User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 14

Azad Kashmir
TransporterMan - I would like to re-open the DRN for Azad Kashmir. I was trying to find out what happened to this, but couldn't find out how to see the responses for the Dispute i raised. Somehow I found that today, but you've closed it. Could you pls open it again. In the meanwhile I've used Talk:Azad Kashmir Page to see we can come to consensus, as suggested by one of the user but looks like there are few users trying to malign my intention to solve this, keep repeating the same, not ready for any compromise. I was not aware of it earlier, as I'm new to Wiki editing, hence did 2-3 edits, but then they threaten me they can block me editing stating some 3 edit rule, though it was unintentional. Also, when one another user was raising same issue in Azad Kashmir page, I just asked him whether he can comment on the same issue i was raising. But, again, these Pakistani right wing party users like Mad4r started blaming me I'm doing campaigning, which was again not my intention, though I suspect they're talking to each other offline and bringing more users to keep repeating same POV, which again they accused me of doing. Could you pls help me to resolve this issue by reopening the issue.Jinishans (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Jinishans (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'll not reopen it, but you're free to refile if you like. But the biggest problem was that one opponent did not respond and the other said, in effect, that they were not willing to participate. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is not mandatory and the participation of your opponents is necessary to try to negotiate a consensus on the content issues in question, so if that happens again the case will be closed again. If you do refile, let me note that your edit history shows that you tend to edit for a couple of days then not for several days. That kind of editing pattern does not generally work very well when you seek help from dispute resolution or other Wikipedia processes. You need to check in at least every couple of days. Finally, I'd suggest letting the current sockpuppet investigation run its course before refiling (at DRN or at some other DR process) as it's often difficult to find a dispute resolution volunteer who is willing to take on a case when there's a possibility that one of the editors may be blocked or banned. Once you get past that you can try again at DRN or use some other DR technique. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll wait for this multi user issue sorted out, and then try to refile DRN. If you see, I strongly feel, TopGun is trying to accuse me (a new edit user) of Edit War, sockpuppet, canvasing, intentionally, as I'm raising an issue against his POV to avoid anyone adding the term 'occupied' in any of the Jammu and Kashmir related pages.
 * Also, I feel, he's trying to build a case to Ban my user id, for which I've just seen, these above issues should've been raised before raising a Ban request. I'm not sure, I don't want to accuse him without knowing his intention, but it looks like he's going that way.
 * Anyways, thanks for your comment, I'll keep watching the DRN page next time more often once i refile it. Also, could you please let me know where should I look at for responding to my dispute.Jinishans (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, TopGun is Editing the page Azad Kashmir page, which was edited by another user with a Neutral POV, to remove the word 'occupied'. Does Edit War rule apply only to me, a new user and not for a Senior Editor like TopGun ? Could you pls let me know how to tackle this.Jinishans (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Next step after closed dispute resolution
Hi TransporterMan, You closed a dispute resolution I started regarding Eric Diesel. Can you advise me on what I should do next? You suggested RFC/U and ANI. RFC/U looks like it's been out of use for a while and ANI seems like it might be excessive. It would be helpful if someone besides me and FloraWilde (who is probably Diesel himself, who has been banned from Wikipedia many times) would just take a look at the article and weigh in. Most of the sources are things like introductions to speeches, documents Diesel posted to Tumblr, and names of institutions. There are some legitimate sources clumped in with the unverifiable ones but they don't support the general content of the article. I got a third opinion about this who agreed with me but I don't know what I should do next. I can't even link the opinion here because after it was posted to the talk page, FloraWilde edited the whole page to the point where it's a big mess and all the formatting is broken. By the way I don't know if you saw this, but he also deleted some of what I said in the dispute resolution before you closed it. Lampuser (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no suggestions other than what I said at the DRN closing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your question on my talk page
I have responded there. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of mediation communications in subsequent DR proceedings
Sometime back, I posted a RfM, which was rejected as being premature (there was a loosely related RfC already in process.) user:Robert McClenon used the fact of my requesting mediation against me in two ANIs, first as a basis to have me community topic-banned , and second, in an attempt to have me site banned. He is now using the RfM in an an Arbitration, to try and have the community topic-ban converted to an ArbCom ban.
 * I thought this was pretty shaky, but just discovered that it appears to be against policy, as mediation communications are privileged. WP:MC/P
 * Could you clarify the policy for me? Can my filing a RfM be used against me in ANI and Arbitration proceedings?
 * I believe, since an Arbitration is in process, that ArbCom has jurisdiction -- but I saw the statement "Concerns that the privileged nature of a mediation case could be violated should be brought to the attention of theCommittee chair," and thought I should contact you for clarification. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Privilege does not attach to a mediation case until the case is accepted for mediation. Rejected cases are not subject to the privilege. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please post the above statement re privilege here on the case talk page as well so we have it for the record. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the issue of privilege needs to be clarified. If a person can be accused of misconduct merely for requesting mediation, it is going to create a chilling effect on the process.
 * I've read through the mediation policy and procedures, and haven't found any statement that explicitly or implicitly says privilege doesn't attach to cases until they're accepted. Can you point me to something? Possibly this is something that merits internal discussion by the mediation committee? Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignocrates, since the case has been closed it would be inappropriate to modify its page or talk page further. If you prefer having a copy somewhere other than on my talk page, I'll be happy to copy it to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee once I post this message. Fearofreprisal the Mediation Committee policy says, "To encourage participants to speak candidly, Wikipedia has adopted the policy that statements made during mediation cannot be used against the participants in subsequent dispute resolution proceedings. This protection is called 'privilege' or 'the privileged nature of mediation'. All communications during mediation are privileged." (Emphasis added.) Mediation does not begin until a case is accepted. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have explained my reasons for characterizing the RFM as frivolous on the arbitration page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mediation question
Hi, TransporterMan. I'm afraid I;m confused. There is discussion beyond edit summaries. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lisa_Robin_Kelly#In_response_to_edit-warring_editor. I posted, he responded, and I responded. Wouldn't that constitute discussion on the article talk page? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion must be extensive. A single edit by the other editor isn't an extensive discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So a question: If not mediation, what is the best option in such cases where there is incipient edit-warring? It seems as if a miscreant editor could avoid mediation by simply not responding much. Without going straight to an RfC, what would be protocol? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no fixed protocol and RFC is one route to take. Another is — and please understand that when mentioning this that I am doing so as just another editor and not on behalf of the Mediation Committee or in my capacity as a member or Chairperson of that Committee — the recommendations which I make here. (But it looks to me that the discussion at the article talk page is proceeding, if slowly.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll check that link out. Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with a dispute resolution
At Talk:United States and again at Talk:United States TFD and TVH (myself) have had extended discussion whether to include the five major U.S. territories in the United States info box. This discussion reflects the Februrary-March 2013 discussions and Dispute Resolution which found an 8-3 majority to include the five major territories in the introduction as a part of the U.S. federal republic represented territorially in Congress as sourced, but TFD represents that outcome as a “consensus” to exclude territories due to administrator intervention. The more recent poll this year among eight editors would have included territories in the geographical area carried by a plurality of four. But the administrator insisted on wording an RfC to include both geographical area and population for the info box instead. Golbez insists that primary sources rather than scholarship should govern the issue, so in a way, he is my primary audience.

