User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 20

Third Opinion Disclaimers
I just thought I'd post here instead of the RfC in response to you because I'll be venturing off topic from that discussion and just addressing one specific part of your post (the rest I bow to your wisdom on). This is in regards to my neutral vote on discussion B of that RfC.

The point I'd like to address is when you said this: "Keep up the good work (but don't omit the header, it emphasizes your neutrality and — though we cannot claim any authority — helps to give your opinion gravitas)."

I agree that a header is required but I disagree with the nature of the header. I will stand by my previous comment in saying that stating that your Third Opinion is informal and non-binding reduces the effectiveness and likelihood that the participant who just happens to hold the opposite opinion of a dispute will disregard the suggestions that you make as part of a Third Opinion.

I think we should be using a header such as this one:

"Hello, I am responding to a request for a Third Opinion. I have to say first off that I have no personal interest in -Insert Topic Here- and I am a completely neutral and unrelated editor to the topic in question. My purpose here is to hopefully generate a consensus amongst participants which can be pointed to in future if this crops up again. To do that, we will look at policy and how it relates to the dispute.

''After saying all of that, let me just make it clear that even though I have no personal interest in the show, I have researched the topic's subject and read through the arguments for and against -Insert Short Dispute Summary Here-. After considering the issue carefully, it is -Insert 'Too Long Didn't Read' Analysis Of My Third Opinion Here-."''

So the structure is comprised of: A reassurance of neutrality towards editors and not being involved in the subject. A promise to try and work out consensus between editors instead of promoting a particular side, even if the third opinion is heavily weighted towards one individual's interpretation of the subject and a statement about looking into the issue based on policy - which is another reassurance for the participants of the volunteer handling the matter for a satisfactory outcome.

Reassurance that the matter will be handled correctly is in my opinion, the most important aspect of dispute resolution and the act of providing a third opinion.

What do you think about this approach? I'd also just like to thank you again for being an inspiration to me in dispute resolution handling as well. Thank you. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that works, though I do prefer to emphasize the non-binding nature of 3O as well since I think that's a feature not a bug of 3O. But that's just me. One of the great things about 3O is that there's nothing much actually required at all short of taking the item off the list and saying that your're giving a 3O in response to the listing. Heck, I even occasionally give what I call !3O's where I see something at 3O and give an opinion without taking it off the list because either my neutrality might be in question or because I want to actually be not-quite-neutral. That can, of course, give rise to the Third Opinion Paradox, but we as 3O Wikipedians have the right to also just be regular editors, just not at the same time. Good luck and keep up the good work, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC) PS: FWIW here's the header that I use when I give a 3O:

RfC
Just to note, the sidebar comments seem to have broken the numbering structure. I tried fixing it, but I have no idea what I'm doing. (It's not necessarily of any real concern, as the opposesupport ratio is quite large.) Joefromrandb (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and if it had broken it in the middle of a sequence I would've tried to fix it, but since it's the first one I figured everyone could figure it out. The real problem is that the #-based numbering system just doesn't work very well (just like the HTML one underneath it). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:
Hi Transporter! Well, I don't want troubles with en:wiki. I didn't give any kind of explanation, so just a couple of words:

Well, this guy comes truly from ca:wiki after they did a public calling not only to reverte me and other users, but also to impose political points of view from ca:wiki. That is the origin of that organised movement. I don't know if plotting from another wiki to carry on changes here is something acceptable for en:wiki, but this is the fact.

As you can see next, after the first conflicts, I gave a battery of arguments and sources on the talk. He opposes the change, but after all he has still given no arguments, no sources...nothing at all. Just reversals and accusations of "vandalism". For days he has been reversing everything (including references to theoretically non-problematic technical issues), and after that, today it was like "hey, I've insulted you and treated you badly, but now I want mediation."

Anyway, the user has finally carried on his duty (he changed it once) and I have accepted it (even when he has given no arguments, still). So I don't understand why, after that, he wanted a mediation. It's crazy to me, really. Anyway, I'm not paid, so I don't wanna create problems to you (guys). Thanks for taking your time in this issue, and again, excuse for the waste of time. Manuchansu (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC) P.S.: Greetings to my dear Texas.


