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.

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)

Amon Carter Museum of American Art WiR

Hello. I'm updating the outreach:Wikipedian_in_Residence. Is it correct for your WiR position? In particular, is there a URL to point to for the work done and does it have an end data? I've used the current table info to update TransporterMan (Q69526862) so that I can automate the WiR table (in progress). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I assume you want your wikidata item unlinked to your real world life, but feel free to add any info relevant to your role as a WiR. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I’m traveling with limited Internet access. The entry as it now stands is fine. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence dates

Hello. I'm updating the outreach:Wikipedian in Residence. Is it correct for your WiR position? In particular, is there an end date and has a page been made yet to describe the work that was done? I've used the current table info to update TransporterMan (Q69526862) so that I can automate the WiR table (in progress). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Answered above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Woops, thanks! You're welcome to add a url if one's generated later. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DRN submission link not working: "Error: API returned error code "badtoken": Invalid CSRF token."

Please advise how to submit a request for dispute resolution. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell you, but I just posted a test case and it filed and opened just fine. I have to suspect that the problem is somewhere on your end or that the Wikipedia servers don't like your computer or your ISP for some reason. I'm afraid that cases cannot be manually posted at DRN because they break the maintenance bot there if they are. You might try logging into your account on a different computer via a different ISP (such as from an Internet cafe or a public library) and trying again. But if you can't post at DRN you may have to use some other form of dispute resolution, such as Request for Comment. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Help sites tell me that "CSRF token" error messages occur when one's browser is set to block cookies from the site. However, in my browser settings, I find I have no cookies blocked from any site. I will try again as suggested when I can – it just happens to be the time of year when the public libraries are closed. We have already tried WP:RFC. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute on Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism pages.

Hi TransporterMan,

There has been a dispute going on in the Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism articles regarding the use of the term "right-libertarianism". From the lens of traditional socialism and communism, this term is used to describe most modern libertarians, who support free markets and individualized property. In current English usage, however, the term "libertarian" is most commonly used to describe this group.

"Right-libertarian" is also confusing to general readers, because it implies identification with the political "right" - which it decidedly does not.

The dispute was nearly resolved when a user, who had just been removed from an editing ban, began a series of edits aggravating the matter. He has been continually reverting all edits not his own, and is still at large.

I have called for an RFC several weeks ago, and have individually notified several editors from the list, but that effort has produced little response.

I'm hoping you can help.

JLMadrigal @ 14:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that except for some occasional bureaucratic maintenance work, I'm pretty much out of the dispute resolution business so cannot be of much help. That's compounded by the fact that I have past relationships with one or more of the editors involved in those discussions and would not have the appearance of neutrality required to serve as a moderator or mediator even if I were of a mind to serve. The one piece of advice I'd give (and this is not pointed at your particular position but at the overall discussion and the failed RFC) that is often forgotten here is this: "No consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result here at Wikipedia. Good luck with your dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass blocking - Materialscientist

Hi,

I'm messaging you as you were the last respondent on a case linked to the aforementioned user (ref. Valery Kaufman). This message is about the titled user mass blocking / disabling account before any changes by the banned users have been made. To my knowledge there are at least three cases in which this has happened.

Sincerely, Thragukk

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. How about some links to the relevant material? (And please sign your talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~ rather than a typed-out signature block.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Volunteering at DRN again!

Hey there TransporterMan! I doubt you remember me, but I used to assist at DRN years ago, and I always enjoyed working with you there (you even gave me the Barnstar of Diplomacy once :) ). I know I don't really need to tell you this, but I was thrilled to see that you were still involved there and thought it would be good to let you know. I'm trying to become more active on Wikipedia again, and volunteering at DRN was something I always enjoyed doing before. I just wanted to let you know that I've added my name to the volunteer list again, and I'll likely be trying to ease my way back in. I'm sure a lot has changed since I was last heavily active, so I'll likely be lurking a bit at first and just getting a feel for how things work now, but I hope I am able to contribute helpfully! I hope you are well :) Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Glad you're back! I'm not much involved with DRN any more, just closing a case every now and then, and ditto Third Opinion. I retired from my profession a couple of years back and one unexpected consequence has been that my time online has become far more unpredictable than it was when I was working. I'll be on every day for awhile, then off and on, and then off for a considerable period of time and it's hard to predict when that's going to happen, so I don't feel comfortable taking a case at DRN that I may suddenly become absent in the middle of. The flip side, however, is that I'm very, very happy in retirement. So, again, I'm glad you're back and look forward to seeing you around. I'm sure you'll do a good job! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 11 February 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)