User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

What do you suggest doing?

Hey TransporterMan ,

Some weeks ago you approached me on my talk page regarding my objections to how Wiki is administered. Here's another case where, to be honest, I'm rather frustrated as I know how it will end. There's a user making a lot of small, low-quality changes to one of the articles I'm concerned with. It almost seems like they're "racing" to complete them, and the resulting text is poorly sourced, and even self-contradicting. They refuse discussing their sourcing or sourcing practices, but keep insisting the sources being valid (and reverting my relevant edits) despite my reviewing of their sources and finding that many of them either are completely unrelated (don't even mention what the article claims), or even contradictory. It's not the first time they've done it, and not the first editor in that article to do so. The article in question has an element of national pride and myth, and that editor expressed her allegiance to the myth several times before. Now, this is clearly an "editor conduct" issue, and not something that's focused on the content (especially as it's clearly laid out in the talk page), but knowing what I know about how ANI is conducted, they're not likely to touch it for some bogus reason, and would probably refer it to one of the "content dispute" board*. Add to this just plain literacy - I've seen more then once how some admins just don't seem to keep up with a talk page discussion - and the requirement for "diffs" above all else, including the history pages themselves (which also seem to be hard to follow for some) - and I'm pretty sure that if I went there and said "this editor is refusing to discuss my objections and keeps blocking my edits" I'll get the same (metaphorical) hollow looks I've seen them give before. What I probably won't get is a warning to the user to discuss their changes before making them, and just that. It's a simple, reasonable request to make, isn't it? It shouldn't pose a problem in any well-administered system,** but what are the chances of it passing here?

* They might frame it as a "content issue" merely for appearing on the talk page rather than on the main namespace, but the truth is it's a "talk page conduct issue".
** Compare with corporate / academic / military / other day-to-day setting. When you complain to a store manager that one of their clerks was impatient, do they ask you to quote the specific policy forbidding the clerk from being so? Do they suggest sanctioning the clerk (say, paycheck deduction), or just say "I'll talk to them"?

François Robere (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I kind of feel like what you think ANI would say. While there may be some indication that there is some ideology involved, it's pretty much a run-of-the-mill content dispute that might be benefited by content dispute resolution. If you want to pursue the "won't discuss" conduct element, however, the way to do it is to pick out one very specific issue at a time — e.g. not a bunch of sources but one particular source — to try to discuss. That way, the failure to discuss can be more easily identified. I wonder if a well-published RFC or more likely series of specific RFC's might well be in order so as to draw in additional editors. Either way, it's tough, I agree, and sometimes you just have to grind away and go two steps forward for one back. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's something that ought to be easier. No reason for things to be so difficult around here, even in touchy subjects like this (speaking of which, "indication" is an understatement).

Would you support a change to WP:EDITWAR that states that a failure to discuss repeated reversals can constitute "edit warring" regardless of 3RR? The fact that a form of behavior, that can recur in any article, is deemed a "content dispute" indicates that there's a serious lacuna in Wikipedia's policies (indeed, this is one group of behaviors that isn't addressed anywhere, AFAIK, despite its disruptive potential).

Would you support a policy establishing an "admin opinion" board, analogous to WP:3O in the "dispute resolution" realm, that would allow users to ask for non-binding admin opinion/warning without going through the whole ANI process?

François Robere (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:DRN Closure

I'm hoping you can provide me with some suggestions for how to proceed, re Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#WP:Deletion_review/Log/2018_April_17. I'm not seeking review of the most recent DRV closure per se. I'm seeking a review of the entire saga, beginning with the original deletion. The article was wrongfully deleted to begin with, and nobody seems to care about the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have a hard time believing that there is no recourse when the editorial process goes so completely off the rails. Do I need to submit an RfC?

Here are just a few errors that have contributed to the situation:

1. Many editors argued erroneously that certain sources were not WP:RS because they were not neutral. But WP:RSCONTEXT specifically says that the reliability of a source depends upon the context, i.e. what purpose the source is being used for.
2. With respect to my DRV, none of the editors endorsing the original deletion gave any consideration to the manifestly unbiased sources I presented.
3. Many editors erroneously interpreted "significant coverage" vis a vis WP:SIGCOV to mean coverage in a significant source. That's clearly not how significant coverage is defined in WP:N.
4. Many editors mistakenly argued that "significant coverage" requires the subject to be the main topic of the source in question. This is exactly the opposite of what WP:SIGCOV states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it 'does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
5. Nobody offered a relevant rebuttal to my argument that Gunter Bechly satisfies WP:Academic based on the citation rate of his scholarly publications. The citation rate of an academic's scholarly publications is one of the first examples mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes for satisfying criterion 1 of WP:Academic.
6. Finally, the closing admin of the recent DRV misinterpreted the consensus, relying upon sheer numbers without considering the merits of the concerns expressed by editors. WP:Consensus says

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote.' Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

None of the editors endorsing the original deletion gave any serious consideration to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They simply gestured at certain policies and guidelines without showing how they actually applied in this situation. Their concerns were completely illegitimate, and should have been ignored by the admin in making his decision.

Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no further suggestions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Does it not bother you that rules were violated in the course of an article being deleted?Snoopydaniels (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If I knew for certain it might or might not, depending on the circumstances. But I have no idea whether they were or were not, only your claim, and I frankly haven't even read that all that closely. We all choose our battles here, and I don't choose to become involved in this one. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator granted

After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
• The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
• Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Wiki is amazing Prakharraj1302 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what I did to deserve this, but thank you very much. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Requirement #9?

You rejected my request for mediation. What do I do now? I made a valid edit that has been repeatedly reversed by trolls. Plus you said something about #9 but I don't know what you're referring to. Help me participate properly in the process. I am being deleted unfairly. Please help!Houstoneagle (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

As linked in my closing notes on the mediation request page, the prerequisites for mediation (including #9) can be found by clicking here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC) PS: Houstoneagle, you ask what you do now. The main thing that needs to be accomplished is careful discussion on the article talk page. Take each of the sources to which you object in this edit and explain, in detail, one at a time, why under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that they should or should not be used as reliable sources. If someone responds to you making an argument how you are wrong, explain why that response is wrong, again including references and pointers to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Only talk about the content, do not talk about any other editor's motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, or anything about him or her, personally. If they respond with things like that about you, ignore it and stick to discussing the content. Go back and forth until either the subject is exhausted or you've reached a standstill. If an editor will not discuss, consider the advice given here. Since this is a source issue, if you're still at a standstill once you've thoroughly discussed it then consider asking any unresolved questions at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you're still stuck after that, then reconsider dispute resolution, but start at the lowest appropriate forum. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Recently closed DRN

You recently closed this DRN WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 166#Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Redirects on the basis that there was No response from other editor.

However, the other editor did not contribute on the basis that My reading of the big red warning ("Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread") that appears upon clicking "edit" at dispute resolution is that no one should respond to the initial posting until a volunteer has picked it up. I mentioned on the relevant talk page that this edict was unclear, but there's been no response diff. Link to DRN talk page message Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#edit notice.

I was wondering what you advise I do now. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to refile and renotify. You can cut and paste from the archived filing, but please do not just move it back because some of the code will be missing and it will confuse our bot. However, I would note that we've been doing this for years without any undue confusion over this point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I will do it in the next day or two. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

DRN, RFM, MEDCAB

Hi there,

I was just writing something about Wikipedia's DR processes and realized I wasn't really clear about a couple things. Also want to ping Robert McClenon, since he is also active in these matters.

Could you give me your take on the practical difference between RFM and DRN? DRN has designated volunteers. RFM has a Committee. But beyond that? Has the distinction changed over time? It seems like RFM has significantly waned in activity (2 cases accepted in the last 2 years). My sense is that DRN has also been used less as RfCs have become the more or less default formal consensus building process. What about WP:MEDCAB? Obviously inactive now, but how did it fit in? I'm not certain of the chronology and have only heard about it in passing mentions myself.

