User talk:TransporterMan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User talk
  • 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!

What do you suggest doing?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Wikipedia Event coordinator.svg

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![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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?[edit]

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)

First time dispute escalation advice[edit]

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;_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)

Recently closed DRN[edit]

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)


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)


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)


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 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 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)