User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 19

November 2016 - The formal mediation has failed
Dear TransporterMan, you are the chairperson in charge of Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians which tackles the DevilWearsBrioni's case, and I could like to discuss with you about the withdrawal or closure of the mediation.

As you may already know, the formal mediation was requested by user Robert McClenon with the intention of resolving any disputes between DevilWearsBrioni and the other editors, including me, on Expulsion of Cham Albanians. We hoped that the constant disruption and editorial misconduct by user DevilWearsBrioni could be resolved through formal mediations. However, in spite of mediator Anthony Appleyard's tireless efforts, formal mediation has failed and no tangible outcome has been reached, because of DevilWearsBrioni's filibustering, refusal to be reasoned and insistence on his own false perception of Wikipedia's rules and policies. Who, even after repeated calls by both mediator Anthony Appleyard and Robert McClenon, remained stubborn, and kept derailing the mediation's discussion and couldn't stick to the point. The filibuster's unfortunate behavior has led Anthony Appleyard to bring the case to the attention of other administrators on the ANI, and, some days later, to the AE, by user Athenean.

Since the formal mediations are not appropriate for tackling effectively with disputes that stem from bad faith and disruption (as per Mediation rules, Mediations can be requested, not on the grounds of resolving content disputes caused by disruptive, filibustering and stubborn editors (as is the current's case, with DevilWearsBrioni), but on the grounds of resolving content disputes between non-disruptive editors where there is good faith and commitment/contribution among the participating editors in improving an article's quality), there is nothing else for me to do here and I wish to be withdrawn from the mediation on the grounds that it has failed, a fact which, besides me, also Robert McClenon and Anthony Appleyard themselves have acknowledged, as there is no use in trying to negotiate with DevilWearsBrioni anymore. Dear TransporterMan, you are the chairperson in charge of the official mediation. May I ask what do you plan to do with it? Is it going to stay open forever or will it be closed? If it has to be closed, what procedures have to be followed? And if it is not going to be closed, then, what procedures do I have to follow to have my name withdrawn from it? Since this is my very first time in a formal mediation, I am not very sure how these things work, so please forgive me for my inexperience. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  13:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In light of the mediator's opinion that the case cannot be resolved, I have closed the case on his behalf. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Special:Contributions/DevilWearsBrioni, as at now, DevilWearsBrioni has made no visible edits since 12:46, 12 November 2016. His last edit to a page which has since been deleted was at 17:45, 13 January 2016, to The Expulsion of Albanians and its talk page, which was deleted for copyright (not by me). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * if you check these Special:Contributions, you will find the User:37.46.188.80 listed in them. It appears that User:DevilWearsBrioni and User:37.46.188.80 are the one and same person and that he has been already blocked before, for 72 hours, due to disruption: . This means, the filibuster has already records of disruption and editorial misconduct even before registering his formal account. Furthermore, the Special:Contributions indicates that the filibuster had an overall negative contribution to Wikipedia (with little content creation and positive editing and lot of disruption and drama on ARBMAC-protected articles related to Albania). And last, I can't help but note about the filibuster reporting/bringing to various boards such as ANI, users he happens to disagree with, instead of trying harder to reach a compromise or consensus. It is pointless to ever mention the recent but unpleasant experience of him dragging the notorious OR/SYNTH case on almost every board, even on the DRN, the NORN, and the ANI, instead of just "dropping the stick".


 * It is true that I am aware that he can't be reasoned with. But from my part, I am unsure what else can be done to get this long-time disruption resolved once and for all and without any further drama. I guess, all what we can do is just have patience and wait. Only time will show if the filibuster has reconsidered his behavior and that these disruptions are really over.