Thanks. Also, I opened a thread at WP:VPP about RFM you may be interested to participate in. These questions here are more for my personal edification. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites - DRN is characterized as a "lightweight" process for disputes that can normally be settled in one to two weeks. I have seen cases that took three or four weeks, but not months. RFM is a "heavyweight" process, and cases often do take months. There has been a Mediation Committee since the early days of Wikipedia, and it has always been a relatively formal procedure. When there was MEDCAB, it was then intended as a quicker and less formal procedure for mediation that the Committee. I will comment that both DRN and RFM decline most of the case requests for various reasons, including that editors haven't made a serious effort to resolve the issues by discussion at a talk page. Requests at DRN also get declined because they are conduct disputes, or for a variety of other reasons including cluelessness. DRN is not a binding consensus process, and RFC is a binding process, so that RFC is used to determine consensus, while DRN is used to resolve disputes between two to four editors by compromise. Maybe that answers some of your questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks. Given some similar issues and the relative inactivity of RFM, do you think it might make sense to basically merge them? I.e. to make DRN flexible to lightweight or heavyweight contexts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rhododendrites - No. I am not that knowledgeable about how the Mediation Committee works, other than having taken part in two cases and having seen that most requests don't get accepted, often because one of the editors, rightly or wrongly, doesn't agree to mediation. There are also special rules about formal mediation, such as that the proceedings of formal mediation are considered privileged. I don't think it would be easy to combine the two processes. What DRN should do is to refer some disputes to the Mediation Committee. However, part of the problem is that there aren't really that many difficult content disputes for which formal mediation is appropriate and where the parties are civil. That is, too many content disputes are compounded by having at least one of the editors be disruptive or uncivil, and that doesn't work for DRN and doesn't work for the Mediation Committee. I will let User:TransporterMan comment further. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This conversation has been copied to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_it_time_to_close_WP:RFM? because Robert has said here what I would've said there were I not late to the party. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan

Is it possible to remove Andrevan from the Mediation Committee? I see User:Beeblebrox did it here likely under IAR, but I see that there is a policy for this (though I wonder if there would be a problem of getting the required number of mediators to vote in time). --Rschen7754 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a course of action in mind to address this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTBURO (and WP:IAR) is sufficient here. Andrevan turned in all advanced permissions in the shadow of an arbcom case that obviously would have ended in him losing them anyway and is currently serving a block for socking and being unable to comply with a topic ban. He is basically the exact opposite of a trusted user and obviously should not be mediating anything regardless fo the committee’s internal policy. I don’t see a need for any process. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

First time dispute escalation advice

I reviewed the Dispute Resolution page, but I am unclear which path I should start with, so I'm looking for some advice. I believe I made changes to a non-fiction book article that comply with all the WP guidelines and policies. One editor essentially completely reverted my many changes with minimal or no edit summaries. I opened the conversation on the talk page about a week ago and stated my concerns and asked questions of that editor and another who has also reverted changes from other editor's that were similar to mine. They both responded with reasons for a few of the reverts on the basis of what I would summarize as they believe my changes were based on questionable medical science. I replied with explicit details to each of my changes stating the WP guidelines and policies that support my changes and refute their changes. I also requested an explanation for the other edit reverts they did not explain. The one editor who reverted my changes responded that both he and the other editor have been editing medical articles for more than 10 years and have already answered these questions in the past (supposedly for other editors but not me), so they were not going to explain their reverts.

Discussion at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Dressed_to_Kill_(book)#Questioning_the_application_of_WP:MEDRS_in_the_synopsis_section_of_an_article_on_a_book;_major_improvements_completely_wiped_out

Should I take this to DRN, RfC, Mediation, 3O or some other I didn't list?

Thanks so much in advance. I appreciate your volunteer efforts. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