The five major U.S. territories are politically a part of the U.S. territory and population according to scholars Jon M. Van Dyke, Bartholomew Sparrow and Warren L. McFerran. Official executive, legislative and judicial  primary sources, and official USG summaries of the law  include territories as a part of the U.S. --- versus --- One unsourced database footnote suggests the U.S. “officially” consists of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Shall the U.S. article report A) the U.S. totals to include the five major U.S. territories for the purposes of info box area as in the “Total" area at the U.S. Census and Infobox population as at “Total U.S. Territory” in List of U.S. states and territories by population, -- then footnote citations for "50 states and DC" subtotals --- or --- B) report the 50 states and DC subtotals alone?
 * Is two weeks (four more days) and six participants sufficient for an RfC. Two clearly chose A to include territories in the total, footnote 50 states and DC. Two commented to include territories in the total, and two abstained to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am accused of posting walls of text (the retired school teacher), so I want to frame the Dispute Resolution in proper WP format. I would want to demonstrate the importance of preponderance of reliable sources, and a preference for using scholarly peer reviewed publications over original research into primary sources. It seems to me that the eight editors involved in the poll and two others participating in last year's dispute resolution should be made aware of a dispute resolution if it is launched this year, but I have been warned by TFD against canvassing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking of me, but I will note that since there is an RFC pending no other content dispute resolution process will take the case until that RFC ends. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Is two weeks (four more days) and six participants sufficient for an RfC? Two have chosen A to include five major territories in total U.S. and footnote states and DC, two have commented to include the five major territories, and two have abstained. How do you notify previous participants in a discussion about another step in the conflict resolution process without charges of canvassing? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's up to the participants in the RFC to decide how long it runs, but the ordinary length is 30 days. Since I don't work in conduct areas, I have no real opinion about the canvassing issue, but merely notifying everyone who took part in a previous discussion that a new discussion on the matter is pending shouldn't be canvassing so long as it includes all participants and the invitation in neutrally worded. Remember you can be accused of and or warned about anything, the real question is whether you can be sanctioned for it. If you've not done so already, you need to read CANVASS and judge what you've done and what you want to do. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Re EFT Dispute Resolution Notice
I filed this notice and am wondering if there is a way to get uninvolved editors to comment on the content changes I'm proposing. If it's just the editors I've been discussing with since April, there will be no resolution. Also, I don't understand this comment by Felix: "If there is no response within 24 hours from filing editor or otherwise then this matter may be assessed as stale and archived as such…" Am I supposed to respond to Guy's and the other involved editors' comments? I have been round and round with them and don't see the point in continuing to engage. We do not agree with each other's assessment of the situation. That is why I sought help via the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Can you help with some clarification of the process? --Charlottechloe (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * FelixRosch is a DRN volunteer. What he's saying is that if the other two editors don't make opening statements within the next 24 hours that he's going to close the request as being futile. As you point out, there's no point in continuing if the others don't join in. DRN is only for the purpose of facilitating discussion between editors. As it says at the top of the page, DRN "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy" and we cannot do that if the others do not care to participate. Participation at DRN, like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, is never mandatory, however. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The dispute here is between a fringe POV and policy. You can't mediate that, though you're welcome to try. Charlottechloe has been trying for a long time to get the fringe POV reflected as fact on Wikipedia, rather than documented as a fringe POV. I can send you full text of a comprehensive review article from the scientific literature that shows our summary to be bang on, and also documents the conflicts of interest in the supportive studies Charlottechloe prefers. We can see that from the online petition from proponents of EFT, calling on Jimmy to change Wikipedia policy to allow the result Charlottechloe wants:

