User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

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)

A barnstar for you!

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

{{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)

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)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

AMCHA Initiative

Hi! The thing on the edit warring noticeboard didn't resolve anything, so a third opinion is still needed. So if you or anyone else would like to have a look at the AMCHA Initiative dispute, I'd very much appreciate it. If you don't want to, are busy, or the article is not in your expertise, that is of course fine too. ImTheIP (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of BBC One

You recently ruled on the dispute I have with a user who only uses an IP address who has now ramped this up by leaving a threatening message on my talk page, accusing me of disruptive editing. The user then says, "if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Timeline of BBC One, you may be blocked from editing." I had hoped that this could have been halted by taking this to dispute resolution but it was yourself who said it was "premature." Given that this user has now turned up the heat I do need to ask for an intervention as to whose version should be used. Rillington (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have also done as you requested and started a discussion on this on the talkpage but given that the user has made public allegations of disruptive behaviour and vandalism, I have also made another dispute resolution request given that the user has now made these public allegations. Rillington (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I said what to do next when I closed your first DRN request and you've not followed those instructions. Since there has been no discussion yet, another DRN request is just as futile as the last one and manual requests are inappropriate there because they break our filing bot, so I've removed it. But you're looking at a couple of problems in particular: What you're trying to add does not have a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia footnoted to it. Including such a source is required, see WP:BURDEN. It also makes it impossible to determine whether your edit is or is not appropriate. Second, you're clearly involved in an edit war. My real recommendation at this point would be to drop the whole thing for a couple of weeks to let the edit war cool down and then come back to try to make the edit, including a footnote to a reliable source. If you're then immediately reverted, immediately ask for page protection. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your advice. It is clear to me that the user is not going to enter into any discussion as when I replied on my talk page, within one minute the user blanked and reverted my comment. Assuming that a YouTube clip is seen as a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, I will reinstate the edit, but not immediately, and add the YouTube clip as a reference and if the editor again reverts it I'll follow your advice and ask for page protection and then ask for a final ruling. And if the editor leaves another message similar to the one left yesterday on my talkpage, what would your advice be? Rillington (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

While there can be exceptions, YouTube - being a self-published source - is not generally seen as a reliable source. The Devil is always in the details, however. I wouldn't be concerned about what been left, at least so far, on your talk page (and I've said so there). What you have is a garden-variety content dispute and the only wrongdoing in it so far has been the fact that the two of you are engaged in an edit war. The idea that you're editing disruptively is nonsense. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comments and for reassuring me that I am not editing disruptively.

Regarding what was left on my talkpage, thank you for your supportive comments. This is a horrible situation to be in and this is the first time this has happened to me in more than eight years on Wikipedia.

I've also summarised the disagreement fully on the talkpage and also stated what my proposals are as well as explaining my reasons behind my intention. Rillington (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In light of the IP's removal of your discussion request from the article talk page, I've requested page protection. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I will look to add my entry for 8th November along the lines that I proposed on the talk page, assuming the YouTube clip is adequate.

One positive that has come out of this is that I am now more aware as to how to resolve such issues, which is always good even though it was unpleasant at the time. Thank you for your help, guidance and support. Rillington (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've now made the edit and included a reference which is the footage of the final closedown. Rillington (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing of biographical page of Joseph Couture

Dear Sir,

Here is a copy of my exchange with an editor whose particular focus on this one page strikes me as very problematic? Could you assist?

Collapse wall o' text.