With the number of editors involved, RFC would probably be the best choice, but a RFC which covers a lot of different points or which is excessive in length is probably doomed to fail, so a series of short ones is a better choice. Since each RFC runs for 30 days, be aware that it could take some months. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I boiled my change down to one thing to make the discussion easier on the talk page. I didn't get resolution, so I have created the RfC for the one change and so far I have 7 editors responding negatively. My new question is relative to WP guidelines and policies and this RfC. I have listed the specific WP guidelines that support my proposed change, but all 7 editors appear to be ignoring them and trying to cite other policies that they claim trump my listed policies. I have addressed each of their claims with the reason why my cited policies trump theirs, but they have not responded as to why theirs would trump mine. So at the end of this RfC, I assume my final inputs will be undisputed, but it will still be mostly "no" results to my proposal. I truly believe my changes are supported by the WP guidelines and I assume I would then escalate to Mediation to get a true impartial view of the guidelines in question around my proposal. Would you recommend something different? Thanks in advance again for your valuable time. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Let the RFC run for the full 30 days, then ask at WP:AN for it to be consensus-evaluated and closed. If the closure goes against you, dropping the matter is the best choice but if you want to go further DRN, not Mediation, should be your first choice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Music Sorter, User:TransporterMan - I personally do not recommend taking an issue to DRN after there has been an RFC. An RFC, if properly conducted and properly closed, is the sense of the community. I can't speak for other volunteers, but I won't try to mediate a case whose purpose is to "get a true impartial view of the guidelines" after the community has already done so. (If the RFC doesn't have much participation, re-publish it with more publicity rather than going to DRN or RFM.) If you think that the RFC wasn't properly closed, or should never have been closed at all because it was poorly stated, go to WP:AN to get the RFC overturned. I don't think that DRN should be used as a way to take exception to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, although the RFC has not yet been closed, my concern so far is that the majority of the comments have been ignoring the guidelines set up for creating unbiased book review articles. There appears to be some significant bias in the RFC responses that run against editor neutrality. I expected the overall community to recognize the guidelines for a book review article would take precedence over the apparent bias against the book, but the RFC does not seem to indicate that outcome. I will certainly wait until we properly close the RFC before taking any further steps. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Music Sorter - I have looked at the RFC. I haven't been involved in the case, and it doesn't require an admin closure, and I can perform a closure if requested, and my closure will indeed be that the consensus is against. I won't do the closure unless I am asked, and I don't think that you were asking. The question had been what to do if it is closed and if you disagree with the closure. I think that taking an RFC to DRN because you disagree with the result is a genuinely terrible idea, but I think that going to DRN when it is clear that consensus is against you is a bad idea in general, just a way that a contentious editor uses to try to continue to bludgeon the process. Don't take the issue to DRN. Now that I have advised you not to take it to DRN, I will refrain from closing it, but it certainly won't do you any good. Don't take the issue to MedCom. Either take it to WP:AN if you really think that the close was flawed because the closer should have super-voted, or recognize that you are in a minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan - As I said earlier, I think that going to DRN after there has been an RFC is a terrible idea. First, there will probably be too many editors for moderated discussion to be effective. (Unfortunately, maybe the filer may know this and hope that the opposing editors ignore them.) Second, if the other editors do take part, the filing party will be in the minority, and either will back down, or will filibuster. I also agree that going to MedCom after there has been an RFC is a terrible idea. It does appear that Music Sorter is proposing to go to Mediation to "get a true impartial view of the guildelines in question" by getting the mediator to act as arbitrator, and that isn't how mediation works. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

When I said what I said, above, I was speaking only procedurally and was really only making the point that if MusicSorter wanted to do anything after the RFC that it shouldn't come to the Mediation Committee first. If the RFC has been closed by, or could be closed by, an independent closer with a finding that consensus was reached, then there's really no dispute remaining. Everything here is decided by consensus and, if the consensus is opposed to policy then, depending on the particular circumstances, then ignore all rules may have created a local exception to policy. That presumes, of course, that the closing was valid; if there is some question about that then the procedure at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures should be used. On the other hand, if the closure is "no consensus" then moving forward to DRN is certainly an option. I realize I could've said all that better, above, and I'm sorry for my imprecision. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan - You have a valid point about an RFC that is closed as No Consensus. However, the question then is whether it had a small number of participants or a large number. A large number of participants doesn't work well at DRN. As I said once, it could be like trying to herd six cats, six dogs, and three rabbits. If there is No Consensus, it is generally better to resume inconclusive discussion on the article talk page, letting the dogs and cats and rabbits run around, than to try to herd them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Presentation

Good afternoon TransporterMan! I have spoken with you briefly before about collaborating together on some Wikipedia related programming. I wanted to see if you would be interested in talking on a panel next month at UT Arlington. Open Access week is held every October and I am putting a panel together to speak on diversity and inclusion on Wikipedia. I have a professor coming to talk about Wikipedia and Disabilities, I will be talking on HerStory, women on Wikipedia, and I am in need of a third panelist. It would be about a 30 minute slot, and we have screens/computers for presenting. You could talk about any project you have worked on related to inclusion or diversity, problems you have seen on Wikipedia related to the issue; It is fairly open. The panel will take place on Thursday (10/25/2018) from 10-11:30am. If you are interested can you email me at smdodd@smu.edu. If you know of someone else in the area would be interest please send them my way. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doddsam09 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How best to proceed?

Hello! Three years ago, you responded to my request for a third opinion on Talk:David_M._Cote#Third_Opinion, and gave what I felt was a very well-thought out and measured response. I've since been unable to gain any real traction with implementing the necessary changes (in part due to my COI). While I'm grateful for DGG's edits, I feel they missed the greater picture that you described. I later requested mediation between Philafrenzy (the editor who added the content) and myself, but he rejected that request. Another editor removed the content entirely, but Philafrenzy later restored it. I requested an edit to move the content to Honeywell instead, by that request was deferred with the placement of a split and merge template. Would it be appropriate to submit an RfC to Biographies in order to foster more discussion? It's been three years, and I would just like to reach a real consensus on the issue. I'd appreciate any insight you might have, especially as you're so involved with dispute resolution and mediation.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not familiar with mediation terms and processes but need help to proceed

