level of experience. Right now there appears to be an ebb. I don't take cases, myself, unless I feel I have a particular insight or if the dispute is over something that I don't care to deal with (or, of course, if I feel that I'm biased or not neutral in that particular dispute). Remember that if you can't get help through 3O or other DR that there's always RFC. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I know why the other editor involved doesn't care that I've asked for 3O - h/s obviously feels confident that nobody cares or wants to oppose h and already knows that there will be no 3o assistance forthcoming. And has also seen before that I don't do very well at RFC, expecially not requesting comments in several ongoing disputes with the same editor at the same time. I tend to get blamed and criticized myself, and I don't seem to know how to avoid that, except by letting things stay in that are defnitely wrong in the articles where I have a certain amount of expertise and know they are wrong.
 * It seems to be possible to establish oneself as an extremely prolific and usually beneficial editor who nobody (based on what we all see) wants to argue with and thus get carte blanche to add, revert or remove whatever one pleases at the moment.
 * What do you do - just allow things to hum along no matter how much incorrect info you see being added, when you know they are wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But, Serge, the fact is that the other editor is always free to wholly ignore any opinion given through 3O since they're, by the terms and conditions of 3O, nonbinding in any way. (That's partly because they're given by someone who does not necessarily have any expertise or authority in Wikipedia other than the fact that they're a neutral party. As I always include in my 3O's, one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." Indeed, some of the volunteers at 3O are editors whose only edits at Wikipedia are 3O's and are given with little or no Wikipedia experience.) As for your closing question, above, the fact is that there are more problems and disputes at Wikipedia than any one person can fix and the philosophy behind Wikipedia is that someday, sooner or later, someone will correct them, so there is no deadline and no one editor is responsible for fixing them. We all just do our bit, but we can only do so much. Finally, let me note that you mention that you edit "articles where I have a certain amount of expertise". That's good, but there are real pitfalls there where Wikipedia is concerned. It can be very difficult to have the necessary removal and dispassion in those areas. I wonder — this is neither an observation, nor a criticism, but merely a speculation — if that may not be the reason that you find yourself so often at 3O. (You have 59 edits there, which is more than most long-term volunteers have: volunteers at 3O get a service award when they hit 50 edits.) Though I'm a lawyer with over 30 years of experience, I do not edit legal articles because of the possibility that I may be biased in ways that I do not realize. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to find something constructive and/or encouraging and/or inspiring in all that, but I just couldn't. Sorry! Maybe you can point something out to me that might not make me feel like just quitting? Nobody cares about 3o; people that help there do not know what they are doing; I shouldn't edit where I know what I'm doing; and I should let other editors do whatever they want, especially with articles where I know what I'm doing. Phew! Man alive! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just the mood that I'm in. I just wrote this essay, too. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At risk of being labelled one of your "talk page stalkers", one last (?) irresistible question: Does anybody ever look at the value of an editor's contributions, images, articles, text, corrections, assistance, clean-ups of Swenglish, careful & reliable sourcing and so on? After all these years of a colleague and I giving and giving and photographing and processing and fixing and cropping and cross-referencing and listing and donating time and material to Commons and to WP, once, just, once, it would be nice to feel appreciated. Has never happened, except by an occasional newbie I've been nice to. My mood is worse than yours, I'm sure. You have mighty means and appreciative friends. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid not, Serge, and I'll admit to you that I have in the past gone through depressed periods in which I have considered walking away from Wikipedia due to the lack of appreciation for my efforts. Wikipedia can be a cold place, especially for those folks who cannot find self-satisfaction for their work. But I get over it by stepping back and looking at Wikipedia as a whole. For all the criticism we draw, the fact is that Wikipedia has become one of the greatest achievements of human knowledge since we crawled out of the primordial ooze, standing in importance — though in a different way — alongside the greatest libraries and other repositories of knowledge of history. It is the go-to source for basic information ("basic" being how it differs from the libraries, which offer knowledge in greater depth) in English around the world, the place to start when you want to know something and, in many cases, providing all the information that you need about a subject in a way which, again despite our detractors, guarantees and enforces accuracy and reliability. And it's free and, unlike those great libraries and the great encyclopedias of history, at your fingertips 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And I am both honored and humbled by the fact that I have been able to contribute in my own small way to that achievement. I'm proud of this place and every time I hear someone on the street or in a coffee shop or in a discussion at my office or in a newscast say, especially in an offhand way that just accepts that their listener will accept the information, "Wikipedia says...", I inwardly puff up a little and think, "Yeah, that's my place. I helped with that." And that's enough. That's all the recognition I need. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a perfect example of the kind of stuff you apparently think I should ignore, but how would that benefit the Wikipedia we're so proud of? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what I've said up until now that causes you to conclude that you should ignore anything. But I agree entirely with what Surtsicna says there. Serge, it's improper to read laws and apply them to facts to draw a conclusion in an article. That's synthesis, a violation of the no original research policy."Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."When you combine (A) the fact that this girl is a member of a royal family and may be in line for a title with (B) what the U.S. Constitution says about people with titles to conclude (C) that she won't be able to work for the U.S. government you're doing exactly that. Both of your additions to that article, not just the one Surtsicna points out, are improper for that reason. The biggest problem is not that they're irrelevant — though that may also be an issue under the undue weight policy — but that they use a prohibited form of analysis. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