 * TransporterMan has closed the mediation, and I am semi-retiring from Wikipedia before I can focus on other things, but I will still keep following you on the AE to see how things with that OR/SYNTH case go. if there is anything else I can do, let me know. I wish both you, Anthony, and TransporterMan, a good evening. -- S ILENT R ESIDENT  21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer assistance assistance request
TransporterMan, I was hoping you might help me to resolve an issue(s) I am having. Most editors would frame this as a simple content dispute at first glance but...I'm not that experienced nor able to to determine that is the root of the issue given the resistance I am facing in making small edits on a particular page. I have written a B page myself (it will improve) but I have accidentally gotten myself into pretty hot water here before and want to avoid that again. Would you be able to offer comment, advice, suggestion or assistance with a controversial subject page that I am attempting to improve. I am not sure where to go next to resolve it. The current issue is here:   but has been ongoing for years now with the same people and without any improvement. Technically, it is currently still in discussion again but I feel we are at an impasse. Again. and I have not even gotten to begin what I feel is needed. We are all on the same side of the controversy argument but can't seem agree on anything that I submit and my questions are not being answered. Would you, Could you take a look? Am I missing something obvious? Thank you in advance, Johnvr4 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's not a content dispute, then it's a conduct dispute (or question, at least). I'm not an administrator and rarely get involved in conduct disputes, especially complex ones, because I'm not experienced or expert in such matters. On the other hand if it is a content matter, then I don't ordinarily become involved in mediation except through the established dispute resolution venues, Third Opinion, DRN, and Medcom, partly because I feel that attempting mediation on an article talk page is a fool's game due to the mediator's inability to control disruptive elements of the discussion (unlike mediation at DRN or Medcom) and partly because I'd prefer to preserve my neutrality should the issue come before Medcom, where I'm the current chairperson. I will make this suggestion, however: Your most recent issue is over questions of undue weight and original research. Those are issues which are within the scope of the NPOV Noticeboard and you might ask the question there. That board is sometimes not very responsive, so the more to-the-point and brief you can make your question, the more likely you will be to get a response. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir! Very much appreciated!! Johnvr4 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello TransporterMan,

Thanks for your messages on my talk page, and everything you do for Wikipedia. I realize you had an RfA in 2010, which you withdrew at that time. Have you reconsidered having an RfA? No need to interpret this as an insistence but merely a question for what its worth. --JustBerry (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your confidence, but because of my concentration on dispute resolution I don't have enough mainspace work to hope to pass an RfA, among other deficiencies. Frankly — and this isn't intended to imply anything negative about our admin corps, who I think do a great job — I'm not sure that I'd want to get the mop even if I could. I've very busy in RL and have already had to cut back my time online and I really like the DR content work that we do. So, again, thanks, but I don't think I'm interested at this point in time. Good to hear from you and best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Great to hear from you too! See you around, surely. --JustBerry (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi TransporterMan. Is it possible that I could file an RfM? If so, how long do I have to wait from the closure of the most recent case (Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Requests are closed (refused) without prejudice against refiling, so you may do so immediately. If the last filing party re-adds the same editors he did this time, however, you're likely to come to the same result. Unless it appears to be an attempt to manipulate the acceptance or rejection of the mediation, every party has the right to add (but not remove) such other parties as s/he believes to be necessary to the resolution of a dispute. You might want to have a private conversation with him/her about whether s/he thinks all those people are really necessary before filing. If so, one or more RFC's might be more productive than a RFM. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I apologize for any of the current and future headaches that this "case" might cause for you and the mediation team. Happy holidays!-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It is particularly important to clear immediately the civility rules because the idea of 'civility' is at the heart of our conception of a community, and so if we are going to upend this understanding, we have to have thought through what are the consequences. Hence, we must make every effort to prevent this process from being derailed through abusive and coarse remarks. I expect of Wikipedia fast and consistent actions. -- Keysanger (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my talk page watchers and stalkers and all Wikipedians. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right back atcha! DonIago (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
JustBerry (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Claim jumping
No problem; these things happen from time to time. It seems that we broadly agreed on policy, at least, even if we had different suggestions as to how to fix it. Anaxial (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No interest
There doesn't appear to be an interest for discussion about my edit in Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 page. It's a total stalemate. All I'm trying to do is improve the page and I brought a credible source but its still being rejected by someone which appears to have no idea or intellect about the music of George Michael. Moreover, most of stated genre in Michael's songs and albums are either wrong or not accurate at all and they have no source. Why should we accept the status quo?? 96.9.139.48 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Expecting instant results to a discussion is a losing battle. These things take time, especially on less popular subjects/articles.
 * Insulting other editors is never a good thing for you to do.
 * To assume that all or most of the genres are wrong should be a clue for you to adjust your way of thinking.
 * Kellymoat (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP that was used has been blocked (temporarily) because it was being used by a sock puppet vandal. So, you can totally ignore everything related to him. Kellymoat (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello!
Nice to see you back for a bit. I realize you've been in and out lately. Just checking in! --JustBerry (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I mostly work MEDCOM and 3O these days, along with policy issues and EAR, but I try to keep up with what's happening at DRN and have been seeing your good work there. Thanks for the nice words. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely. And by the way, in case you're also interested, I've been working to revitalize WP:RETENTION recently per Dennis Brown's departure. See you around. --JustBerry (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that Dennis, who is one of my favorite admins (not that I agree with him all the time, but I've always found him willing to listen to reason, which — to digress further — is not to imply that other admins do not), is gone. He's left before, so I have some hope that he'll return. Good luck with RETENTION. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope he returns too. Feel free to stop by at the project talk page and give your ideas if you're interested. --JustBerry (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yellin 3rd opinion
Thanx Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thank you much. SueDonem (talk)