 * As I said on your talk page, I have absolutely no idea whether or not the move is right or wrong. But it's obviously controversial even if your opponent is or is not giving you substantive reasons for the opposition. If you think that you're right, file the Requested move application, argue your position, and see where the cards fall. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I have no idea about that issue. Thank you, TransporterMan. Manuchansu (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi TransporterMan. There is an edit war on the page, by three different IP. Of course, no consensus on discussion. It is interesting to see that the IP argues just like the other user, Leptictidium (1, 2), so the IP is trying re-create conflicts between Leptictidium and me. Anyway, taking account your warring, I will not take no more actions, just reporting to you ;) Manuchansu (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Manuchansu. Leptictidium (mt) 12:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please Manuchansu, stop vandalising.--90.174.3.75 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't try to look friendly in order to carry out your ideological purposes. Reach consensus in the discussion.--90.174.3.75 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * He is accusing you of editing under IP. You can check it, because he isn't. It's just that he is not the only reasonable person in the world.--90.174.3.75 (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice at WT:DRN
I would appreciate any comments that you may have at the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page about dealing with editors who have little ability in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

YGM
Doug Weller talk 16:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Matrix Franchise.
Respectfully, although I like (think it is useful) Wikipedia for some things (say, a celebrities birthday, be they entertainer or industrialist or scientist) this so-called system will never totally serve the people into next generations, and will likely serve more to warp facts than support. the idea that anybody can contribute is wonderful, but if they are not really contributing, but rather misleading, then this is all for nothing, and the world would be better served by a superior form of whatever Wikipedia is; One that accurately portrays whatever the subject. --- I am not unrealistic. I get that this would take a paid staff to make it a cite-able reference. But it is clear that any College teacher ...any teacher at all for that matter, who would accept an iota of research found on Wikipedia, would be doing society a mean disservice.

Here's what I'm talking about. The Matrix IS a post apocalyptic story (at best, Cyberpunk would be a tertiary adjective thereafter. It can't even be argued except by an idiot or an ignorant mind. ...I put in several pieces of information which were not subjective but fact, helpful to a researcher, but I deleted the the single term Cyberpunk as placed by another for two reasons, 1) It's misleading. Clearly even if one wants to place a 'cyberpunk' bent on it, it's still post-apocalyptic foremost. 2) Said 'contibutor' didn't even realize the story was post-apocolyptic (or wouldn't place the two terms side-by-side even), and much like an 8-year old was more concerned about having his own way. ...and if I were to choose a 3) it would be that Cyberpunk is weak terminology, inaccessible to many. I mean, even Steampunk, which is more recognizable/accepted, is an odd term. Overwhelmingly, for example, take Cos-players who do 'Steampunk'. Does any of the work seem remotely Punk or for a 'punk' however one chooses to use the word? Does somebody into Punk Music think Steampunk or Cyberpunk had jack to do with what they're into? In fact, labeling anyone a punk who is not into punk music, is generally considered an insult. These terms are inaccurate and a degradation of the language. They are not evolutionary or revolutionary. They are simply made up and nonsensical. By your standards, or Wikipedia's standards, I'd be within my rights to start the term Wikipunk, insomuch that it refers to forms of information that are subject to constant change and therefor have no real meaning.

Steampunk stories and designs are generally off the hook insomuch as they accomplish with Industial Age Tech, things only possible in our own age or in a future well beyond. It is, in fact, cartoon fantasy.

Cyberpunk refers to a future or high-tech and low life, when in fact we have that right now. There's nothing futuristic about the premise. It's all been done. We used to have a term called Science Fiction ...That suited Blade Runner, THX1138, Demonseed, ect, just fine. What happened to sensible terms? Wikipunk attitudes destroyed them.

Now, you may have something constructive to say, even while tearing down part of what I've posed, but please don't insult me with outright rejection of this observation. My guess, my hope, is that you know better.