List of metro systems
I see that "DRN does not accept matters which are pending in other forums". I'm not sure if the discussion on No original research/Noticeboard can be considered pending or not. So far, I haven't received input from involved editors, despite waiting for a day or so I think. If nobody responds to it, when can it be considered closed? Also, the issue I posted is somewhat different from the issue I posted at NOR board. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Give it a week, at least. Remember, at Wikipedia there is no hurry. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with T-man. Some noticeboards like WP:BLPN have lots of volunteers while others like WP:ORN have much fewer and so it takes longer to get a response but you will get some comments if you are patient.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Artpop at DRN
Hi T-Man, Thanks for your input at Artpop. I have already given two warnings there and after my second warning I said I would close the case if there was another eruption. Now that there has been one I feel I need to follow up on what I said and I'd like to close the case and refer them to mediation or to ANI etc. There doesn't seem to be any basis for a rational discussion as in addition to the misbehavior they are entrenched on their positions. If you disagree with my closure of the case then I could resign from the case and leave it open for another volunteer. Any thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No objection from me, at all, you can even cite what I did as the reason. Close away, my friend. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW I looked at some of that, at least to the point where you issued a direct warning, and I wouldn't blame you at all for shutting it down if they're going at it again. DonIago (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the input. I'll close it now. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To my talk page stalkers: My new essay
It's The Wikiderata! Enjoy. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Helen Online  09:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats on this piece, I loved it and have added it to my "favorites". --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A cheeky satire piece. It must have been fun to write :-) -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I love it! Thanks for the smile and all the best,  Mini  apolis  02:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Question on procedure
Hey there, should I delete my comments regarding the editwarring issue from the DRN or strikethrough or just leave them alone and not bring it up further? Sorry regardless - I'm a bit frustrated with this user and my frustration got the better of me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they're fine. Just don't continue making additional conduct remarks. Thanks for the clarification on the sources. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping
I changed your status to DRN coordinator on the Co-ordinator page. Best! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail
Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN question
Hi TransporterMan. I'm giving some thought to filing a DRN request on behalf of the various parties currently fighting things out over the Qutbi Bohra article - content, wording, sources, even the article's existence are all seemingly very contentious. I'm not actually a disputant in this particular issue (although I did comment briefly at the previous AFD, and I think I may have declined a CSD tag on it once), so I was wondering whether it would be proper for me to file the request? Is there any protocol for disinterested parties filing at DRN? Cheers, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable for a non-involved editor to file a case at DRN on behalf of the actual disputants, but more often than not the listing fails without any resolution work being done because some or all of the involved editors choose not to participate. Filings at DRN will be removed (i.e. declined) if there's anything already pending in another forum. In this particular case, the AfD filing made after your posting, above, complicates matters as such a pending matter, especially if it goes to the reason for the DRN listing (but even without it, most volunteers are reluctant to spend time on a case if there's a chance that the article is just going to be deleted). Finally, one of the disputants tried to make a 3O listing, which would also defeat a DRN listing if it gets filed before the DRN listing gets filed, but he filed it in the wrong place. I've notified him here, and he may refile, though I've also advised him that it would be better to let the AfD play out first. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd expect the AfD to be closed early (it was raised less than a week after the previous one closed), but this issue seems to affect quite a few pages, so there may be other discussions relating to some of those that I haven't found yet (I think there're at least two active EW reports relating to this group of editors at the moment as well). Having watched their interactions elsewhere, I'm becoming less confident that this is something DR will be able to deal with; it's quite wide-ranging and none of them seem to listen to one another. Might be time for full-on arbitration, though I rather hope not. Thanks for the reply. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the AfD nominator was blocked for a week for just that just after the nomination. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