"Wikipedia is widely used and trusted. Unfortunately, much of the information related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong. For five years, repeated efforts to correct this misinformation have been blocked and the Wikipedia organization has not addressed these issues. As a result, people who are interested in the benefits of Energy Medicine, Energy Psychology, and specific approaches such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and the Tapas Acupressure Technique, turn to your pages, trust what they read, and do not pursue getting help from these approaches."
 * Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia:
 * Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing.

- ACEP petition on Change.org


 * You will immediately recognise that this is exactly the article in question. And Jimmy's response was:

"No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't."

- Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014


 * As you see, the proponents of EFT actually acknowledge that current policies are against them and recognise that new policies would need to be created and enforced in order for their POV to be reflected. I don't think mediation can do that, and even if it could, it would, as Jimmy says, be a fundamental violation of the project's ethos. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, Thanks for the clarification on the process. I appreciate it. As for good faith and my motivations, Guy is wrongly lumping me in with POV-pushers. I did file the DR in good faith. I am not particularly asking for a change of policy. I still maintain I am simply arguing for logic and reason. I ask everyone involved just to consider point 1 that I raised. I just can't understand how anyone can be willing to use such a pathetic source as McCaslin. It's not about POV. It's about qualifications and credibility. No matter which side of the argument McCaslin came down on, I would say don't use him. --Charlottechloe (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that you aren't: you are obdurately insisting on favourable coverage of a fringe POV based on sources that are financially vested in that theory and against a consensus of independent scientific opinion which says that it is wrong, on a subject which is your sole area of interest, on a topic which has been the target of relentless attempts to promote the fringe POV, where reflecting the fringe POV would, even by the admission of its proponents, violate current policy, and you are doing this despite having had the facts patiently explained to you many times. All of which invites speculation as to your won involvement with the fringe theory. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm back, sort of. Help?
Hi mate,

I've not been on wiki as you know significantly since August last year and only bits and pieces from then till May, then nothing up until now really. I'm hoping you'll help me get back into things, as slowly as it will be. Can we maybe catch up at some stage - I'd like to get back into DRN bit it's been ages and I've probably lost my touch.

Look forward to speaking with you :) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  02:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You've got gmail. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Model United Nations in China dispute
Hi TransporterMan, Cjeongbis and I had different views toward the earliest date when the activity of Model United Nations entered China on Model United Nations. The full discussion can be found on Talk:Model_United_Nations.