Help request
Hi! I have been asked to write up an editorial for The Signpost. It is at User:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial. If you have time, could you give it a quick look and correct any glaring errors you spot? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked over it and didn't see anything at all. Excellent article, Guy. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding one MedCom case in an Archive page
Can you add Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians in Requests for mediation/Archive 28? Seems that you forgot to add it there. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Challenge"
Re:, yes, we can characterize a removal as a demonstration of a challenge, but it's a challenge to verifiability. Otherwise it's just blanking. Or maybe I'm not understanding you? postdlf (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid this is going to be verbose, but there's a lot of ground to cover:
 * It's been established many, many times on the V talk page that while there are better practices, it is acceptable to merely remove unsourced material. (There may — or may not, opinions diverge — be exceptions which make it unacceptable for an editor to do it as a regular practice, e.g. as a "hobby", or to do it even a single time if a large amount of material is involved.) Saying it differently, except perhaps in a couple of situations it is acceptable to simply blank unsourced information. (While the best practice is to "please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content," that too is a best practice, not a requirement. Again, we fought a battle on the V talk page some months back to come up with that formulation vs one that made it a requirement.)
 * The following sequence of events often occurs:
 * Editor A finds unsourced information and removes it, with little or no commentary (e.g. with only an edit comment saying, "unsourced").
 * Editor B reverts the information back in, still without a source (and in violation of BURDEN, that any "material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source," (emphasis added)) claiming that the restoration clause does not apply because the material was not properly removed in the first place because Editor A failed to challenge the material before removing it (e.g. by complaining about it on the article talk page or adding a tag, etc.).
 * It is long-established that there need not be a challenge preceding the removal and that the removal itself is, in that case, the challenge. Your language "may be removed if its verifiability is challenged" can be read to require that kind of two step process, a challenge followed by a removal. The "if" suggests that some kind of hoop must be jumped through and proven before the removal can occur. I don't think it necessarily has to be read that way, but the Editor B's of the wikiworld will seize on it to support their position and that's the reason I reverted it.
 * As to that hoop, the question has sometimes been raised as to what is needed for a challenge (whether by removal-only or by challenge-first). While some would say that there is nothing required for a challenge, that the mere unsourced status of the material is enough, I think the answer is in the language from V I quoted above: a "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content." (Emphasis added.) Since everything we do here is supposed to be done in good faith, I believe that it must be a good faith concern but absent persuasive behavioral evidence or admission to the contrary I also believe that we have to AGF that the editor has such a concern. (And it is to be noted that a concern is a very low burden, clearly lower than a belief founded upon investigation, a bare belief, or even a suspicion.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 00:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance yet to search the V talk page archives, but do you have any particular discussions in mind that I should look at to better understand your perspective on this? postdlf (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a part about which you have a particular question? That's a lot of territory to cover and the V talk page is voluminous and dense. But here's a discussion in which a proposal was made to cause the sentence:
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."


 * to
 * "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."