N5iln has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

oldcsd
Hello,. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

Re: GoodSearch opinion
Thank you for the information. Understand the comments and agree with the suggestion. Uptodateinfo

for Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School
I have once again put the Template on the article, but I'm quite unsure why this article would be moved to deletion. It doesn't seem to have vandalized the copyrighted content, and also doesn't seem to have plagiarized someone's work. I can see what you are talking about, but I think that this article shouldn't be deleted. Otherwise, I will improve this article to Wikipedia's standard. But thanks for your notice.

Please contact me if you have any concerns.

Besides I'm only a Wikipedian for less than 6 months so I'm quite inexperienced. However the quality and standard of my articles will improve. Challisrussia (talk)

Village with offensive name
Just looked at your referral for Kotak, a village with an allegedly offensive name. The offensive word would be kotok (which is offensive slang for penis in at least Kyrgyz. However, Kotak should be ok -- it also appears on google maps for roughly the same location shown in the article -- Google Map of Kotak.  Thanks for checking up on it, though!

¡Thanks For The Heads-Up!
Binkernet would no doubt have been more than happy for me to have been unaware of the changes in that page; Thank you for the heads up. A REDDSON

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DRN
Hey mate, DRN looks a bit backlogged. Can you give me a hand clearing out some of the old requests?

"Longboats" opinion
Thanks for your third opinion. Very clear and to the point. I'd completely missed the peer review thing. I'll give the other guy a while to mull things over then have another go at reversion, although I have no real hope if avoiding a fight! andy (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Response to Third Opinion Request: Manned mission to Mars


 * TransporterMan, I'm sorry, but I don't know how to connect this to your previous "talk" location or information.


 * Before we move on to what I believe is the larger issue here, in that a single person has taken on the role of Editor-in-Chief of a Wikipedia page, and is controlling information on this page based on bias and personal preference and is self admittedly not even a subject matter expert.


 * "This is clearly not a sufficient endorsement by AIAA of the accuracy and validity of conference papers to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which is the threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia. Instead, it is merely an endorsement that the papers are of sufficient interest to attract attendees to a conference. (AIAA invites the authors of conference papers to also submit them to one of their peer-reviewed journals, but I can find no evidence that this particular paper has been so published.) Not only does this paper not meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source, there is a substantial question whether it violates Wikipedia's Spam rule."


 * Based on this statement, we should revisit all the material on this page a little closer then - here are a few examples:


 * MarsDrive mission design (2008) - is a piece internally referencing other Wikipedia sites (internal self referencing is not a basis for validating information), and published data on the other pages are from articles written on SpaceReview or ISDC conferences (also some of those links don't work).


 * NASA Austere Human Missions to Mars (2009) - is a file solely referencing either an internal NASA PDF presentation or an AIAA presentation - nothing published and only opinion.


 * USA's Mars orbit by the mid-2030s (2010) - is a piece internally referencing other Wikipedia sites and a Staff Op-Ed article in Science - not a published technical study or Mars mission design!


 * Russian mission proposals (2011) - this entry and its links call on information from the Russian space web site (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html), which is a single person owned web site that has no external controls over the information published on the site.


 * NASA/SpaceX 'Red Dragon' (2012) - first, this has nothing to do with Mars, and second, it internally references several other Wikipedia sites and externally references a NAC meeting report and an article in Space.com - where is the credibility in this information or the relevance to Mars mission information/design?


 * And lastly and most related to the issue at hand is a input on the same page that is almost exactly like the one I placed there:


 * Conceptual Space Vehicle Architecture for Human Exploration of Mars (2012) - an item which contains a single paragraph and a reference to a single AIAA paper.


 * Given this, and Mr. Andy J Smith's persistent editing and TransporterMan's comments, at the very least this last input example should be also be deleted. And if not, my entry, therefore has just as much validity to remain on this page as any of the examples presented above. Unless Wikipedia has a rule that says that all information on their site must come from peer reviewed journal publications, then any AIAA work should be of sufficient quality as to be used on this site. Given this, I plan on restoring the information I put there when I get a chance, yet again.