Note that the second half of our dispute regarding the "prestigious conferences" has been settled already. However, we cannot agree on which university introduced MUN at when in China due to conflict sources.

Thank you very much in advance.--Hwhuangqifan (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the discussion which you and the other editor are having is proceeding nicely. If you need assistance with the proper choice or use of sources, let me recommend the reliable sources noticeboard. If, on the other hand, your discussion comes to a deadlock then consider dispute resolution. Let me just say that when reliable sources disagree in Wikipedia, the generally proper response is not to seek to resolve the disagreement but to merely include both points of view in the article, noting the conflict. The first paragraph of the Verifiability Policy says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

dispute on dental amalgam controversy
Hello, I found you via the dispute resolution page. I am involved in a dispute in the article Dental amalgam controversy. I first came across this article when looking for information about amalgam fillings and found it sorely lacking in organization and balance. In further research, I found some information about concerns about amalgam fillings from the government of Canada and a group of dentists who dissent from the ADA view on amalgam. On Sept 3, I added that to the article and it was removed Sept 4. On Sept 12, I reinstated it giving my reasons in the edit. On Nov 1, the user deleted it again (along with a bunch of other stuff) without initiating any discussion. On Nov 11, I initiated discussion about this on the talk page. I also opened an RFC, and received views from other editors who patrol science articles, who mostly agreed with the deletes, with minor exceptions. I would really appreciate another opinion on this problem. Should I file a dispute? Are they correct to simply delete information in this way? Am I wrong to feel they are being unduly hostile? I would really appreciate an impartial opinion on if this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I actually had a lot of other edits I had planned to make just to the readability of the article, but the initial revert deterred me. Thank you in advance for any feedback you have to offer. Ajobin (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what to tell you. The discussion at Talk:Dental amalgam controversy seems to have been fairly civil and thorough and the positions taken by the other editors in the dispute do not seem to be wholly unsupported or point-of-view-pushing (which is not to say that I agree or disagree with them, but merely to say that they don't seem arbitrary). (I can't find any history of the RFC you mention at that article, so cannot comment upon it.) I didn't dig behind the assertions which you or your opponents made, but the impression I get from the surface is that you're inexperienced here and due to your lack of knowledge are really just banging up against well-established rules and experienced editors and perhaps failing to get the point. But let me hasten to add that it's a frequent complaint here that experienced users use their knowledge of the rules to steamroll over inexperienced ones. On the balance, that does not appear to me to be what's happening there (especially since it's not just one or two users on the other side), but as I said I've not looked behind the surface. I don't see the hostility that you mention, but it's not uncommon for newcomers to perceive the brevity, straightforwardness, and certainty of experienced users as hostility. If you desire content dispute resolution, dispute resolution noticeboard or formal mediation would appear to be the only avenues available, but I cannot say whether you should go that route. To decide that, read the "rules" at each venue carefully, take a look at some pending cases, and decide whether or not you think that they might be of some help. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your candid reply. No, I don't desire content dispute resolution. I think they are wrong to delete stuff like that, but I think it would be easier to improve the content than drag this out with more people. I will post some other thoughts about this on my own page. Thanks again. Ajobin (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

RfM notice to participants
Although Robert McClenon notified me of an upcoming Request for Mediation for the United States article directly, I have not yet received official notice on my Talk page. How is notice delivered for the nine listed? Does it wait until the RfC is closed? Who does it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the mediation page. Thanks for the heads' up. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for resolving the issue. If there was an isue with the formatting of the list, then I would suggest either that the filing instructions be clarified so that filers can format the list correctly, or that the bot be reprogrammed, or that filers be instructed to notify the other parties manually.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RfM/U.S. -- "other issues", agreed parties
What to do about the lengthy arguments by Gnome and Wzrd1? I fear they may dissuade a volunteer from accepting the mediation. I tried to ask Wzrd1 to take down his argument from the “Other Issues” section and wait until a mediator, but he has not responded. Gnome has since expanded his argument.