 * and failed for, inter alia, the same reason as I objected to your proposal. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: Let me add that the position that unsourced material may simply be removed (especially, but not only, with no obligation on the part of the remover to try to source it before removing it) is very unpopular with a wide segment of editors, but there has never been a successful attempt to reach consensus — and there's been at least one and often more than one discussion or proposal about it a year to do so since 2012 when I became active at V talk — to change the policy so as to limit that position. I cringe (while also celebrating the principle that consensus can change) every time a new one comes up (usually with an entirely new set of proponents) because it inevitably generates walls and walls o' text with little hope of changing anything but generating a huge amount of work on the part of those of us who support it. In that regard, and for his commentary on what I've said above I'm going to ping S Marshall who came into one of those discussions opposed to the removal principle but later came around to acknowledging its necessity without much liking it. (I hope I've not mischaracterized your position Stuart.) — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me! I'm interested in this and although I intend to keep this reply concise, I do have a lot to say about it.  I don't strictly "acknowledge the necessity" of removing verifiable text; I acknowledge that it's a defensible position that enjoys majority support and I can see the reasons for it.  I'm happy to develop these thought further if it would help?— S Marshall  T/C 17:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making that clarification and apologies for not quite getting it right. Let's see what Postdlf would like for us to do. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories Including Jews
Not again!!?! Thank you for closing. I think that the editors who persist that Jewish people are Southwest Asian are being tendentious, but that is only my opinion. I also think that if they really think that all Jews are Southwest Asian, then that may fall within discretionary sanctions, because if Jews are Southwest Asians, then they must be Israelis. Anyway, there was also a thread at WP:ANI, another reason to close the disruptive thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. Didn't know about any of that. My close was no more nor no less than what I said in the closing remarks. Maybe I'll need to bone up if it gets refiled (or just go run and hide). Best regards and thanks, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Sandbox
Hmmm. The thread that was filed within the past few hours that you closed (correctly, as properly filed at DRV) has somehow confused the bot, which associates your edit with the previous thread on Bertrand Russell and categories. I don't think you did anything wrong. The thread on Bertrand Russell and categories is a valid thread, and both of them seem to be delimited properly, but for some reason they are being run together. Go figure. Robert McClenon (talk)