 * Note: AIAA's H-index ranking in the Aerospace Engineering category is 82 which places it at the top of its index. If that is not a relevant location to reference work from than what is? Most of the other items discussed above don't even have information published in Journals or their related conferences. Also, note that many other sections of this page and sub-linked pages have missing links/data and other problems that lend to a diminished credibility of the information presented in this section.


 * Given his bias and self determination of importance/popularity with this material, I would request that Mr. Andy J Smith be audited/monitored by Wikipedia based on his seemingly personal bias and lack of subject matter credibility (though the later does not seem to matter to Wikipedia).


 * Marsadvexpdev (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the header and footer on my opinion at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN question
Hi T-man, I've just closed my two active cases as resolved. Yipee! (except there are degrees of resolution, aren't there?) I'm thinking of taking the 2014 Ukraine Revolution case but I'm wondering what to do about the two folk that have entered the discussion but haven't added themselves to the list of official participants. Any suggestions? I'll be back online tonight or tomorrow and I'll check back here. Thanks bro! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * KB, I was kind of thinking about recommending that one be sent back to the TP for more discussion. It just doesn't seem ripe to me, especially with the fluid nature of that page/subject and the allegations of propaganda. If you do want to take it forward, I'd list Sayerslle, Toddy1, and Nug as parties and ask them to make opening statements, though since they've not responded I'm not at all sure that they will do so, but on the other hand if they don't, other than Toddy1 (who's not been much involved), then I think that listing is futile. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have doubts about its readiness then just send it back to the talk page. That's fine with me :-) --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI#Content manipulation on 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Football in Australia
Re your recent request for mediation, as it says at WP:RFM "Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content" so I think it should be procedurally declined. Instead, if you have any qualms about the legitimacy of the RfC I suggest an AN/I filing. I also think it was unfair of you to file this case on another user's behalf without seeking their consent. --John (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case I don't see this as unfair at all, though it certainly could be in other cases. The only question that I can see that I would have for ANI would be where should I question it's legitimacy. This is a question for the community. administrators as a part of the community could answer this question but ANI wouldn't be the proper forum.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I post that here because I'm not exactly sure where that should be posted in the mediation request.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I continue to find your postings unhelpful. Here you make a statement that asserts that I have not rejected your mediation. I have unequivocally rejected it here and again under its new name here. Please be in no doubt that whatever the outcome of this discussion I will walk away from this with a bad taste in my mouth regarding the usefulness of the RfM process in general and regarding your personal cluefulness in particular. --John (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no one saw those. The place you reject mediation is by completing the appropriate section on the mediation page, as is stated in the notification templates which you deleted: "After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. " (Emphasis as in original.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 12:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