The post by RightCowLeftCoast referring to “the two staunchest proponents” refers to me and TFD, and TFD has now joined. Indeed, Golbez, Bkonrad (a.k.a. older≠wiser) and TFD, --- the three-minority in the 2-to-1 majority vote to include territories in the Spring 2013 dispute resolution ---, have now all agreed to mediation to work towards a consensus. Isn’t this a promising development? Shouldn't RightCowLeftCoast’s “additional issue” be removed somehow? or annotated? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't find what's happened there so far to be unacceptable. Unless things change there is little doubt that the case will be accepted for mediation, but we'll wait until the accept/reject deadline to see if the other three listed parties care to participate. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

'Evan Blass' dispute resolution
Hello there. I'll ask that you please take a look at this SPI, specifically the closing admin's comments, before summarily dismissing this attempt at dispute resolution. The reason that there is no more discussion on the Talk page is that I know user Mhannigan IRL, and he is someone who holds a deep-seated grudge against me (of course he would probably say the same, but I am not grudge-editing an encyclopedia entry about him, including such false and baseless allegations as the claim in an edit summary that I have a drug abuse problem because of prescribed opiates for a progressively deteriorating case of MS). Even in the closely-watched SPI, he engaged in numerous personal attacks against me, resulting in near unanimous agreement that a CheckUser was warranted. Point being, I refuse to waste time engaging in unmoderated discussion with him about this article, especially in light of his claims that I myself am an SPA with a COI. Two such people will never reach a common ground (three if you count Wikigeek2 as a real, distinct individual).

Do you have any suggestions? Perhaps since this conflict involves both conduct and content, ArbCom really is the best place to seek a resolution. EvanBlass (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed this rather lengthy reply to the closing admin's comments. I hope you'll reconsider your decision here. EvanBlass (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, myself, and do not generally become involved in conduct matters, but would note that you will not get a hearing at ARBCOM unless you go through ANI first. I'm afraid that there's no system or process by which an editor can either get someone else to make edits he, himself, does not care to make or can get someone to engage in ongoing moderation of the discussion at an article content page. When someone says, "I refuse to waste time engaging in unmoderated discussion with him about this article" the usual response is something along the lines of, "That's fine, just walk away and leave the article for others to deal with. There is no hurry." You're swimming uphill, too, here because Wikipedia has a strong disinclination to help editors who write or edit articles about themselves, see COISELF. As that section says, however, "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons." I'd note that OTRS might be the better choice as BLPN is sometimes-to-frequently nonresponsive. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood, and I appreciate the advice and nuanced response. I will note that I took this article to the IRC Help channel, where it was greeted pretty enthusiastically. One person called it the best page by a COI he had ever seen, while another said he would use me as an example when people asked him how to get in Wikipedia. I realize that they may have been paying me lip service, but Wikipedians don't strike me as the type to do that much, nor to get "star struck " by someone with relatively little notability or widespread recognizability. EvanBlass (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TransporterMan . You should be an admin. I appreciate finally seeing this handled objectively and swiftly and strict accordance with policy. After being dragged through the mud, you restore my faith that Wikipedia can be a place of order over personal biases.Mhannigan (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Mele Kalikimaka
Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year TransporterMan!


Happy New Year! TransporterMan, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Hi.
I think there's a new section that request for unreliable and questionable sources on WP:EAR. Other admins can't help anymore. 115.164.188.205 (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've responded there. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Rejection of request for mediation
Do you have any suggestions as to how I might proceed with this given the legal threats? If a mediator is unavailable, how do I navigate this? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you're WP:INVOLVED, I'd suggest reporting the legal threat (as well as the other editor's confession that his is, or is very close to being, a role account) to ANI, but be sure to point out that he — kinda/sorta — apologized for the threat at the mediation request page, though he didn't quite withdraw it, which is what's usually required with legal threats. Once you've dealt with the conduct issues you can probably then deal with the content issues on a straightforward basis on the article talk page and go to DR as needed. In short, let other admins sort out the conduct, then deal with the content. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Alevism
You have closed the dispute resolution discussion on Alevism. The Alevism talk page discussion itself is not productive since the other editor(s?) doesn't use sources as a basis for editing. How many times do you advise I get reverted for the same bold edit before you would think it no longer "premature" to get resolution? On the Wikipedia Tea House I was advised that I should use dispute resolution for the Alevism page, but you have blocked this. Edging (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition you say the talk for this issue is "old". Does this mean that if the other user continues to refuse to engage in further talk on the talk page, the matter can never be taken to dispute resolution? Edging (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but all forums here, such as the Teahouse, do not have a firm grip on the rules of the various dispute resolution forums. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, or consider filing a request for comments to bring additional editors into the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I probably do not have the time I expect is required to go through the failure-to-discuss procedure or other dispute resolution. Since you have now seen the page, its history, and its talk page, I am hoping perhaps you are in a good position to give your own opinion on the various edits. Edging (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I Give Up
READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA: http://wikibias.blogspot.com

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA: I have a number of recommendations for Wikipedia, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource: First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too). Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative. Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset. Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation. Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Wikipedia is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Wikipedia must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Wikipedia needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Wikipedia administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.