This concerns the WP article on McGill University, particularly the section titled "Notable People." Like any other WP university article, including those for Harvard University, Yale University, University of Copenhagen, and hundreds of other universities, this section contains names and images about McGill's famous alumni/graduates. However, two editors -- and only these two -- have been deleting all these images on the pretext that WP is not a photographic album and that these images are mere "decoration" and "puffery." And yet they do not want to apply the same subjective judgements and made-up policies to any other university on WP since practically every other one has so many images of their notable alumni. These two editors created a section on the Talk page of McGill University but it has become useless since they have chosen on their own to unilaterally to delete all the images in the section on "Notable People" for McGill University only. I have attempted to work it out with them but they refused to discuss at all. Specifically, they cannot and do not wish to explain why they do not do the same deletions for other universities. We need a formal mediation process since these two editors are controlling the process, deleting the images only for McGill University even before the issue is can be discussed by others, resolved and a consensus is reached. No one else is joining the Talk page. Please help set up a formal mediation process, as I am not familiar with WP terms and technical symbols for mediation and resolution of this issue. More importantly, there is no WP policy or rule to address the real question here: What should be the policy governing the images of notable alumni posted on university articles on WP if they are already established clearly as notables (presidents, prime ministers, Nobel Prize winners, Rhodes scholars, etc.)? Thanks.Tansyderby (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with your opponents. The policy discouraging such galleries is WP:GALLERY and, even if that weren't the case, it's a solidly established principle here that just because something is done one way in one article establishes no precedent for it being done the same way in another article, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The proper solution here isn't to add it to the McGill article, but to evaluate the propriety of the gallery in those other articles. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

MedCom is closed

As former chairperson of MedCom, I am notifying you that the RfC on whether to close the Mediation Committee has been closed as "disband". ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

BTS DRN

Thank you for closing. I wasn't sure whether I should close, because I wasn't sure whether the RFC pre-empted all discussion at DRN, or only the particular subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert, no thanks necessary. I can see that perhaps being an issue in some cases, but what was brought to DRN in that case,

"wearing Nazi insignia, celebrating the atomic bombing of Japan, and posing for promotional photos at the Holocaust Memorial. They've been highly criticized by the Simon Wiesenthal center and numerous media outlets"

is the same issue that the RFC is about once you take a look at the actual edit in question and consider that the RFC is about

"the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center made an announcement about BTS ... [t]he news was reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more."

That announcement by the Wiesenthal Center, as stated in the disputed edit diffed above, was that the band was

"Wearing a T-shirt in Japan mocking the victims of the … A-bomb ... as well as wearing Nazi-style hats featuring the symbol of the Death's Head units – SS organizations that administered the Nazi concentration camps."

That only leaves out the Holocaust Memorial bit mentioned in the DRN filing, but according to the Guardian article linked in the disputed edit, that allegation was part of the Wiesenthal Center announcement. It would thus seem to me that the RFC and the DRN application was about the exact same "particular subject" the RFC is about in this case. Do you see it differently?

In general, however, I think the RFC filing ought to preempt the DRN filing unless they are two unrelated disputes about the same article. Even then, I'd probably try to encourage the parties to do the whole thing at one venue or the other, not both. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC) PS: Do you know why I think that RFC is the "higher" DR process? The high-level reason is that it invites the entire Wikipedia community into the resolution of the dispute, but a more practical reason is that one or the other ought to be closed and we can close a DRN filing but can't insist on an RFC being closed just because the DRN case was filed first. — TM

MedCom 2

I like your idea of a re-worked MedCom in which participation is effectively required (it can't be literally required – even at the ArbCom level, you're free to refuse to comment even in your own defense, and the case will proceed anyway). MedCom has always been pretty much useless because anyone being a pain in the ass was likely to refuse to go along with it, or just ignore the result. A workable, working MedCom would need to be like ArbCom: actual venue of last resort, able to adjudicate with a party in absentia, and with binding results (unless/until additional reliably sourceable facts are found or a policy change moots MedCom's decision, of course). We've needed something like that since day one. Personally, I think it would be of more utility than ArbCom if it were done right, since we have far more intractable content disputes than behavioral ones, at least that rise to last-resort level and aren't easily handled by RfCs. PS: Some other requirements for this to be viable are a) cannot be limited to two parties, b) cannot run screaming away from something just because it involves a "style" matter (a term with no clear and circumscribed meaning), both of which are problems that have stymied previous attempts to use some of our content dispute resolution methods.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

When you add in binding results what you're describing is content arbitration. Proposals for that have been floated several times since I started editing and have uniformly been rejected by the community. A few years ago, I started thinking through a process which would answer some of the concerns raised during those discussions — mainly a community-based process which would only bring in arbitrators if the community failed to come to consensus on the dispute — and got this far before I gave up because I didn't think that it would pass, partly because any process which will satisfy those concerns is going to be complex and complexity is, today, a death sentence for process proposals.