next step
Any chance that you could help with the next rung in the ladder?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you mean in regard to the current issue or mean the general issue of binding content dispute resolution. Either way, however, probably not. Though I've recused myself at the mediation page (which is probably going to eventually be refused and closed due to John's decision not to participate) I'd just as soon not become further involved until that happens. I didn't even want to become involved at ANI and would not have done so if it had not been for the issue over the RfC page notice. If, on the other hand, you mean some kind of proposal for binding DR, I've pretty much given up on that, having been involved in a few efforts in the past. I don't think that the community will ever head's up approve one. I'll be glad to take a look at any which are proposed and possibly support them if I think they've got enough safeguards, but I don't want to spend the time helping to formulate another one since I think that the effort will almost certainly be futile. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry. I do mean would you mind assisting in a proposal for Binding DR. Well not exactly. I want a proposal that will have the community validate this kind of action or repudiate it. They can either set it up and create policy for it or make a clear no. I find it would be important to represent everything fairly and clearly. I'm on the fence myself about binding DR. However the way this was done I'm against. As much as a proposal should be about saying yes to setting up a system it should also be set up to say no to what was done here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm not interested in participating in that at the present time. But can I offer a nuance here that you may want to think about? There is no question that article content can be limited by policies and guidelines. The verifiability policy certainly limits what can and cannot go into an article as do many, many other policies and guidelines, such as MEDRS, just to give one more example. It can also be decided in specific articles by consensus and due to the ignore all rules policy, material can by consensus be included in or excluded from articles which even violates policy. The ability of the community to decide those kinds of things is not in question here. Edits, including IAR edits, in individual articles can be made even with the very limited kind of consensus (local consensus) which forms at individual articles without any sort of public notice, such as notice through RfC's. None of that is in the least bit controversial and if that's what's troubling you I would suggest to you that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of changing it, nor should there be. The only thing that's controversial, in my opinion, in John's RfC is the limitation on future changes through a certain date and — here's where it gets complicated — I think that even that's okay so long as it only limits the community's ability to change the article but does not limit (a) the community's ability to change the limitation on changing the article or (b) the community's ability to change either the article or the limitation through an IAR discussion. To say that in the abstract, I think that the community can choose to apply limits on changing content, but I don't think that the community can choose to apply limits on its ability to change or modify those limits and I don't think it can choose to override or limit IAR, at least not in both cases without a widely-announced and very broadly adopted consensus discussion with a high level of participation. I'm going to ping so he won't think that we're talking or conspiring behind his back though, frankly, I don't have much more to say on this subject. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The points that you refer to as possibly controversial is exactly what I find controversial. However I'm starting to feel like I'm seeing alot of bad faith in this overall situation. I don't see much of a chance to do anything positive now. I do want to thank you for your help. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Notice - Confused
Hi... Received a notice that there was a discussion here in which I should participate. When I followed the link, I was confused as to whether the discussion was closed or ongoing. I've not been involved in DR previously so any guidance would be appreciated. If it is ongoing, I'm unsure where to comment. Thanks!   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All indications to me are that it is in fact closed. I've gone ahead and boldly updated the status, which hopefully I did correctly. I have experience at DRN but haven't actually done that sort of thing before. :) I'm sure TM will correct me with an appropriately-sized trout if I've acted in error. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm the one who needs the fishface. I closed it without changing the status. Sorry about that Wikipelli and thanks, Don. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I've never gotten to trout anyone before! (goes on a fishing trip) DonIago (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Heck, I need it so often I've even created a self-whack template. Here, let me demonstrate it: . Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   09:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army dispute
Hello, I would like to enlist additional 3rd parties to passively monitor the discussion of the subject matter on the Dispute Resolution board… I would like to include an paragraph which I posted in the current discussion on the subject regarding proportionality of the disputed text, this was something that was not included in the previous discussion due to it shutting down prematurely, but has tremendous significance to the overall perspective on the subject matter:
 * During the course of the 2 year conflict, with an army of over 68,000 troops, moving back and forth with the frontline, only about 400-500 Jews were killed as a direct result of the actions committed by the BA. These 400-500 casualties lay in contrast to the total population of 900,000 Jews living in Galicia at the time of the conflict; which accounts for about 0.05% of the population. In fact, it can be argued that the Ukrainians sufferd greater civilian loses as a result of the BA than the Jews; and the British historian Norman Davis (who is a respected expert on the history of Poland) stated that Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the war, especially in contrast to Poles, and Ukrainians, and questioned whether some of the events can be called pogroms. This is why, I strongly argue that the Controversies section creates bias, through its length, and overloaded content; a reader gets an unfair impression that the BA was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, and tens-of-thousands more injured. Sources: Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War; page 25; Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43 --COD T 3 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keithbob, the DRN volunteer handling the case, is one of our best, he'll do you a fine job and needs no monitoring. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail call
--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Board - 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal
I didin't want to write this on the dispute resolution board, to keep it clean. Firstly, I would like to start by thanking you for your explanations of what to do if the user doesn't respond. Hope I'm wrong and he replies but if he doesn't, he will get his way. I have been trying to turn this article to a neutral one for 5 months now and nothing has changed. If you look at the aricle, he asks for a full protection because of my edits, his request is denied on the grounds that there is not enough vandalism. The next day, out of nowhere, attacks start. It may just be a coincidince but as I try to do right thing here by going to the boards, talking to admins...etc, there is no change to the article. Sorry if I seem a bit angry and if my sentences are a bit confusing but this situation is really starting to get to me. Isn't 5 months a long time to decide if an article lacks a neutral point of view or not? Again, sorry if I seem angry and confusing and thanks for your time and understanding.Rivaner (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC) As I suspected, there was no response and the case is closed, again. 5 months of trying with no succes, and now I have to wait more on his talk page? I am trying to do the right thing by first starting a thread on NPOV board, the solution from there is a "cite error". I am starting a thread on dispute resolution board, still no reply from LardoBalsamico and the case is closed. Now I have to start a new topic on his talk page and wait again? Isn't this situation a bit unfair? As I try to do the right thing, the other user gets away with non-npov edits and if you look at his talk page, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) I have wrote a really long explanation about my edits and he answered with one sentence then I asked him another question but he didn't respond. That was 3 months ago. What should I do now? Please, help me. Again, thanks for your time and understanding.Rivaner (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that NPOVN failed you, but it's just a fact of life that some noticeboards at WP are not very responsive (and indeed some don't work at all). Moreover, all moderated content dispute resolution processes at WP are built around a mediation model of facilitating discussion between the parties and if one party does not care to come to the table, that's their choice. Once all that fails, then the only recourse you have is to drop back to WP's most basic processes: either get the other party to discuss and try to get them blocked or banned if they refuse (and that's what the process I suggested sets up) or invite additional editors to the discussion via an RFC so his position is marginalized (if you're right and if the RFC actually draws any additional responses, which often does not happen). I hate to be blunt, but fairness has nothing to do with it, I'm afraid, because neither you nor any other individual editor has any right to do anything in regard to any particular article, we're all just part of the larger WP community and if the community does not care to address the problem you see at this article then that's just the way it is. The best you can do is to make sure that the community has the opportunity and that's what an RFC does.