Please forward ... if anyone at Wiki gives a darn.

Wikipedia Editor: Tolinjr--Tolinjr (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have copied your posting to Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 48, which is the closest thing we have to an open forum about general Wikipedia issues. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with DRN process
Hi, can you help with a few general questions about the Dispute Resolution process? I've been invited to take part as one of the disputants here but since this is my first "dispute" I'm not sure of the etiquette. I've read the big panel at the top of the DRN Wikipedia page, and tried to search around about the issue, but I can't find answers to my specific questions. They are:


 * 1) I think a few other editors need to be invited to participate. Is it OK for me to do that, and if so how? I myself was invited via a message appearing on my Talk page, so I guess that's the mechanism. But is it OK for me (as opposed to the person initiating the DR/N) to do that, and if so, how?
 * 2) Assuming it is OK to invite those other editors, does the invitation process automatically update the required sections on the DR/N page, or do I have to do that manually (i.e. in addition to inviting them)?
 * 3) How then do I participate in the discussion? There's a section header already added with my name, and with some text implying I'm supposed to add stuff there ("Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters ... etc"). Do I simply add text to that, or is there anything else I should be aware of?

thanks! Thomask0 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly acceptable for you to add additional parties. Indeed, since the purpose of DRN is to bring all editors involved in a dispute into mediation with a view towards achieving consensus, not much can be effectively done without them. Generally only editors who have been involved in the talk page discussion are included, but that's your call. Be sure to notify the editors who you add. You can add Battle of the Somme — ~ to the bottom of their user talk page to do that (edit the entire talk page and add that at the bottom of the existing text of the page without a title, it will create a title and new section for itself) or write a customized note.
 * No, you must manually create their response sections in addition to notifying them.
 * Yes, just make an opening statement in that section.
 * Just making you aware of this conversation.
 * Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I mentioned Thomask0 because the other people seemed secondary but if he'd rather have them along I don't mind. I thought Buckshot's suggestion was a quick way out of a dead end too. (Have I overestimated Thomask0's experience as a Wikieditor?)Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks TransporterMan  .Thomask0 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing volunteer at WP:DR
TransporterMan, would you please review the volunteer's comments on the Battlestar Galactica request at DRN? I'm not at all comfortable this is a volunteer who is sufficiently experienced to handle a mediation, much less one as potentially volatile as this one could be if Twobells returns to the kind of behavior exhibited before his current block. The volunteer clearly does not understand the issue at hand, appears clueless regarding the handling of TV infoboxes, appears to have made no effort to read the discussion on the talk page, and doesn't seem to be aware enough to sign his posts. Moreover, he appears to think he can simply issue mandates, not act as a mediator. I have no confidence in him/her, and he/she should not be allowed to handle the case. --Drmargi (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The volunteer has withdrawn and a replacement requested. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor
Please take a look at the moderated discussion of Meghan Trainor and offer your comments at the dispute resolution talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution over page WP:European-American Rights Organization
On 7:27 January 15, I initiated a Dispute Resolution process on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (I THINK. I'm very new at this). Little more than a day later, my access to editing was maliciously blocked by someone who was aware of my Dispute, and he (she?) should now be a party to this dispute, and his actions should be included in it. But I cannot find any indication of this process on the DRN now. And, due to the fact that I am very much an amateur here, I don't know how to track this down. Further, I want at this point to escalate the complaint to a FORMAL process, not merely INFORMAL, in part due to my having been blocked. Frysay (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The filing was closed (by me) as a conduct dispute rather than a content dispute. The record is here. DRN doesn't handle conduct disputes, speak to an administrator or go to AN or ANI for that. In light of your formal vs. informal comments, above, I think that's probably where you'll want to go. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but NO. It was NOT a "conduct dispute".  It was (falsely) claimed to be dispute over the asserted violation of the 3RR.  That assertion was made, and was a diversion, apparently to conceal the actual dispute:  Over a POV issue.  Precisely as I pointed out in my original complaint.  At this point, I could ask that this matter be re-raised as an informal dispute, but I wonder if I am being subjected to the same kind of cabal-type behavior complained of by editor Tolinjr in his comment titled "I give up" on your Talk page.  While I haven't checked the dates, it seems likely this matter was closed without getting my comments about whether this matter was actually a "conduct dispute" or a "content dispute".  Keep in mind that I was (maliciously) blocked from ALL editing, INCLUDING from my own Talk page, for a total of about four (4) days.  Naturally, I am not optimistic about the WP Dispute Resolution process, after this abuse.  Frysay (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added content to the section "My Complaint to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard" in the Talk:European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization article. The essence of the misrepresentation, his claim that I had violated 3RR, is that user Dougweller himself quoted the 3RR to say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."  