Also, just in passing, I've actually done content-arbitration-by-agreement-of-the-parties in one Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case where it worked quite well - kinda. I got everyone to agree that they would, in good faith, honor whatever decision I made in the dispute and end the dispute. The main disputant agreed, but then tried to finagle around my decision when it went against him and he got indeffed at ANI when he continued to argue his position, his violation of that agreement being accepted as one piece of evidence that he was editing disruptively. See this as a formalization of that idea, though I don't think that it has to be formalized since editors, being volunteers, can agree on just about anything they care to agree upon so long as it doesn't violate policy.

What I described at the recent MedCom RFC was something much more limited than content arbitration: Simply a requirement that parties to a dispute either participate in good-faith non-binding mediation or walk away from the dispute. Satisfying participation in good faith would probably require nothing more than showing up, making an initial statement of the dispute, and participating in one round of offer-and-response. (This is what's required in court-ordered pretrial mediation in the real world.)

Frankly, after working at Third Opinion, helping start and working at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and working at MedCom for almost a decade, I'm of the opinion that the single most effective dispute resolution process that we have (or have had) is 3O. The vast majority of DR cases involve actual or effective newcomers and they're more than willing to capitulate a dispute if a neutral party other than their opponent weighs in with an opinion.

Finally, I'm somewhat disheartened and bummed/burnt out at the moment. I'm going to ping Steven Crossin and AGK, two of the most stalwart and thoughtful DR creators/thinkers, to look at this discussion and see if there's a torch that they might want to take up. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure this is disappointing for you, but I do want to commend your grace under the circumstances. --Rschen7754 02:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Steve here (was pinged). For what it's worth, I've long thought about the idea of some form of binding content DR. I really only see that this has a place in article title disputes, and penned something some time ago (e.g. WP:BRFC). While the idea of other types of binding content DR has its merits, I don't see it ever gaining traction with the community. However, my above idea might. I also think there should be a point in content DR where people that are stonewalling either agree to participate in meaningful DR, or be excluded from the topic area altogether. Steven Crossin 05:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm in a "works for me" frame of mind about all of the above, as a general approach. We obviously have many, many disputes, lots of them years-running, so it would be useful to have anything (without bad side effects) that helped bring some of them to a close.

To clarify what I was getting at in my OP about mediation processes generally refusing to take up "style" matters: It isn't so much about style as applied at an article, but disputes over the style guidelines' wording. We've been left with a vacuum, where ArbCom will not take an MoS (or AT, or CITE – "style" broadly) case – other than "are people being uncivil?", which they'll take regardless of topic or locus – because they deem it to be a content dispute, an internal one. Meanwhile, the WP:DR processes will not take it either because they deem it not a content dispute, but some kind of internal "legislative" matter. This is one of the reasons some style disputes take so long to resolve and get so out of hand. E.g., dealing with MoS's most tendentious "slow-editwar" and "civil-PoV" pusher (of a bunch of extreme nationalistic crap) took almost a decade because there wasn't a venue for dealing with it until the diff pile of disruption was so high that AE and ArbCom had no choice but to stop their "talk to the hand, since this is a style squabble" act.

Aside: I've skimmed through BRFC, and while the rationale and framework of it makes sense to me as an overall approach, the article titles focus of it is effectively moot today. Undiscussed moves can be auto-reverted at WP:RM/TR, a pattern of disruptive undiscussed moves is sanctionable (even without disruptive intent), and re-re-re-RMing things tends to rarely change the name of the article (it mostly only works when new arguments/evidence are presented, often in response to internal WP:P&G changes, or shifts in the real-world facts, since prior RMs tend to be examined). Plus we have WP:MR. I've seen re-RMs that raised no new rationale get speedily closed, and also seen some "move-warriors" get banned from making moves. RM-closing admins (though probably not WP:RMNACs) also can impose moratoria of a year or more on re-proposing a failed RM if the community indicates weariness with it all. In theory, it would be nice if we could restrain "move churn" further, but in practice I don't think it would be doable. Too often the "consensus" to not move an article is a special-interest bloc vote canvassed up from a wikiproject to "protect" "their" article. Stamping such OWNership with a mark of mediated imprimatur would be counter-productive, and it's better to let the community have it's say, even if it's a re-re-re-say. And in cases like Hilary Clinton, the subject actually did veer around in her own usage, our sources going along with her, so the COMMONNAME was a moving target and actually needed some in-depth examination.