 * I just realized that you're still pretty new here. You might also be able to enlist some help over at the TEAHOUSE.


 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time and also thanks for being blunt ( It made me see things really clearly). I will try the other solutions that you've suggested then. It is very clear that the article is biased and maybe someone can confirm that and take the neccesary actions. Again, thanks for all your help.Rivaner (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
I responded to your note on my talk page there. Thanks for catching and fixing my error, and for not trouting me. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DRN with my name on it
Feel free to do as you please with that DRN, but It does not have extensive discussion ( was started within an hour after the dispute began) and the other editor does not seem to understand image use policy, BRD (as their first revert was to demand I discuss changes first) and a host of other guidelines and policies. This is not a sparkling example of my behavior but if I were to debate this right now I would be bringing forward every policy being violated and every guideline being ignored on the other side as well. For now I am refusing to participate as I feel this is disruptive and an attempt to simply create issues that are not there. We all have the ability to edit boldly to bring an article in line to policy, but just saying the other guy doesn't know what they are doing isn't helping. For now I suggest the editor use 30. Now another editor has added comments and reverted other edits so 30 is no longer an option.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears the editor is under a false assumption that admin will be directing the discussion and are involved at DRN. The discussion is on going but it is becoming more and more clear that the editor is not basing his judgement on policy and guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Oscar Lopez Rivera
I saw your comments on the OLR article, but I think you are applying some blanket observations that serve, in this case, to distort the reality. For example, you state that court cases should not be used, however Wikipedia does in the WP:Primary go on to state that if the choice is between a quotation in a secondary source and the actual words in a primary source, that as long as the information is verifiable, the primary source may be the most apt choice. My problem with this article is that biases secondary sources are used to define the charges for which OLR was convicted. Again, I am not talking about hearsay in a court transcript or allegations or accusations, I am talking here of black and white, text proven convictions. It is as if I brought you into the court building, had the secretary and judge show you a typed sentencing statement, but you instead claim that a biased secondary source is a more reliable or verifiable source for what the person was convicted. I do not believe that is what Wikipedia intended when they chose secondary sources. That is specially true in a case like this, when most of the sources just state that there is a seditious conspiracy, but do not fill in the details. That is where the house report does fill in the details.