 * I've taken a shot at fixing it. Let's see what the bot does on the next run-through. The index seems right. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, that fixed a problem, just not that problem. I've taken another shot at it. If this doesn't work, I'll probably manually archive the DRV case and hope than the next one that comes along records correctly. If that then doesn't work, we may have to call in Hasteur. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad (Youtube)
Hello. I got your name from the WP:DRN. As you might see at Talk:Sargon of Akkad (YouTuber) and the revision history of the article, it got some extreme reactions of users. I could explain my point,but since I am one of the involved parties, I believe it is better if you investigate it yourself. What I want to know is: what are the right steps that need to be taken to make editing the article pleasant again? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would concur with the advice you received from Izno here, but would add that the sad fact of life here is that editing is often not pleasant. But one of the main things one can do to reduce the unpleasantness is to follow BRD and avoid further editing of the article until discussion has reached a consensus on the talk page, remembering that ordinarily that it is the obligation of the editor seeking to add or delete information to obtain consensus for his or her action unless some other result is indicated by policy or guidelines. If editors will not discuss — which doesn't seem to really be the case here, but just if — consider the advice at DISCFAIL. To make discussion pleasant, or at least less unpleasant, as it says in DISCFAIL: "Only discuss the edit and do not say a word about the other editor, himself. Not about his motives, his biases, his conflicts of interest, his skills, his habits, his competence, his POV, his POV-pushing, nothing at all, period. Do not use profanity or insults." (The same is true in edit summaries.) If he or she does engage in misconduct, give serious consideration to simply ignoring it and staying on the content topic; if it becomes intolerable (remembering that, despite our incivility rules, editors are expected to have a thick skin), don't respond in kind but give one warning on his or her user talk page and then take it to an administrator or file a complaint at ANI (after carefully reading and complying with the instructions there) if it continues. If an issue involves anything there's a noticeboard for and you are less than certain about the rules, ask for clarification at the noticeboard. The main ones are: reliable sourcing, original research, neutral point of view, and BLP issues or, as an alternative, seek dispute resolution (but remember that the content DR processes will not accept a case unless there has been thorough talk page discussion first). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent comments at the RfC for policy
Thank you for your persuasive and unprejudiced comment that you posted onto the RfC. It has manifested a recherché aptitude for which I resolutely hold in high regard. I am eminently rapt by the counsel you have given and, ergo wish to be involved in serving the process for resolution of velitation. If you oblige, it would be held in esteem for you to make plain how I would make best of my service to that undertaking. Much obliged, Solomon. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 14:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Using a thesaurus to find big words to use here doesn't make you clever, it just makes you hard to understand. Sam Walton (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you take note of WP:CIVIL because I am not here to be berated by you or anyone else for that matter. I have introduced ideas into a discussion which you do not approve of and perhaps you are uncomfortable with my use of vocabulary however, by now I have assumed your posture to be offensive. Now far as I can see you are an employee of Wikimedia foundation so do you want to give me the complaint contact please, thank you. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to be uncivil, merely to point out that you'll find other editors are much more receptive to your messages if they don't feel like they're being talked down to. While it's true I am a WMF contractor, edits made from this account are made in my capacity as a volunteer and generally have nothing to do with my paid work. Sam Walton (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * At any point have I drawn lines in the sand and started to attack editors personally? Never, one would be perceived better if they focused on content rather than me and my decisions to use whichever vocabulary I know. You are able to edit Wikipedia because you are a beneficiary of "free speech." Then let me use my right to project myself in whichever and whatever way I feel best reflects my views for as long as they are not taken offensively and that they do not obstruct the project or violate its policies. I will not be bullied by you and making comments at me and about me are not constructive. By me introducing new ideas or trying to foster conversation is not a bad thing especially when it comes down to issues of sourcing content. If you have suggestions about how I can better understand Wikipedia then I am very happy to hear them and try to act on them, in the best way I can. However, once again, when you make comments directed towards me personally or about how I talk to people on their talk pages it makes me feel uncomfortable. I am, as always, amenable to resolving dispute and conflict. However, I cannot accept being bullied into a corner simply because people do not agree with me. Just like you, I'm an editor and we both want to help the world get access to knowledge, but I find it equally important that the integrity of the knowledge is protected. I hope you understand, Kind regards → (talk to me!) (contributions) 16:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Conversation taken to User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh. Sam Walton (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Solomon, because of your terminology I'm not sure whether you're serious, making fun of the idea of doing dispute resolution, or attempting humor, but I'm going to presume that it's either the first or the last. To get started, simply go to Third Opinion, carefully read the entire page, and then if you're still interested, look at the list of opinion requests and see if there's one which appeals to you. If there is, link over to the discussion, read through it, and if you still feel that you're interested in it, go back to the 3O page and remove that request with an edit summary of "Took one to give opinion, # remain on list." Then go to the talk page and give your opinion, stating first that you're a 3O volunteer and are there to give an opinion. Don't wait any significant period of time between removing the request and giving the opinion or the disputants will think that you forgot. Be serious in your opinion — a little humor is okay, but go easy and don't let the humor make your opinion ambiguous — and justify your opinion carefully using references and quotes from Wikipedia policy, but keep it as short as possible. According to your user page you are (as I am) a lawyer, so you should know how to do that. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Oh, and PS you might want to also read my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian — you, of course, don't have to follow or publish any such standards, but you might find them to be interesting and also read my history of 3O's not being binding — TM 16:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That recent request for Mediation
on the Chantry Island Lighthouse Tower article... I don't know what to do about the two editors, have been trying to talk to both, trying to help but the situation kind of reminds me of a hornet'e nest and I really don't want to get stung. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Kudos, Shearonink, for trying to do dispute resolution on that dispute. I see that Sergecross73 is attempting to do mediation on the article talk page, but that Imasku may have decided that the grapes were sour and  chosen to leave Wikipedia. We'll see if Sergecross can lure him/her back, which would be a good thing. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to AN discussion
Hello. Would you come to Administrators' noticeboard for comment. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Previous request for mediation (denied) on John Fleming (American Politician)
You denied mediation based on a premature request. I have requested and received comments through WP:RfC. I think everything has been said. Recall that this was resolved in 2013 but is back again with no new facts. Should I do another formal request for mediation or can you reopen? Thanks in advance. Tomuchtalk (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A new filing will be required, but it will also be rejected so long as the RfC is running. RfCs ordinarily run for 30 days, see WP:RFC and prerequisite to Mediation #8. All ediors who participated in the RFC or recent preliminary discussion should be included as parties if and when you do refile. - TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the tip. For future reference, is 30 days the minimum, or is there a lesser minimum but you recommend 30 days in this case? Tomuchtalk (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See Requests_for_comment. There's no fixed-in-stone duration (which is why I said "ordinarily") but, since the purpose of RFC's is to seek community input, ending one too quickly or simply because there's been a lag in folks joining in kind of defeats the purpose of it having been done in the first place. Once there's been a long lag, say a week or two, that's a different story, however. There's a gazillion RFC's out there at any given time, and it can take folks awhile to spot a new one and get to it on their priority list. Note that while the filing party can withdraw the RFC, doing so after folks have joined in can be controversial unless it's to implement a clear SNOW result. - TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017
Hello!