 * I have no idea whether you're right or you're wrong, nor do I entirely understand why you are telling me this. What I do know is this: Even if you are speaking the absolute, unquestionable truth you can do so until you're blue in the face and it won't count for anything here until you (a) make your case at the article talk page, (b) when you do, back up your proposed changes with reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, and (c) if others disagree with you, obtain consensus for your changes. Why? Because, as you note, we don't have a group of paid editors to decide what should go in the encyclopedia. What we have instead are the verifiability policy to set the threshold for what is allowed in the encyclopedia (and which establishes the reliable source requirement), the neutral point of view policy to decide how much weight, if any, the material allowed by the verifiability policy should be given, and directly to your current argument the no original research policy which prohibits personal opinion or research from being included in the encyclopedia unless it also can be supported by reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia without any analysis or interpretation. (There are also other standards for particular kinds of information, such as the this policy about information about living people, but they're not at play here.) Contrariwise, if you believe information should be removed (or reduced in importance) in Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate that it somehow doesn't comply with one or more of those policies. If you're expecting to just put out your opinion and have some other editor take up the burden of coming up with reliable sources to support it and then defending it at the article talk page, I can't say that's impossible but this is largely a DIY kind of place and if I cared enough about the subject matter to bother writing about it here at all I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. And there's no chance of that happening unless you make your case on the article talk page. Finally, just a couple of pieces of advice: First, always remember to sign your posts. Not doing so not only makes it much harder for everyone else but diminishes your credibility by making it look like you don't know what you're doing. Second, if you're going to participate here by really working towards getting your desired information included, just be aware that it's really difficult to do so unless you edit frequently, with the absolute minimum being once every two or three days, every day preferred, and several times a day being optimum. Things move fast here and can pass you by or ignore you if you're not around. Third, note that I said to make your case on the article talk page. The corollary to that is this: Don't try to force it in by repeatedly editing and reverting the actual article. That's edit warring and will get you blocked. None of those three points is intended to be criticism, just advice. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Coordinates
I removed the coordinates because the archeological sites were listed as "address restricted" in the National Register Information System, and the articles did not cite any responsible authority for identifying those protected locations. Address restrictions are intended to prevent vandalism, antiquities theft, or even trampling by otherwise well-meaning people during ongoing research. Restrictions may later be revoked and locations published after archeological investigation has concluded and artifacts have been properly archived. However, the publishing of those location coordinates must be by the federal or state agency responsible for maintaining the site, not by third parties. Fortguy (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTCENSORED says that we do not follow those considerations. NRIS may choose, for its own purposes, not to release the information but if it is otherwise available it is not unlawful to reveal it. And NOTCENSORED makes it clear that Wikipedia will not exclude it merely because NCIS chooses to keep it confidential. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion Page
Just to explain my revert. The section there is transcluded onto multiple pages in order to indicate a status. Something should go there to indicate that it is empty; otherwise, you might get people thinking the transclusion isn't working. Nihlus 15:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * New guard vs old guard. Smile.png It wasn't transcluded for years and I don't know that any of us who have been around for a long time ever thought of that when someone set up the transclusion (which was done without discussion). My only concern is that people who list new requests often can't even figure out how to put the request between the two "list your request" here comment tags. Getting them to also remove the placeholder may be too much and require volunteers to do that much more maintenance. On the other hand, it might ease that problem. I'm willing to give it a try, however. You might want to make a case for it on the 3O talk page or you may find that the regulars at 3O keep removing it, since it's not the way it's always been done in the past. (And you have my permission to copy this conversation over there if you'd like to do that.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot about that isn't too intuitive, especially to new users. I'll look into a better method for users to request it. (FYI, looks like it was added .) Nihlus 15:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it doesn't take long to get an example. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How about if we did something to the effect of help-me but for third opinions? We use a category and whatnot and keep track of it like that. Nihlus 18:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

MEDIATION
Dear TransporterMan: Thank you for your message. Please understand that your processes and rules are creating multiple issues and extending the issue into other areas. My request is simple. A connected series of wiki pages are historically incorrect. I went to the trouble to add my new research to these pages and to reference where people could see the primary evidence to support that research. Not only have my finding been dismissed as opinion and that I was acting out of self interest but now the pages relating to these people and events are highly inaccurate and historically misleading. I've tried my best to follow your amazing procedures but I can't do much more. I have a genuine concern and if wiki is at all interested in the truth then maybe someone can actually progress this issue to someone who can communicate with me in a normal manner and not behind a vale of procedure. Thanks Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbacks Again (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Transporterman: Thankyou for your additional notes. This has helped me to identify the issues more clearly. You may be able to help me further. Question 1. According to the reliable source and verifiable policy how is a published ebook with an Isbn considered to be not reliable simply because it is that?

Question 2. By way of example if Wikipedia claims that Frank the Poet died at Mudgee in 1861 and yet no death certificate exists for that to have occurred and primary material exists to say that it was someone else how would wiki like me to provide an edit in the article to show that?

