User talk:TransporterMan

---

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

RfM notice to participants

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

I've responded on the mediation page. Thanks for the heads' up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the issue. If there was an isue with the formatting of the list, then I would suggest either that the filing instructions be clarified so that filers can format the list correctly, or that the bot be reprogrammed, or that filers be instructed to notify the other parties manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RfM/U.S. -- "other issues", agreed parties

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

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

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

Thanks for the reassurance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

'Evan Blass' dispute resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello TransporterMan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, Mhannigan (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Mele Kalikimaka

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

Happy New Year TransporterMan!

Happy New Year!

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

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

Alevism

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

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

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

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

Hi.

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

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

DRN needs assistance

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

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

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

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

Rejection of request for mediation

Do you have any suggestions as to how I might proceed with this given the legal threats? If a mediator is unavailable, how do I navigate this? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Help with DRN process

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

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

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

1. It is perfectly acceptable for you to add additional parties. Indeed, since the purpose of DRN is to bring all editors involved in a dispute into mediation with a view towards achieving consensus, not much can be effectively done without them. Generally only editors who have been involved in the talk page discussion are included, but that's your call. Be sure to notify the editors who you add. You can add {{subst:drn-notice|Battle of the Somme}} — ~~~~ to the bottom of their user talk page to do that (edit the entire talk page and add that at the bottom of the existing text of the page without a title, it will create a title and new section for itself) or write a customized note.
2. No, you must manually create their response sections in addition to notifying them.
3. Yes, just make an opening statement in that section.

@Keith-264: Just making you aware of this conversation.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I mentioned Thomask0 because the other people seemed secondary but if he'd rather have them along I don't mind. I thought Buckshot's suggestion was a quick way out of a dead end too. (Have I overestimated Thomask0's experience as a Wikieditor?)Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I Give Up

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

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

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

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