My name is David Alves (User:Horadrim~usurped), and I'm an Wikipedian in Residence at RIDC NeuroMat (User:Horadrim). I've reach your contact through the Wikimedian in residence page in Outreach. As you may know, Wikimania 2017 is coming! I am here because, as a fellow WiR, I believe this would be a great opportunity for us to share experiences, discuss difficulties and exchange solutions, creating a community among us capable of supporting in other projects that would benefit from residents. In that sense, I have submitted a proposal of a Birds of a Feather activity to Wikimania that you can check out here. I hope to count with your support in this project and would like to invite you to join us if you participate in Wikimania. In case of any doubts, please feel free to contact me, either in my talk pages or by e-mail at david.alvesoutlook.com.

Thank you very much! ‎Horadrim~usurped (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call Reply
Hey, TransporterMan,

I'm no longer active on Wikipedia, and ratehr have moved back to |wikiHow, so feel free to remove me from the DRN.

Thanks, Have a good day, ItsPugle  ( Talk ) at 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI
It's not that I'm avoiding being active at DRN, but some of the disputes dictate recusal while others are already being handled before I'm aware of them. Just wanted you to know that I do have it on my watchlist, and participate when the op presents itself. Hope that is adequate for inclusion. Atsme 📞📧 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How to become an auto confirmed editor
I was wondering about how to edit silver locks on some pages? Please reply asap.Peace out 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talk • contribs)


 * See here for the details. You ought to be autoconfirmed already unless you're editing through Tor. But even if you're autoconfirmed, you can't remove the silver locks: they won't interfere with you editing the article if you're autoconfirmed, but only a administrator can remove them. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I sent you a massage and you haven't replied. Please reply asap.Peace out 04:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry for messaging you to much but I was wondering how to help edit peoples articles for summation.Peace out 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talk • contribs)
 * See my reply, above. If that doesn't answer your question, please be more specific. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Farage
Hi TM, firstly thanks for the time you spent on Nigel Farage although it couldn't be resolved. I frequently edit political WP:BLP's where I'm not an admmirer but as with Farage I only use WP:Suggested sources -sources almost all Brits would accept including in this case, Farage. I'm new to mediation but strongly believe the source is correct and the point is important. What options (if any) are available now? Regards JRPG (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Taking all things into consideration, I think that a RFC is about your only practical option at this point. You might go back to DRN and try there with the proper notice to the parties, but since only one other editor agreed to mediation it's not very likely that they'll join in at DRN, either, and little or nothing can be accomplished there without the participation of all or most parties to the dispute. All forms of content dispute resolution here are voluntary, and no one is required to participate if they do not care to do so, except for RFC. Technically, no one is required to participate in an RFC, either, but if they don't participate then their position will probably not be considered in the closing. If you are going to do something, however, I'd suggest that you do it soon: When discussion has stopped about a dispute and doesn't resume fairly quickly, a lot of editors will presume that the dispute is over and most DR forums (but not RFC) will decline a case if much time has passed since the discussion died away. Finally, none of what I have said here should be taken as an implied indication that I think that you either have a tenable or winning position or that I think that you should go forward in any of these ways or otherwise continue the dispute; I do not have, imply, or express any opinion, pro or con, about any of those things and this is merely procedural advice. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again TM -I'm fully aware that you offer resolution advice and not judgement but I realise from what you said I should have got things moving more quickly.  Regards JRPG (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion, Third Opinion
Hey, I noticed that you regularly tend to the Third Opinion page and I wanted to ask your opinion on something. Was I wrong to question a Third Opinion contributor's English skills on their talk page? They have reacted badly to my comments and I don't wish to antagonise them any further. Here's the conversation: User_talk:Being.human. Thank you. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong? No. When someone responds with, "If the numbers are to go by, then I have the majoritarian English." how can you be wrong? Stepping in where angels fear to tread, perhaps, but not wrong. Remember CIR. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * it is wrong to canvass on others page. It is wrong to help with negative, discouraging and patronising attitude. It is wrong to "invent" an issue when none existed. Editors I helped with the Dr, have no problem, so how did this become such big issue? Why could not you continue talking to me as mature person? Why create an issue out of nothing and then drag more people into it? It unnecessarily puts me on wrong foot. Do not tell people in a patronising and discouraging tone to stop helping others. You could have given a suggestion with respect. Treat me as equal as you would want me to treat you. Your intention might have been good, Your attitude and way was wrong. I am disappointed. Inventing issue, canvassing, making it bigger by dragging others without further discussing with me with a positive  attitude, all wrong. I want you to be open to helping other in a  right way. Please pick the right battles to fight. Pick the right issues to give feedback to. If someone complains about comprehension, then go ahead and give that kind of suggestion, otherwise let is pass. If you still chose to provide suggestion, do not tell people to stop helping. Know the difference that people would put more effort in editing articles and may not do so on talk page. Did you, or anyone whoever reed so far, have any problem in comprehending me? If not, then it is wrong to "pick upon", that wastes time. I am disappointed. I will use this as an opportunity to show the older editors who they might be pushing lot of new people without intending to do so. Please be open to learn this behavioral correction. I will learn from this, but please be open to learning. Realise that you are part of the problem. In fact no problem existed until you turned this into one and then made it bigger by dragging too many people in it. I helped someone on DR, they have no problem, you had, and I confronted you and you dragged others. Why? Being.human (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1
You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