Redbacks Again (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

cheers Geoff


 * Any published book can get an ISBN. An ISBN is merely a record of publication, not reliability. For a source of information to be reliable for Wikipedia purposes, it must be from a publisher which has an established record for fact-checking and accuracy, per WP:SOURCES. Works which are self-published or published through vanity presses (or many open-source academic publishers) have no such publisher (see WP:SPS and the following subsection for information on that issue). There are some very rarely-granted exceptions for self-published works by established experts who have had multiple works published in peer-reviewed journals, but those are themselves generally highly contested. As for Question 2, you need a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which expressly says that. If no such source exists, it cannot be said. Primary sources can be used to establish it, but those sources have to expressly say what they're being cited to say since no interpretation, synthesis, or analysis of primary (or, really, any other) sources is permitted by Wikipedia. Incidentally, a question which always comes up about this time is this: "But what about all the stuff in the article which doesn't meet those standards?" The answer to that is that the nonconforming information should be repaired, if possible, or removed, not that additional nonconforming information should be added. Finally, you should really carefully read the policies I've linked to (as well as this policy) not just make assumptions from what I've said: the real policies can be very much more complicated that what I've said. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN Dispute
Yuck! I don't know what started this, but I agree with you that it isn't helping anything. On the one hand, it does appear that Kostas hasn't been doing much, but I am not sure what should have been done anyway, and I certainly don't think that Nihlus is helping by going on and on. I sort of wonder if there is some backstory as to what one of these editors has done to offend or annoy the other. It certainly isn't worth going on and on on the back of DRN, and Nihlus doesn't seem to be getting the message from you and me to let go of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing going on between us (nor was there something before). And I'm not going on and on. You asked questions, and I answered them. Please don't try to paint it any other way. I've already said that I would "let go of it" if you both truly believe Kostas did nothing wrong; however, I will not put up with attempts to muzzle either one of us prematurely. Nihlus  18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that User:TransporterMan has said as much as I was planning to say. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter of the coordinator position itself.  I do have a strong opinion that backbiting about it isn't and wasn't useful, and maybe and hopefully has ended.  The exchange on the DRN page was not helpful, and I will be hatting it again, and I hope that can take care of that.  If there isn't any backstory, don't act like there is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not continue to edit war by trying to a hat a discussion when others disagree with you doing so. Nihlus  20:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nihlus - I don't see "others" disagreeing with my closing the discussion. I see you disagreeing with my closing of the discussion, and that User:TransporterMan had agreed with me that the discussion had become inappropriate.  I will defer to you, although I still don't see what started it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you two think that Kostas did nothing wrong, then I will close it myself, but I can't even get you two to answer that simple question. TM is hiding behind same poor excuse of "becoming unseemly" and your initial comment that started this thread leads me to believe you find something wrong, but you haven't really expanded on it much. If no one else comments on it soon, then I will move to just remove the position entirely. I had planned on submitting multiple ideas for reforming the DRN process, since many parts of it are broken. I'll probably just include that. Nihlus  00:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nihlus - On the one hand, I don't think that anyone, even you, says that User:Kostas20142 did anything wrong. The issue that you raise is whether Kostas20142 failed to do necessary right things as required by their position of coordinator of DRN.  The other issue that this raises is whether you used poor judgment and antagonism in the way that you raised that issue.  As to the first, I fail to see that Kostas20142 was guilty of any significant omissions of duty.  In any case, as to the second, in my opinion, which may not matter to you, and I will defer to the opinion of User:TransporterMan, you gave what was at most a trivial issue about possible neglect of duty more attention than was appropriate, and in a manner that was (unintentionally, to be sure) contrary to the purpose of dispute resolution and of dispute resolution forums.  I would be interested in any ideas on reforming dispute resolution, and would hope that they can be advanced in a manner that does not cause disputes.  So, to answer directly the question that you said neither TM nor I would answer, I don't see a material omission of duty by Kostas.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said all that I (at least currently) care to say or intend to say in that discussion. For me to participate in it further would be to engage in the same kind of unseemliness that I've accused Nihlus and Kostas of. I hope that everyone else will also do the same. The best "muzzle" that can be put on that discussion is lack of participation. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do have one more thing to say, but I'll at least initially say it here rather than on the DRN talk page since at least at this point it's more of a sentiment on my part rather than a plan of action: I don't see the coordinator position as being necessary to the operation of DRN. Useful, perhaps, but necessary, no. And I'd much rather see it be eliminated entirely rather than it be a focus for this kind of dispute. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the idea of removing it entirely. Nihlus  19:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter
News and updates from Dispute resolution noticeboard

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to opt in to the list, or to join DRN as a volunteer Sent on behalf of Kostas20142 by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia-Medcab.svg volunteers: After the roll call that expired last week, the new list of volunteers is consisted of 12 editors. 10 inactive volunteers have been removed
 * Trophy.pngawards: On 5 November, 2017, received the Template:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 4 by  and  "for his extraordinary dedication and tireless contribution to DRN as a successful Coordinator from December 2016 to May 2017 and a ever helping volunteer since July 2014"
 * Preceding coordinator: will be the next coordinator, with term from December, 2017 to January, 2018
 * Ongoing discussions: A discussion is currently ongoing regarding new volunteer awards system as proposed here. The proposal is still in brainstorming stage, and anyone may comment or add their ideas.