Ultimately, perhaps I can list a number of sources for the same information, and finding some way to make the information part of the text. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I only vaguely remember commenting on this and cannot now find my comments, so I'm basing what I'm about to say mostly on what you've said above. The problem with what you say is that the applicable rule is not WP:PRIMARY, but WP:BLPPRIMARY, which expressly prohibits the use of public records in BLP articles. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

asmallworld DRN
Hi, TransporterMan. I've noticed a problem with the close of the asmallworld DRN. I've written to User:Bejnar, who did the close, but neither he nor Keithbob (who I see is holding the fort during Steven's absence) have been online since yesterday, and I saw you had posted fairly recently, so I'm appealing to you. I don't mean to complain of Bejnar, who I understand was kind enough to help out at a time when the regular DRN staff was overwhelmed, and I hope he's not discouraged, but there's definitely a problem that affects one of the disputants in the case. The discussion section was closed less than three hours after it had been opened, and after only one of the disputing users had had a realistic chance to post, and I believe it should be re-opened. I've said as much to Bejnar, but he hasn't been online since. Maybe you could re-open the case, so it doesn't get archived or something, and so that the other disputant also gets to post? Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 15:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC).


 * See my and Mostlyoksorta's responses to Bishonen at my talk page. See also my responses at User talk:IIIraute. --Bejnar (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

3O
We are supposed to be neutral at DRN and help the parties achieve consensus, often through compromise. How can an editor expect to get a third opinion at DRN? What am I missing? --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point, Bejnar, but a big part of a mediator's toolbag can be to evaluate the parties' positions. In the real world, this usually takes the form of the mediator privately caucusing with each side and pointing out to them the weaknesses of their position, but it can also be done publicly. That usually has to be the case at DRN if it's done at all. Indeed, when one party (or, less frequently, one side) is indisputably right and the other is indisputably wrong (this most often happens in a conflict between two newcomers neither of whom knows WP policy), I occasionally render a third opinion and immediately close the case without allowing for further discussion. That is, in effect, a 3O. In the case which you closed, where one party has stated that they'll accept a third opinion, that in effect sets up the consensus/compromise which we aid by giving the opinion. (Though if I'd been handling it, not to say that my opinion or method is any better than yours, I would probably have rained on that offer by saying that it was invalid as being improperly qualified by "Find anyone with knowledge of the importance of ghrelin in energy homeostasis". I would have said something about WP being the encyclopedia anyone can edit and that experts have no more authority than other editors and talked about verifiability, and so on, and said that we needed to resolve the dispute through other means.) On the other hand, one of DRN's earliest mandates, though one very rarely in fact used, was that we'd not only do DR but also be a clearinghouse to send disputes to other DR venues when we thought that they would be more appropriate, so maybe my objection to what you did, though extremely mild to begin with, should have been even more yet mild and been to what you said than what you did. Sheesh, me and my big fat mouth. Best regards, and thanks again, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Mediation Board
Hello, I have a question about an open mediation board. As I'm one of the parties involved, I'm trying to reach out and get a bit of information as to the status of the discussion; to this date the mediator was not able to initiate the process, and the topic was accepted by the board on April 11th. I understand that real world things might have prevented the mediator form proceeding with the discussion, and if that's the case can a new editor take over the duties and start the process? It's been over a month now with no progress in the dispute, but since I'm new to the process I'm not sure what to expect in terms of the mediation process, for all I know they may take this long on average. Thank you for your assistance. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem you're facing is that the members of the Mediation Committee are, just like all editors here, volunteers and are not under any obligation to do anything more than they care to do. No mediator has chosen to accept the case, so it is in limbo until someone chooses to do so. (I cannot take the case as I am recused due to prior contact with it.) Whether someone will do so or the listing will die of old age, I cannot tell you. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there another form of dispute resolution available, I'm not sure if I'm correct but there is a panel the can review a dispute? --COD T 3 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The only dispute resolution (DR) processes for content disputes at English Wikipedia are Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Mediation Committee, and Request for Comments. There are other DR processes, such as Admininstrator's Noticeboard/Incidents and Arbitration Committee (and others), but they're only for conduct issues and they won't accept content disputes. There are also some noticeboards which give advice on specific content issues, such as Reliable Sources Noticeboard (and many others), which do some DR-ish kinds of things but aren't really DR forums. There's no panel review and I suspect you're thinking of the Arbitration Committee, but they're a conduct forum. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) PS: You might take a hard look at Request for Comments. It doesn't always work, however, and usually takes at least 30 days and you'll have to withdraw your MedCom request if you go that way. — TM 15:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * COD T 3, I can't say more, but let me ask that you give Medcom a few more days to assign a mediator before you try something else. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 12:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the advise... as you can understand I really would hate if this mediation board request closed due to inactivity. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the counsel. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Earwig shut down the clerkbot at DRN
What is going on?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)