DRN mass message delivery
Hey TransporterMan, I need your help again with a mass message to all DRN volunteers. The message is a newsletter at User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN Newsletter 1 (substituting the page is fine as I have used templates like BASENAME to get the user name). What do you think about the newsletter? Any changes required? If it seems alright, just send it to all volunteers at the DRN. If you are busy, let me know and I can request this at the mass message senders page. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm traveling through Sunday; if I get the chance I'll be glad to work on this, but it may be the first part of next week before I have a long enough chunk of free time. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem! Do it whenever you are free! Happy travelling Yashovardhan (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey TransporterMan, still busy? Yashovardhan (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder; it's been hectic since I returned. The newsletter looked great and has been sent. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Bi-monthly Volunteer Awards
Please have a look at WP:DRN/VA. (This message is being only sent to active contributors of the DRN. Other comments are also welcome though) Yashovardhan (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with mediation / dispute resolution
Hi,

I am new to the editing of Wikipedia and request some assistance.

There is a page on a Jewish (historical?) figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elazar_Shach

On the page, a user has used an opinion piece article as a source in several locations. For example: "In Haaretz, Shahar Ilan described him as "an ideologue" and "a zealot who repeatedly led his followers into ideological battles"." and the reference: 'Haaretz' November 2, 2001 "Rabbi Shach – a man of wars and battles"

I deleted this text and the user re-instated it. I suggested to him on his talk page that this statement is opinion and not something which belongs on an "historical" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Rav_Shach_Page

He replied: Since your post fails to assume good faith, I decline to comment on it.

Based on his previous edits and comments it seems that he has some form of personal issue with the content.

I would like to request that the content be examined and if found to be unsatisfactory, be removed. If I am incorrect in my understanding, and this is something which meets the Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to except that.

Thanks in advance for your time. Daniel.