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * → TransporterMan  ( TALK )

to
 * → TransporterMan  ( TALK )

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to be obstreperous, but what's a lint error and why is it an issue? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. See: Linter. Feel free to ask further questions. You will get a faster response if you ping me. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warrior?
User:Eddaido has (for reasons that mystify me) decided that this is sensible syntax, & appropriate comment in an edit summary. Be advised: this time, I'll be damned if I'll walk away. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  19:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Trekphiler has decided to vent spleen against me. Dunno why. He is following me, seeking out edits from many years ago, and abusive. He has had previous warnings about this warring with me and his abuse of me. Eddaido (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And you've both been blocked for 24 hours. That wasn't my doing, but it's only because someone else got there before I did. If this keeps up, the next step will be seeking an IBAN. As a matter of fact, would you both consider agreeing to a voluntary IBAN (click through on that last link to see what it would entail). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Thought I'd write and wish you well as the year draws to a close, old friend. Please accept this wintry landscape in substitution for the winter weather that, at least for me, seems like it will never arrive! —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to all my watchers, and especially to k.e. and Mendaliv, and my best wishes for a wonderful new year! Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page interleaving text
Thank you for your message notifying me of this, I appreciate it. I was curious if the RFc allows the copying of comments (using the green quote font) and then interspersing comments amongst that text? (in a manner similar to a proofreader)? I understand that the integrity of the comments is important. If I were to copy their comments but without their sigs and then intersperse my comments amongst this copied text (with the green font) would that be ok? Allow me to use an example. Because I'm a visual learner, if I could just paraphrase for a moment in the subheadings below the right and the wrong way just to make sure I understand. If you could let me know if I'm correct, that would help a lot with my understanding of the rule. Here it goes:

Example A (incorrect way)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, amet epicurei consetetur nec id, duo alia instructior no. ~ ~

Pri impetus consetetur te, et dicam senserit vix. Graece verear id mea. ~  ~
 * All mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Example B (correct way)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, amet epicurei consetetur nec id, duo alia instructior no. Pri impetus consetetur te, et dicam senserit vix. Graece verear id mea. ~
 * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, amet epicurei consetetur nec id, duo alia instructior no.
 * But I can come along and split different parts of their edit request into pieces in order to address each piece and that would be ok. ~
 * Pri impetus consetetur te, et dicam senserit vix. Graece verear id mea.
 * Because I am allowed to intersperse comments amongst quoted text on the talk page ~

So in this way, the issue is not interspersed text, since we can see that this still occurs in both example A and B, where text is still interspersed. This means the issue is the integrity of the COI editors post, which my reviewreader marks admittedly damage and make slightly unreadable. Perhaps there is a third option:

Example C (possible compromise)
Please see Talk:Geneva_Business_School for this example. In that post, my response consisted of the following elements:
 * 1) A quotebox, per your suggestion.
 * 2) The entire edit request proposal copied and then placed inside the quotebox, removed of all signatures from the COI editor.
 * 3) Within this quoted text, I added my reviewreader marks which explained to the requesting editor my concerns and/or changes made to the article. In this way, the original edit request was unaltered (which I believe was the purpose for the rules set down within the RFC you mentioned) The new quoted text from me becomes my post entirely, allowing me to edit as I see fit, according to the talk page rules, and the original concatenation of the talk page (post, reply, post, reply, and so on, and so forth) remains unaltered.

If you could, at your earliest convenience, take a look at these examples and offer any feedback — it would be most appreciated. Thank you  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * See my response, just below, to Robert McClenon as an example of one way I think your Example B should work (as I think you are intending, above). Your Example C also mostly works. So long as you're not interspersing your text among the other editor's original posting, I think that it's fine. My only concern with C is that I think that it's still hard for a third party to parse out what's yours and what's the other editors, but with the original post still intact above it, it's much easier. My problem with C largely comes from not easily being able to figure out what the various colors of underlining are supposed to indicate. It's easier if all the original editor's text is in one color and the responses in another. C might also be seen by some people as simply being a bit over-elaborate and possibly causing them to confuse the medium with the message. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

DRN Comments
First, I am a little uneasy that it seems that there isn't much volunteer help at DRN. I haven't seen volunteers come in to take disputes, and I haven't seen volunteers respond to my questions at the talk page. Do you think that I am being a little too impatient, or do you think that some encouragement to volunteers to participate is in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will also comment that some of the cases that are getting filed have a large number of editors and/or a very expansive case scope. I don't think that cases with a very large number of editors are likely to work well at DRN, and may need to get sent directly to formal mediation. I also don't think that cases with a very broad or poorly defined case scope work well at DRN, because it might take days to a week even to define the case scope, and that such cases maybe also are better for formal mediation. (However, you may have noticed one case where the filing editor had explicitly stated that they were planning to use DRN and then to use RFM, where they were editing against consensus. You may recall that both Nihlus and I had to warn them that they were wasting time.)  Am I correct that in such cases it may be reasonable to try to divert the dispute from DRN to RFM without first spending two weeks in moderated discussion?