I need sometime and have no clue how long all of this has been going on I can get back soon. Biography of Joseph Couture[edit] Looking back through the history of this page, it is clear that you have focused a great deal of your personal attention on this particular page. You continually revert edits, demand citations for simple and ordinary matters and keep reducing the size and scope of information about this individual. Now you have tagged it as not being a notable subject although it clearly meets the guidelines for such as both a published author, award winning journalist and famous gay activist. The pattern here appears to have an element of personal dislike for the individual or subject matter. This is an opening dialogue as per Wiki guidelines before a complaint is filed and a review of your edits requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Feel free to review my edits - if you look through my contributions you will see that I have edited a large number of articles here, so I have hardly focused a great deal of personal attention on this particular page. It is on my watchlist, and so I have noted over the last couple of years when unsourced content has been added and maintenance tags have been removed without improvement of the content and therefore reverted those edits. I have no personal opinion in this particular person whatsoever, my concern has been with wiki guidelines for biographies. If you could clearly explain which of wikipedia's notability criteria this person meets, that would be great and the maintenance template can be removed. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. Why was this completely unrelated link to the Capital attacks added to this comment? I did not put it there and it has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC) It is a footnote from an earlier editor and was not added to your comment, it has been on this page well prior to you editing it. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) No doubt it is on your watchlist as the history shows that often within minutes of an edit to the page you respond. But you do not simply review the changes just made, you take the opportunity to make extensive changes of your own at that time, usually cutting larger and larger chunks. Like today, you removed his journalism award, which was in fact published in numerous places around the world and is a documented fact. As he was the only journalist in Canada to have won this prestigious award at the time, and under the circumstances he did is only one element of his clear eligibility. This now helps your case he doesn't meet that criteria as things such as winning major awards are a factor. Being an internationally best-selling author is an another example of his eligibility, which has been listed there for many many years and you did not challenge. As is the fact that he was named amongst the top newsmakers of the year at the end of 1995 for both his journalism and the award he won. That same article from the Globe and Mail (one of Canada's most respected national newspapers) mentions his award, but you ignore it and delete mention of the award because you claim another source inaccurate. As you chip away at removing the history, you slowly erode the evidence of his eligibility. As much of this material is now quite old and was placed here long ago, it is harder and harder to find it in a simple Google search and you are burying his history and putting people in the position of having to work harder to prove things that were previously available and established- and that at an earlier time you even approved yourself. You also arbitrarily decide what stays and what goes regardless of proper and verifiable sourcing. For example, from the last two lines quoted from the same source, you leave one line and remove the second. The second happens to talk about his history of bisexuality and polyamory. You have previously removed properly sourced material on numerous other occasions, seemingly simply because you do not like it. Whether you like this man, or his history does not permit you to decide what details of his life get told and those which get buried. The fact that in raising this issue with you, you respond by immediately further removing documented elements of his history and attacking this individual even more reveals your clear bias. You obviously have had this page on your "watchlist" for a long time and many things that you later changed were there before you appear on the list of editors and you did not remove it until much later. And why only now, after all this time and all your deletions of his many accomplishments, do you now suggest the page be removed? You have actually made it easy to demonstrate your history of bias and edit warring, a rule which was designed to protect against random members of the public who disagree, and likely not from one of their own editors who may commit such an offence. Since you not only will not cease your campaign or demonstrate a willingness for meaningful discussion, I now have no choice but to escalate this and complain to your superiors. It will be easy in some many cases by examine your history of arbitrary and capricious editing as it is well documented in the record, which, thankfully, you cannot edit out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Here is a great example of your selective editing: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bernardo-author-wins-humans-rights-award/article1136923/ This article mentions in the Globe and Mail that Joseph Couture had previously won this award before author Stephen Williams and that such awards are typically only given to journalists living under dictatorships. You claim to have checked this information but it only took a quick check to prove this point as it is so well documented. This award, the circumstances, the high level of publicity around it are all evidence of his notability. Yet you continue to chip away at it. You are well aware that as time goes by more and more things slip behind pay-walls and can no longer be easily accessed by the public and only now make changes that are increasingly difficult to reverse, but easy for you delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Case in point, that link to the article with the headline that Stephen Williams won the same award is no longer found on the web, possibly because the paper is now defunct. Did you simply read the headline and conclude because it only mentions Williams that it had nothing to do with this author? As you can see from the still available link to the Globe, Couture is mentioned as having won it first. So if you read the actual article, or did your own research, you would have known that. But I suggest you are not looking for what you do not want to find. The link to the journalism committee report documenting the harassment of Couture is still active and is evidence again you choose to ignore. On and on it goes, I will be reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Another important item deleted earlier was the fact that he was nominated repeatedly by his colleagues for awards in investigative journalism. Again, many of these links are gone. But this one remains: ps://caj.ca/blog/congratulations-caj-awards-finalists-2015 I could just go on with this, but I think you should be getting the picture by now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk)

