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, unless it is marked with "(Not watching)", in which case it's just an informational posting and I am not watching your page and you will need to contact me here on this page if you want to discuss the message 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.

about your response for third opinion

First I want to thank you for giving a reply.

You asked me to try this

My suggestion would be for the one remaining editor to go ahead and make the edits in the article that they think appropriate and see if they're reverted; if they are then perhaps discussion can resume. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here

I already tried to edit the page and got reverted twice without the other editor to rejoin the talk page and I've already asked him to. So I am not sure about reasking for it. It would feel like if a personal attack against him. But I am not sure about calling an administrator for help because of

It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here

in the adminstrator's noticeboard. And I am not sure how they could solve the problem.

And I want to ask for another thing, I asked some of the editors (in their talkpages) who felt interested about the topic and maghreb history in general to give me their opinion about that topic. But no one gave me a reply even they didn't refuse my request. They just ignored it. You can check them in my contribution history. Was I wrong there ? Was it considered inapropriate so they ignored me ? If so I would write apologies for them and delete my reqiest from their talkpages.

But I really felt ignored by everyone. No one wanted to give me a reply neither those thir opinion one's nor the main editor in the discussion. So your reply really felt relieving for me and I appreciate that. Sss2sss (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Roll Call - Action Required

There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WT:Third opinion

Good points about the (overlooked) details for third opinions. But what did you mean by Since the demise of the Arbitration Committee[1]? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I meant the Mediation Committee. Fixed, thanks for the catch. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

MedCab

Saw your talk page post regarding MedCab and the post on the related page, and honestly your train of thought on the reason for reopening is in line with mine.

Honestly, I’ve not looked at DRN for some time, but it was designed to resolve rather simple, straightforward disputes, and my main rationale was that doing these on a noticeboard would create a many-to-many relationship between parties involved in the dispute and DR volunteers, to reduce the amount of cases at MedCab that would just sit there, but also reduce the burnout that can happen when a mediator handles a dispute single handedly.

But at this time, MedCom existed, a forum for content DR, and closing the somewhat redundant MedCab made sense. But then MedCom was closed, and we are now left with 3O (has its place, but really best suited for two party disputes on a single topic), RFC (honestly ugh, little to no structure and some topics people won’t comment on due to their area - think religious/ethnic/entrenched disputes, and still often related to a single issue) and then DRN (dont know how it’s been doing, but it’s supposed to be for straightforward quick disputes).

Which leaves a gap. Back last year I reopened a DRN thread regarding the article William Lane Craig and mediated it privately on a subpage of the article talk page, and while for me, the mediation ended up getting paused as real life got in the way, a lot of constructive work got done, and most of the article was rewritten with me guiding the editors to come to a consensus, and directed them at times based on policy (article was heavily biased in different sections of the article in both pro/anti language depending on the sections).

But I did this in that way because there was nowhere else to do it, and such I am 100% for reopening MedCab (though maybe in 2020, should we call it informal mediation? As much as I love MedCab ;-))

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how to approach this. I read over the discussion on closing MedCab on the MedCom talk page archives and one of the main reasons was it was redundant to MedCom, and MedCom was staying around. With MedCom closed, I think now is a good time. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC) @TransporterMan:...thoughts? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Steve, I do want to work on this, but I'm short on time at the moment. Maybe later today, but more likely will be a few days. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, ping me when you’re around :-) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For discussing Fourth Opinion at Village Pump with me! MrSwagger21 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

{{format linkr}}

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#{{format linkr}}.
Message added 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sanity Check, please

I would like to make sure that I haven't missed something with regard to a comment that was just made at DRN. It has to do in particular with Elon Musk, but it could apply to a lot of other disputes. The filing editor wrote: "How many Rfc's resulting in No Consensus are warranted before a Dispute resolution?" Have I missed something, or are some editors who want to try dispute resolution after No Consensus missing something, or perhaps being too optimistic that there is some way to tweak a consensus? I think we know what the community thinks, which is that it is split, and there is no consensus, and that trying to get a consensus by moderated discussion is just going to be more exhausting than either another RFC, or leaving it alone at No Consensus. I am not sure whether the filing editor thinks that maybe a moderator can actually break the deadlock, or whether the filing editor thinks that a Dispute Resolution would impose a decision. Have I missed something, or am I onto the fact that there really isn't going to be a consensus?