Full circle: I'm likely to be in favor of any "post-MedCom" approach, integrating approaches you've both outlined above. I especially like the idea that bad-faith participation in mediation is evidence for why sanctions are needed, and the idea could be taken a step further. I'm reminded of two incidents: 1) I opened a mediation request that was studiously neutral, laying out the concerns of both sides; it was commended by a mediator as a "this is how it should be done" exemplar. The other party accepted mediation, then used it as a forum for a wall of character assassination that wasn't substantively responsive to anything at all, and obviously was not working for resolution of the dispute. 2) I opened another mediation req. with someone else, and the other party didn't simply refuse it, but went into user talk to recruit a WP:TAGTEAM to escalate matters, and basically denigrated WP even having any form of mediation. Bad faith inside and outside the process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if you have a run at this at some point in the future TM. --WGFinley (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TransporterMan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Eric Laupot

If he makes any further efforts to use Wikipedia to self-promote his research (for which he is making grandiose claims), someone should request Extended-Confirmed Protection, limiting edits to reasonably experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've responded in depth on the editor's talk page. Let's see if this gives him some wiki-insight. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you as well. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi TransporterMan, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 19:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy Holidays and a Prosperous New Year to you and yours as well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks so much :), Take care, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 20:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Pme

You might be interested in using Template:Pme. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that existed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DRN

In future, if you feel like taking it upon yourself to give me advice, you might at least do me the courtesy of letting me know. Nobody has ever bothered to let me know about that DRN thread. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I did let you know by linking your username. That should have pinged you unless you have your pings turned off, but if you do that’s the risk that you take, not my responsibility. - TransporterMan (TALK) 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not have pings turned off, but did not receive a notification. You should know that pinging or linking usernames is not a reliable way of notifying someone. That is why DRN instructions explicitly say that editors must be notified on their talk pages. You didn't bother to check if that had been done. It is deeply concerning that someone wih your attitude should presume to issue advice and close discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

When a filiing should not have been made in the first place, such as in this case, it is closed even if the notices have not been given and that has been the practice there since the beginning of the noticeboard. If you have a concern about how the noticeboard is operated, propose a change on the DRN talk page. On the other hand, please avoid personal attacks. If you have a concern about my conduct, take it up at ANI. Any further discussion here along that line whatsoever will result in you being banned from my talk page and this discussion being removed. - TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

World Rally Dispute and User:Prisonermonkeys

Please see my closure of the World Rally dispute. As I explained, the filing party has a registered account but has lost their password, and is editing logged out. I have told them that they should instead create a new account and declare the connection. We don't need to deal with the unnecessary complication of shifting IP addresses when the shifting is unnecessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m fine with it under those particular circumstances (i.e. an editor who has a registered account but isn’t using it, for whatever reason). The fact that they grossly went over the character limit supports my feelings about that, too, and I might have closed the case for just that, though I would have probably warned them first if it was only that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

AN thread

that mentions you was filed. jps (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Convolution Talk Page

TransporterMan - Thanks for your help, time, comments, and recent input on the Talk page of 'Convolution'. Totally respected what you mentioned there. You taught us users what to do in a diplomatic and highly respectable way - which is definitely in the good spirits of Wikipedia. Everything will be fine over there now. Greatly appreciated. KorgBoy (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-reviewing the request

Following my request for 3O in TP of Women's rights in Iran, as the link illustrates, It is hard to accept user:LouisAragon as 3O. Is it possible another one gives the third opinion? Regards! Saff V. (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Third Opinion is only for disputes between exactly two editors. LouisAragon's entry into the discussion was a third opinion even if he did not intend it to be a Third Opinion under the Third Opinion project. In any event, three editors are now involved in the dispute and it no longer qualifies for an opinion under Third Opinion. If you wish additional dispute resolution, consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or make a Request for Comments, but in either case carefully read and follow the instructions at those venues before doing so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate for your advices!Saff V. (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