HenryDanielDance (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HenryDanielDance —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Because of my involvement with the various dispute resolution procedures here, I generally do not take on private requests for assistance. Please consult the Dispute resolution policy and choose one of the procedures there. If only you and one other editor are involved in the dispute, the Third opinion project would be a good place to start. But remember that all dispute resolution processes require substantial talk page discussion first, preferably at the article talk page. The discussion at Debresser's talk page would serve, but once the conduct allegations are filtered out — content dispute resolution will not handle conduct issues — there's really not much discussion there about the content. Here's a quick guide to distinguish between content and conduct: If what's been said is about the other editor, it's conduct; if it's about the content of the article, it's content. Finally, if the other editor will not engage (and I'm not saying that Debresser wouldn't, this is merely procedural advice without reflecting on anything that has actually happened), consider the advice at DISCFAIL. Oh, and one more thing to try, and one which is far less bureaucratic than dispute resolution, you can make a request for advice at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC) PS: On re-reading your note, above, it occurs to me that you may not be seeking dispute resolution so much as pointing out something which you believe is a problem and asking for someone else to — to mix metaphors — pick up the torch and run with the ball for you. I get that from "I would like to request that the content be examined and if found to be unsatisfactory, be removed." I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work here. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and anyone includes you. If you think that there's a problem with the material you can either work for its removal yourself through BRD and dispute resolution, or you can post a note to the article talk page clearly stating your concern and hope that someone sees it and chooses to act upon it. There's no other process in Wikipedia to just say, "Here's a problem. I'm outta here, but someone ought to fix it." —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * See response at your talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Against John from Idegon
You closed a badly filed DRN request that appeared to be a vaguely stated conduct issue against John from Idegon. I will only add that the complaint illustrates what I think is wrong with the policy do not bite the newcomers. While it is a good rule, it is far too often used by combative editors who claim that they are newcomers and should not be bitten, when they are being cautioned or instructed, or even maybe when they need to be bitten. If an editor has been editing long enough to know the policy WP:BITE, they are not a newcomer and should no longer quote it in their own defense. Oh well. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Original Research NoticeBoard
Hi, the ONB says that the content in the disputed page is original research. What is the next step? Lneal001 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I don't become involved with ongoing issues which may come back to dispute resolution. I note that another editor has joined in the discussion on the article talk page. You might address this inquiry to him. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion
There seems to be quite a few requests that fall foul of the guidelines in place for attaining a Third Opinion, which subsequently get removed by you or another volunteer. Do you think the instructions at Third Opinion could (and should) be adjusted in some way for clarification? Thanks in advance. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Most requests are removed either because there's been insufficient discussion or because there are more than two editors. Both of those requirements are very plainly stated at the beginning of Third_opinion. We have very much the same problem at DRN and MEDCOM on those or similar issues. No matter how clearly you state them, some people just aren't going to read instructions. Every noticeboard here at WP which has listing requirements (e.g. the notification requirement at ANI) has the same problem. I suppose that we could put them in huge blinking text, but I'd be willing to wager a considerable sum that we'd still frequently get people who ignore them. It's not worth the effort. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to comment on TO ruling
First of all, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my TO request regarding a possible edit war on Grand Prix 2. I will take the time to read the "literature" you've directed me to, before engaging further on editing the article. I do however, have a few questions for you: Thanks in advance for your time. Ebacci EN (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to evaluate the current content of the article, possibly compare it to the version that was reverted, and give your opinion on its Talk page? (I really believe the current version needs a lot of work to pass as a well-written article. Then again, I might be wrong).
 * Do you have any quick suggestions on how to engage with an anonymous, IP-user, without a Talk page, and otherwise seemingly unwilling to have a discussion about the content (s)he's adding back? (The revert of my edit was not the only instance on the article's history when a puppet brought back information about the game's modding community - the contended content which, in my opinion, does not meet WP:N).
 * Since after my edit was reverted, many legitimate changes were made by other editors, wouldn't it be wrong for me to ignore all these good improvements to the article just to bring back my edit? (Currently the "bad" version stands solely because of this - because I don't want to throw away good contributions made by legitimate editors).
 * Isn't it counter-productive to place the bureaucratic burden on good-faith registered users, instead of unnamed, puppets? (The point being: a good, comprehensive, neutral and sourced edit, backed by extensive discussion, edit summaries with relevant information, as well as a careful learning process of Wikipedia rules, takes a lot more time than the 1 second that it takes a puppet to revert it. What can we do about it?)


 * If you can demonstrate that an IP editor is being disruptive — and you can demonstrate that by following DISCFAIL, though it's a little tougher with IP editors — then you can request semi-page protection. Because I work at all the moderated content DR venues, I don't become involved in private DR at article talk pages. As I mentioned, the Teahouse would be a good place to get evaluation. "[W]ouldn't it be wrong for me to ignore all these good improvements to the article just to bring back my edit"? Yes, you'll need to manually reinsert your edit. It may be a lot of work, but that's what will be needed. I don't know what you mean by your last bullet point, above. What bureaucratic burden? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again thank you for your help. After doing some reading and getting more acquainted with the way things are made in Wikipedia, I realise there's not much I can do besides fixing what's wrong with the article again. The two reverts that brought back unsourced, possibly self-promotional content to the article are spaced out over more than 3 years by different IPs. I believe it's best for me to see it not as if I have wasted my time improving an article that eventually got drowned by the revert, but instead as if my first big edit was just a dress rehearsal for improving articles in the future. I see now that there are plenty of tools we can use to keep track of what's going on and to prevent things like these from happening. As for my last bullet point, I realise now that this is the way things are done here, and since the community has been working so hard over more than a decade to come up with these rules, it's probably for a good reason. Unfortunately, it's always much easier to destroy things rather than creating them - but this is hardly something exclusive to Wikipedia. Ebacci EN (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverts: Re 3O request
Hello TransporterMan ! I have noticed you had removed third opinion request, which is fine. Consider putting your comments in the issue, as other editor is not interested in the views of sole dedicated book on the subject. Thank you in advance for your assistance. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I work at all the moderated content DR venues, I don't become involved in private DR at article talk pages (which rarely works, in any event). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)