I recall this also happening with a music question, where there had been No Consensus, and someone didn't like that. No one likes No Consensus, but sometimes it may be the least dislikable result.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: First, sorry for the slow reply. I've been working on a home project for a few days and haven't had time to log in.

I'm sure you've seen me say that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result here at WP. I'd like to say that we ought to just say that further DR isn't possible after an RFC, regardless of outcome but, unfortunately, RFC's can fail (generally by timing out) in ways that though we presume no consensus are really the result of other deficits, the main one probably being an ill-formed request. Though no consensus can also be presumed in an RFC that just gets little or no response, even if well-formed, that's an awfully weak no consensus in my opinion in most cases. So, I guess that I'm saying that we ought not to reject DR requests simply because they're following a no-consensus RFC. I don't like setting rules for handling DRN cases, but for me I'd first make damned sure all the "real" disputants were signed on to the DRN case and willing to negotiate. If any are absent or reluctant, I'd be very tempted to shut down the request as futile. And even if all necessary parties are on board, my first question to each of them might be "what do you think that we can do here?" and unless there is a glimmer of hope I still might not move forward. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your suggestions. I will do as you suggest, and wait, (again). I had previously tried in good faith to remove the offending quotes the user complained about. Is it normally appropriate to drive-by "tag" an article, and then, when asked repeatedly, refuse to give specific suggestions on what would allow that user to stop edit-warring the tag back in place against multiple other users? Right cite (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Since I encountered this at the Third Opinion page while working there as a volunteer, I'd prefer not to opine about matters connected with it. Let me suggest that since you're still a newcomer that this would be an excellent question to ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse, a forum created just for folks like yourself. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks very much, I'll check it out! Right cite (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, have you analyzed the context of my Third Opinion request? I don't think there is "insufficient discussion". The whole discussion can be read on these three talk pages that I mentioned and it has over 60,000 bytes: Talk:Master/slave (BDSM)#Lead image, Talk:Outline of BDSM#Lead image, Talk:Animal roleplay#Lead image.

That user was prevented in the first two articles because there was a consensus against his authoritarianism. But in the third article no one wrote anything and it's been one month that he does not answer me anymore in the Talk page. What should I do? He doesn't answer anymore, I can't ask for third opinions and I can't go back to doing the correct editing even though the editor is no longer participating in the discussion? gabibb2 ^✉ 04:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see that until after I had initially removed the listing, but when I did see it I restored the listing (though I removed your signature since it wasn't supposed to be there to begin with, per the 3O instructions). So you may still get a 3O. But here's the problem that you face: If the discussion at those other articles makes up for the lack of discussion at Talk:Animal_roleplay, then all the other editors that took part in those discussions may arguably be "counted" in determining whether 3O's rule that only two editors be involved has been satisfied. I almost did not restore the listing for that very reason, but since I'd already messed it up once I decided not to risk messing it up again. But saying that the other discussion ought to count for satisfying the "thorough discussion" requirement but the other editors in those discussions shouldn't be considered for satisfying the "only two editors" requirement seems very much like having your cake and eating it, too, though I'll let some other 3O volunteer figure out whether that's the case. As for the other editor not participating in the discussion there are two ways to overcome that: Delete the 3O request and file a RFC to invite other editors into the discussion, in which case your opponent must either join in or mostly not be heard or, alternatively, follow DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned the other two Talk pages because all three Talk pages have the same context: I changed the lead image to follow lead image guidelines. The same user disapproved that I changed the image that he likes, so he reverted my revisions in all three pages. He only argued that I cannot change images without asking on the Talk page, so I decided to create a new section on those Talk pages. There were editors participating in the first two talk pages, which prevented that user from imposing his personal preferences above Wikipedia guidelines (so far he has shown an interest in images with naked and submissive women, while me and the other editors only suggested better quality images that better follow the guidelines). But no editor commented in the third article, so I didn't know what to do.

Thank you very much for your response. If no one provides a third opinion over the next week, I will try the RFC. gabibb2 ^✉ 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Grace of Monaco

By asking for a third opinion on her a.k.a. I was simply trying to avoid another nasty confrontation, of which there have been so many over the years, with the user who reverted me there on that issue. In saying this, I do not mean to place blame on either of us for all those confrontations. Just wanted to explain my fruitless attempt: neutral input sorely needed. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)