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First, I'm sorry for being slow to respond, I've been traveling and I hate to edit from my iDevices any more than is absolutely required.
 * RMcC said: I am a little uneasy that it seems that there isn't much volunteer help at DRN. I haven't seen volunteers come in to take disputes, and I haven't seen volunteers respond to my questions at the talk page. Do you think that I am being a little too impatient, or do you think that some encouragement to volunteers to participate is in order?
 * I wish I had a solution for this. The number of volunteers seems to come and go and there have been periods in the past when I was just about the only one participating at DRN. I've thought about posting at Village Pump, but I've always been loath to do so for risk of attracting hat collectors. Folks who are really interested in doing DR seem to find there way to DR. One thought: You might post a note at the 3O talk page. I seem to recall that at one time we even put up an editnotice (that might not be the right term) that showed up at the top of everyone's watchlist soliciting for more volunteers, but only received a very small and short-lasting response. I don't have a good answer. I can suggest that if you ever really find yourself in a bind that you might solicit some of the past more-active volunteers to at least come in and help on a temporary basis. Most will beg off, but if you can even just get one or two then it can lighten the load.
 * RMcC said: I don't think that cases with a very large number of editors are likely to work well at DRN
 * I don't mean for this to be glib, but cases with a large number of editors aren't likely to work well anywhere. At the end of the day, however, it's really about the dispute. Some are complicated some are simple; if the dispute breaks down into two or three factions then DRN may be able to work it out. I guess what I'm really saying is that I'd hate to see DRN reject cases merely because there are a lot of parties without any further consideration of whether DRN might do some good or not.
 * RMcC said: cases with a very broad or poorly defined case scope [don't] work well at DRN
 * Agreed as well.
 * RMcC said: and that such cases maybe also are better for formal mediation
 * No doubt: MEDCOM is more suited for complicated cases and most multi-party cases and broad-scope cases fit that bill. What I'm finding at MEDCOM, however, is that much of the time we can't get sufficient buy-in even with just a 50% agreement requirement (in the past it required unanimous agreement).
 * RMcC said: Am I correct that in such cases it may be reasonable to try to divert the dispute from DRN to RFM without first spending two weeks in moderated discussion?
 * One of the original purposes of DRN was for it to serve as a clearinghouse as well as a DR venue per se. Simple cases were to be handled there, more complicated ones referred on to MEDCOM or RFC. So, yes, it's entirely appropriate (especially since I, as MECCOM chair, don't hesitate to kick too-simple cases back to lower DR Smile.png). Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're curious what a visual learner might say to where the volunteers are...This is what I get when I do a Wikipedia search for DRN (no joke):


 * 1) Disaster Resource Network
 * 2) Dragonfly Recording Network
 * 3) a vowelless word in the Czech and Slovak language
 * 4) the IATA designation for Dirranbandi Airport
 * 5) New Order coverband Dark Room Notes
 * 6) the KH-10 Dorian reconnaissance satellite

You see the problem?

How are people supposed to volunteer for it, when even Wikipedia don't know about it?

If you look close enough in a place where people dont usually look just above the search results, you'd find:


 * "On Wikipedia, DRN may refer to"  (displayed in italics, the exact font that search results don't come in)


 * Bold hyperlinked and
 * Impossible to miss

(these bold hyperlinks above, that is where people's attention goes to, and not a single one of them points to WP:DRN. And so it goes, for a volunteer's search for DRN)

If you ask me, nobody comes because nobody knows. Or it's because the first letter D stands for Dispute, and dispute is never a good selling point. People usually like to watch dispute, they don't usually like to moderate it. Which is a shame, because when someone can bring two parties together to see the light beyond dispute, it's beautiful. Take care.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   21:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a trip back to the original well is called for: WikiProject Dispute Resolution. I noticed that the original project has simply ben abandoned. WikiProject Editor Retention seems to still have activity, although still rather slow.
 * I would also suggest starting to make requests for DRN assistance from the other notice boards, even at both admin boards. People who have interest in those boards would likely be interested in the DRN board. Also...perhaps it is time to discuss changing formats for DRN.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but as someone who's helped out in the past, is there a way to get the DRN dashboard to show up someplace where I can easily see it without going to DRN? I have DRN on my watchlist, but I typically just see updates to existing cases these days, and I don't have the amount of free time I used to have, so I don't go digging any further. Having the dashboard more readily available would at least enable me to more quickly see whether there might be cases I think I can tackle. I did an admittedly cursory search at WP:DRN just now but didn't see a way to add the dashboard there. DonIago (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, Don, have you tried on your user or talk page? There are a couple of params to make it smaller or collapsed. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! That's glorious! Unless I overlooked it, maybe the main DRN page could have a mention of this somewhere? I'm pretty sure I have seen it referenced before, but as noted, didn't see it when I quickly reviewed the main page. Thanks TM! DonIago (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a line to the bottom of the table to say how to get it:


 * What do you think? Too much? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could the text be red, blinking and 24-point? Thanks. :p But seriously, looks good to me! Maybe regularly updated instead of constantly. DonIago (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Done! Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I gather you closed my case. Would you mind explaining why? Is it your regular practice to close cases with no explanation? That doesn't strike you as rude and dismissive?