EOKA

Thanks for jumping in at EOKA's Talk Page. I am not very certain if the discussion can go on as the other user said: " But if you can't see where the problem is then I have nothing more to say to you.". The problem, according to his view, is that the material I am adding is POV. My answer is that it is what the RS is saying. I am afraid that the discussion is dead. Should I ask for help at 3rd opinion, or should I wait some more? Thanks. Cinadon36 06:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that another editor has joined in at the article talk page, the dispute no longer qualifies for Third Opinion. 3O is only available when exactly two editors are involved in the dispute. Consult the Dispute Resolution policy for additional dispute resolution options. Ordinarily, the next stop would be Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but you could jump straight to Request for Comments. Other editors are not required to participate at DRN if they do not care to do so and the case will be rejected if essential parties fail to participate. They're also not required to participate in an RFC but their position probably won't be considered if they don't, but note that RFCs generally run for 30 days. In either case carefully read and follow the instructions before filing. Finally, since this dispute is over whether your proposed edit is POV, before doing either of those things, you might ask for an evaluation at Point of View Noticeboard. Please note that all I've said here is merely procedural and I express no opinion about the merits of either party's position in the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate! Cinadon36 06:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that this would be a reliable source for the claim that Louise d'Artois died from typhus? : Brook-Shepherd, Gordon. (1991). The Last Empress – The Life and Times of Zita of Austria-Hungary 1893–1989. If Google Books is correct, this book likewise contains this information. I can't access this book itself, though. Thus, I don't know what its source for this information is.

Also, as a side question, you believe that The Month is an unreliable source, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Taken in the abstract - and in many cases, the Devil is in the details (and in whether there's something objectionable about the source that's not obvious or that there are better sources available) - it would appear to me that Life and Times would be a reliable source. It's certainly a reliable publisher. On the other hand, this point about that person seems to be minor (the important thing in that book would appear to be that they died, not so much how they died), so a source that focuses more on them in particular, rather than in passing, would be preferred. But this one ought to do until that one comes along. As for The Month I would, in general, agree that it looks more like an unreliable self-published house journal than a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, but it's a closer question and "reliable for what?" is always a relevant question. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

DRN

Do you DRN much anymore? MedCom gone, DRN I look at nowadays and....ergh. That's not what it was supposed to be when I started it...moderated discussion where no one can actually talk to each other. What's left here. 3O any good nowadays? Steven Crossin 08:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't do much DR any more except for bureaucratic housekeeping and, rarely, giving the odd 3O. Some would, of course, say that all my 3O's have been odd ;-) 3O does still seem to be reasonably robust, but Robert has carried DRN pretty much by himself for quite a while now with only the occasional new volunteer showing up for a couple of cases. Since he does the majority of the work, new volunteers probably think his style of moderation is the default one (but it's also kind of my style, too, since that kind of control is what I know from the real world). I've wondered if it might be of benefit to the encyclopedia to reopen MEDCAB, but just can't work up any enthusiasm to put in the effort. I'm also no longer online in a consistent, predictable way since I retired from my RW employment (and have our first grandchild, who we care for a couple of days a week) and am loath to undertake anything online that requires an ongoing commitment. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, good old MedCab. For me, I just don't personally like the rigid form of DR as a blanket rule. Sure, whack them with a stick and make them get in line if they misbehave during DR, but not at the start, gotta keep discussion free. I actually had a chat with kim bruning today (you probably don't recognise the name, but he was one of the originals of DR when I started. It's something I'd still like to do honestly, but I dunno if there's a place for me, and it, anymore. Steven Crossin 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Decided to {{sofixit}} and picked up a few DRN cases. Feels like the good ol' days! Steven Crossin 21:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TransporterMan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Crossin 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, TransporterMan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 12:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - your thoughts requested

Hi there. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_dispute_resolution_for_complex_disputes. As you've previously been involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your thoughts there, if you have time. As I am sending this to quite a few people, the text is somewhat impersonal :) Steven Crossin 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I emailed you thru Wikkipedia

I’m not sure how all this works. This is my first time at any of this. CMTBard (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're trying to recriot support in your campaign to add weasel phrases on vaccines and autism, that is a really bad idea. Really bad. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Guy:, just FYI he wasn't seeking any support for his position in your dispute with him, just some information about how Wikipedia works. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute, Draft:Cynthia Slater

Hello. I have left a dispute notice on the talk page of the DRF, as unfortunately I cannot access the form despite my preferences on affirmative. I would very much appreciate any help you might give on this matter. Thank you. Mr Kalm (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Answered here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)