However, as I just pointed out to him, what I did was "a series of consecutive edits".  In other words, Dougweller "adjusted" his interpretation of the rule to fabricate a false objection, and in turn used that false objection to obscure the fact that the original dispute was over CONTENT, not conduct.  Frysay (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your "Dispute overview" was mainly about the conduct of the other editors and your "How do you think we can help" was only about conduct: "Read the material; decide that those other editors were variously misbehaving. Apply the appropriate sanctions." (Emphasis added.) Dougweller's comments had nothing to do with the closing. Feel free to refile, but if you do so, do not talk about the other editors' motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about them or their actions, as all of that involves conduct, not content, and only discuss the content matters in dispute. (Bear in mind that NPOV in an article is a content matter, but the POV of editors is a conduct matter.) There is a place to discuss conduct — an administrator or AN or ANI — but DRN isn't it. This isn't about cabal, it's about following the forum's rules. Also bear in mind that all that can be done in Wikipedia content dispute resolution is to do some form of mediation which involves trying to help the parties come to consensus, a form of facilitated negotiation, not making binding rulings about content. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be unaware that I'm new at this (editing WP) and quite new at putting forward a complaint. (Read my edit history.)  My original basis for objection was that people were reverting my edits (intending to remove POV; or as you call it, NPOV; or at least balance it) for no stated reason, they were not using the talk board to discuss their reverts, and that their reverts were intended to protect POV in the article,  and making false assertions (such as the false claim I'd violated the 3RR). Moreover, you have ignored my objection that I was maliciously blocked, in an attempt to keep me from employing the informal dispute resolution system.   I reasonably expected that the Dispute Resolution system I was initiating would get to these matters.  It never did.  And no, you didn't help.   I think it's obvious that an informal dispute resolution won't work:  I must initiate a FORMAL dispute resolution. For the record, I will ask:  How do I do that?  You can still decide to help.   Frysay (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no formal content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia. (Going to Mediation Committee is sometimes called "formal mediation," but that's just a nickname to contrast it to DRN, 3O, and RFC.) There is no board or committee or other group who can make binding and final decisions about article content, that's only done through the consensus process. The closest we come to that is, arguably, RFC which merely invites other editors into the discussion in a neutral kind of way, but even then the discussion has to achieve consensus through discussion, not through intervention of some authority. On the other hand, the processes I've already mentioned — an administrator or AN or ANI — are the informal conduct processes. The formal conduct process is Arbitration Committee, but you need to know that ArbCom will not handle content disputes and will ordinarily only handle conduct disputes which have first been taken to AN or ANI. If you want to complain about the conduct of an administrator, AN or ANI is the spot, with AN being slightly more proper than ANI. If by "formal" you mean taking the whole thing to some supervisor or board that has the power to consider it and take action, that doesn't exist. Wikipedia is "owned" by the Wikimedia Foundation — they own the software and servers on which we run — but they will not intervene in matters such as you're concerned about: they leave it up to us inmates to run this asylum (because that's what the entire wiki concept is about). (If some of that does not address what you mean by "formal dispute resolution" I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean.) I'll be going offline just after hitting "Save" on this message and will not be back on until about 14:00 UTC tomorrow. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe you will appreciate that to me, a newbie at this, what you just wrote is as clear as mud. It focused mostly on what can't be done, rather than what can be done!  The false assertion that I somehow violated the 3RR seemed (in hindsight, since I was obstructed from accessing the system) to lead to the dismissal of my complaint has left a bad taste in my mouth.  There _IS_, indeed, a content dispute.  And I am unaware that any of the editors against which my complaint was directed has done anything more than (in one case) divert attention with that false claim of a violation of 3RR.  So therefore, as far as I am concerned they have already conceded the matter.  That leaves you to read the history of my edits, and the fact that with few and very brief exceptions, they weren't discussed by others on the Talk page of WP:EURO.  What they did wrong was to improperly revert my proper edits with their improper reverts.  That may ALSO amount to a conduct violation, but it is definitely a CONTENT violation.  Frysay (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that there was an underlying content dispute, but what you brought to DRN, wrote up, and requested relief about was the conduct dispute dispute part. As I said, above: "Feel free to refile, but if you do so, do not talk about the other editors' motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about them or their actions, as all of that involves conduct, not content, and only discuss the content matters in dispute." — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN Ikeda issue
Thanks for reminding to include the notice. I do not use the DRN very often and it slipped my attention that I have to infrom the person involved myself - I thought naming the counterpart would do that automatically. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Hope I did it correctly maybe you could check?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