This one anonymous editor is still doggedly making the same edits over and over, and I keep having to revert them. At some point, because the other editor apparently has a personality disorder which makes it impossible for him to take no for an answer, I'm probably just going to give up and let him have his way. Is that how Wikipedia content disputes are supposed to be settled? Just wear down the editor who has a life outside Wikipedia? Or hope that the dispute gets hopelessly lost in a tangle of godawful interfaces that no normal human being could possibly navigate? What's the point of having standards if they're not upheld?

I've been editing Wikipedia in good faith now for several years. I do my research and I cite my sources. I don't generally make trouble or take up a lot of administrative time or resources. Now I'm having a problem with another editor and I can't get anyone to help. I'm on the verge of quitting in disgust. --MopTop (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I did explain in the box at the top of the closed request. I said, "DRN does not accept cases pending in other dispute resolution processes or procedures. RFC's are such a procedure and ordinarily run for 30 days from the date that they are filed so as to allow the community to take its time to respond. If the RFC does not produce a result, the dispute may be refiled here or at some other dispute resolution venue." If there was something about that explanation that you did not understand, I'd be happy to try to explain it further. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. It's not that I misunderstood your explanation the first time around, it's that I never saw it. The only notification I received was a link to a discussion on your talk page, in which my name had come up, and I saw a little table indicating the status of my case was closed. Maybe you're so used to this interface that you don't realize how byzantine it is. --MopTop (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MopTop - I am another volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have a few comments.  First, I see that the other editor is an unregistered editor (IP address).  The usual way to deal with stubborn unregistered editors is to request semi-protection of the article, and administrators will normally do this.  Second, it isn't helpful to say that an editor has a personality disorder (even if they do, in which case saying so is a personal attack).  Third, the case wasn't very well filed, but I realize that filing a case at DRN can be confusing.  Fourth, because the case was messily filed, I had a very hard time finding the RFC, but I did find it.  Other editors said that the RFC is poorly worded, and I agree.  Please take their advice and restate the RFC.  If you want help in formulating a neutral RFC, ask me for help.  Fifth, I suggest requesting semi-protection.  (I know.  I said that before.)  It is the usual way to deal with stubborn unregistered editors, and it works reasonably well.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TransporterMan - Sixth, I will take a look at the filing instructions and see if two points are made clearly enough. The first is, once again, that DRN doesn't take an issue when there is an open RFC.  The second is that semi-protection is the usual way to deal with a stubborn unregistered editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon - Thank you so much for that very helpful reply. I would love some help with the wording, as I'm recovering from the flu and feeling more than a little grouchy (not that it shows, I'm sure). I will also ask to have the page semi-protected. --MopTop (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one note: I concur that page protection is a good path for dealing with a misbehaving IP editor, but it's not a proper means of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. I'm not implying that this particular case is one or the other, just making the distinction in the abstract. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 00:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mediation for Panzer Ace
Thanks for looking at that mediation - in the end, the issue was worked out on the page just before you closed it, and I didn't get a chance to close the mediation. Apologies, hope it didn't take up too much time - Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Two Disputes
Two of the three just-filed disputes are complicated and unfortunate. On the one about the region in the Caucusus that I don't want to try to spell, I think the filer will do better to use an RFC, because they already requested formal mediation, and their request was ignored, so it is likely to be ignored at informal mediation. On the one by a new user, they had the bad luck to make their edit at a time that there was also vandalism or trolling. They weren't accused of sockpuppetry, but their feelings are hurt. I have tried briefly to advise them that it wasn't personal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, I concur on both counts. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
We have had three unpleasant disputes filed recently.

1. Transylvanian Peasant Revolt. I asked whether the editors wanted moderated discussion in which article content could be discussed. One of them said that his assessment was that there was a behavioral issue. Another editor, understandably, replied. There may be a behavioral issue, but considerable experience is that discussing editor conduct is not likely to resolve a conduct issue and may distract from resolving content, while discussing content only may resolve the content issue. I am still waiting to see if the editors really want to discuss article content. If they want to discuss conduct, they will go to WP:ANI, and many ANI threads are closed inconclusively, with warnings or no consensus.

2. The National Memo. The filing party was a paid editor. The two volunteer editors didn't want to discuss the labeling. One of them may be a literary critic or a professor, who said that two characterizations are hermeneutically identical and semiotically indistinguishable. I closed that thread. I don't want to do the dirty work of letting the publisher of a blog decide how Wikipedia labels the blog.
 * It's getting worse. The paid editor is trying to change the wording of the article in order to be a better advertisement for their blog (and Wikipedia is not for advertising), and is having difficulty with tools, and is spending a lot of time of volunteer editors requesting help, and has been warned.  Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

3. Malayalam. The filing party has requested assistance with a dispute with an editor who has just come off a 6-month topic-ban. I hope that we can resolve the dispute collaboratively but am not optimistic.

Yuck.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thank you, I appreciate it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If You Wanted to Help You Had the Opportunity
Yet you did not.

Since rather than do the constructive thing we have, instead, a paragraph of weak and factually incorrect excuses, allow me to correct, as was explained, and now re-explained thrice, collaboration and cooperation was refused. As I noted in my reply on my own Talk:

You, or anyone else in your curiously titled "Mediation Committee," could have taken helpful and constructive action, action, if I prov'd an unkind man, I would have noted would have taken far less time than it took to compose the above excuses to avoid rendering assistance kindly requested.

To which I am I afraid form dictates that I must remind would have also taken far less time than the production of the weak and factually wrong excuses offered below.

As I previously wrote here:

"This concludes this correspondence, which I did not initiate, but I terminate with satisfaction."

TheDoctorX (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is built around a model of collaboration and cooperation. Seeking dispute resolution without first discussing a matter flies in the face of that model. Such discussions take place on the article talk page or, occasionally but less optimally, on user talk pages. You have not made one single effort to discuss the matter in dispute in any of those places. To say that the other editor has refused discussion without you making one single request for discussion, even in edit summaries (which would not have been enough, but it at least would have been something), is disingenuous at best. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Guidance - DRN Cases Involving Paid Editors
There are two cases currently pending at the dispute resolution noticeboard that raise the same question. That is whether and to what extent DRN may be used by declared paid editors who are, in accordance with the policies on paid editing, requesting to have edits made, and their requests are not being accepted, and now they want neutral editors to intervene. Of course, in one sense, the non-filing editor in each case is neutral in the sense that they are not being paid. So the real question is to what extent it is appropriate for paid editors to request that volunteer editors mediate disputes involving paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't like paid editing, and I don't want to assist paid editors. The official policy is sort of ambiguous as to whether volunteer editors are supposed to assist paid editors who request assistance (to reward them for being declared rather than undeclared paid editors) or whether we can simply ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me answer your second question first: If you don't want to perform DR services for disputes involving paid editors, you are absolutely under no obligation to do so. All of us, even those of us who work at MEDCOM, are volunteers and none of us are required to do anything that we do not care to do. Indeed, if you have strong feelings against a particular class of editors, such as paid editors, I would argue that you have an obligation to not provide mediation or moderation to them and, at the very least, to be very self-reflective and cautious about whether your administrative decisions or actions are being influenced by bias and to avoid or terminate those actions if there is the slightest risk of bias. If your choice (or obligation) not to provide mediation, moderation, or administrative services in a particular case results in that case being rejected or removed for lack of a volunteer to take the case, that's no default on your part (unless one of the situations in the footnote applies, and in those cases you probably discharge your duties by asking another volunteer to do it).
 * That brings us around to the first question, whether paid editors may use DRN or other DR processes. So long as they are permitted to edit Wikipedia, as they are now, and have satisfied any obligations they may have of disclosure then they are not foreclosed from using any of Wikipedia's processes, including DR processes. That's particularly true when they are following best practices for paid editing by limiting their edits to making and discussing edit requests (with or without use of the template) on article talk pages.
 * Of course this is all just about DR relations with COI/paid editors. It does not refer to the case where COI editing may have strayed over into areas which are, in fact, prohibited, such as COIBLP or disruptive POV-pushing. Those are conduct matters outside the scope of content DR. I hope this helps, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TransporterMan - Thank you. First, that means, for the time being, that no one will handle cases filed by paid editors, since there aren't any other volunteers who will actually mediate.  Second, when I opened the Broadridge dispute, I didn't initially realize that it was one of these paid editor cases.  However, it is just a case where I don't have a clue because they are going into so much policy detail that they have lost the forest and the trees for counting the leaves on the trees.  Third, with Iteris, as I have said, it appears that the issue is that the paid editor wants the article rewritten to their specifications, and thinks that the volunteer editor is stonewalling or slow-rolling, when it looks to me just like the paid editor is asking too much.  Fourth, I think that there are a class of parasitic white-hat paid editors.  They think that because they have fulfilled their obligation to declare their COI, they can ask the volunteer editors to dance for them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)