General officers
Thanks for the compliment. No offence taken. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Note
I've deleted this but you may want to have a look. --Neil N  talk to me 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mediation request
Bearing in mind that this request has resulted in three of the parties ignoring it, and three declining with disparaging comments, the outlook does not look promising; do you have any suggestions? DaveApter (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In a word, no. All moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia requires the voluntary participation of the disputants. Since the absent parties have not chosen to participate here, then the only other choice would be dispute resolution noticeboard and the same thing would probably happen there as happened at MEDCOM. Ordinarily I'd suggest RfC's, but according to the MEDCOM request page, that's been tried. Perhaps the discretionary sanctions applied by ARBCOM will help things settle down and make progress at the article talk page. One thought: you might post a notice at VPM and perhaps make a request to the Signpost to notify the community that ARBCOM expressly asked for neutral users to join in at the article talk page. That's really more what ARBCOM had in mind than dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda
Maybe I should raise this at WT:DRN, but I think that there is a problem, which is that the filing party is both requesting content dispute resolution, while complaining about other editors, at WP:DRN and filing a thread at WP:ANI claiming that another of the editors has made threats. Do we handle a content dispute at the same time as a conduct dispute is being pursued~ Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no unanimity of opinion among volunteers on that issue. We have a couple who will always close a case when that happens, others who will not. Though I won't generally close or refuse a thread because of an ANI case, I always reserve the right to put it on hold until the ANI case is resolved (especially if it looks like someone might actually get blocked or banned: most ANI filings do not end that way, however). If I put one on hold, I generally extend the do not archive until date for a few days to allow for that. I don't change the case status, I just tell everyone the case is on hold. Even that's pretty rare, however; I generally just keep marching along at DRN. For me a lot depends on the particular circumstances. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: American Sniper (film) behavior of some editors on other related pages
Hello TransporterMan, I apologize if this is not the appropriate way to bring this to your attention, however, many of the editors outlined in the Dispute resolution for the American Sniper film article have also engaged in POV pushing and personal attacks on the Chris Kyle article talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle

DHayward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle/Archive_1#Tally

MONGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle#RfC:_Does_WP:BLP_apply_to_this_article.3F_Has_WP:NPOV_been_violated.3F_How_do_we_move_forward.3F

Nobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle#No_critisism_at_all_in_this_article

And even when other editors have opined that controversial content shouldn't be left out, they have resorted to personal attacks and they have reverted edits of that they personally do not like claiming "tedious" or that it was POV pushing or claiming the source is unreliable, any other reason they can pull out of their back pockets.

To add to this, there appears to be a sock puppet user 302ET who comes in and makes numerous small edits that these three never revert. I could be wrong about this being a fake user, but 302ET never posts in the talk pages.

At this point, these three editors basically own the Chris Kyle page. To this day, there isn't a "controversy" section for Chris Kyle as the section gets reverted within the course of a day. The whole page has been sanitized in the course of about the last 6 weeks. Here's what it looked like on Dec 31, 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Kyle&oldid=640347853

Again, I apologize if this isn't the way to bring these things to your attention, but the behavior of these editors has been destructive.

2601:2:4E00:C662:99D0:59F0:AD6:3F27 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're giving me more credit than I deserve. I'm not an administrator or the current coordinator over at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is the only place I've had contact with that particular dispute. The best I can do is to advise you, without implying that you should do either of these things, that behavioral matters such as page ownership are reported at ANI and that sockpuppetry is reported at SPI. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

re: Third party opinion on Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178
Hi, When you have a minute can you look at this dispute again? I don't think you understood the nature of the dispute; in fact, it appears you were misled by the other user's mischaracterization of my edit. Curly Turkey has essentially forbidden the phrase "survivor issue" from being used in any capacity and for any reason, despite the plethora of sources that use the term. Your response appeared to be talking about synthesis, but simply using a word used by a source (or in this case multiple sources) can't possibly be considered synthesis.

I know it's been a few weeks, but I unfortunately do not have the time these days to follow up on these things immediately. It only works in practice (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've responded at the article talk page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)