In a word, no. I don't do individual dispute resolution at the present time. Please register an account and avail yourself of regular dispute resolution procedures, carefully following the instructions for whichever one you choose. Note that there are different procedures for content disputes and conduct disputes and each will not generally entertain the other type. Only do one at a time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Argentina national football team results (2020–present)

Hello, I really appreciate your candidness on this discussion. It is clear that the discussions in WikiProject Football do not reflect a policy adopted by the Wikipedia community and are not a sacred text that must be followed strictly. As you can see, it is clear that the editor does not care to continue the discussion with us and only thinks that he is the only one who is right. What is the next step that I should take to return the stable version before he started to revert my edits?--Sakiv (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest a RFC to bring more editors into the discussion. As I said there, I don't know who is right, so I'm loath to support the idea that any particular version of the article is the "stable version". If it's a choice between two particular versions of the article and there are diffs that illustrate the two, then a simple RFC that asks "Which is the better version [this diff] or [this diff]?" followed by your !vote and reasoning as to which should be preferred. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking for a dispute resolution volunteer

I've been editing Wikipedia for about five years, but until recently have not had experience with disputes concerning my edits. I am having issues with my edits to the page Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. In December and early January my edits were criticised as being possibly biassed. I defended these criticisms as I felt my edits were an accurate reflection of media coverage. For a short time a neutrality tag was placed on the article. It was then replaced with a tag 'This article has multiple issues'. I have made further edits to the article in the past week which a new editor has repeatedly reverted. As I have had little to no involvement with disputes in the past I am not sure how to handle it and I would appreciate your help and guidance on how to proceed. I would appreciate if you could spare me some of your time to help with this matter, Amirah talk 22:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Thank you for your explanation on the page. I will wait until the other two methods have been completed but i did want to say my posts purpose was to hopefully prove and resolve that my sources are reliable. I simply stated about others reverting my edits just so that its known why i had to get to this dispute resolution.Danielbr11 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Danielbr11 - As User:TransporterMan has said, you should only try to resolve a dispute in one place at a time. Trying to resolve a dispute in two or more places at the same time is known as forum shopping, and is disapproved of in Wikipedia. (You may not have known that if you are a new editor.) Also, your RFC is not formatted in a way that is likely to resolve the dispute, because it is only a statement, and so all that it will do is to result in discussion. Discussion is good, but it doesn't always result in answers. I would suggest that you withdraw/close the RFC. Then, once the WP:ANI dispute is resolved, you can either request dispute resolution at DRN or formulate a new RFC. Another possibility would be to ask a volunteer at DRN to help you formulate an RFC that asks a question and will run for 30 days. I am willing to formulate an RFC for you as a question if that is what you want. Just wait until the WP:ANI dispute is resolved (and they might tell you that it is a content dispute and that you should seek content dispute resolution, in which case we will all be on the same page). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added some procedural comments at the article talk page, but I hadn't seen these postings before doing so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Any reason why the dispute resolution that I had raised has been removed while it was being progressed by another user ? Apparently, am not sure there is a Third opinion yet ? Nithya (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the Third Opinion page, when a volunteer takes a listing to work on an opinion they are supposed to remove it from the list so another volunteer does not spend time working on it. Indeed, what HeartGlow30797 had already said was, in effect, a 3O and, because you improperly relisted it, another volunteer was caused to give a fourth opinion. (And new talk page entries should go at the bottom of the talk page, not buried in the middle as you have done here.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Franklin Child Abuse ?

It was a very strange case request, and I was about to close it more or less as you did, so we agree. What puzzles me is how this case (or non-case, because the child abuse was mythical) is why the dispute suddenly woke up after three years. The reason that the filing editor has no prior edits to the talk page or the article may be that they forgot to log in to file this case, But the whole thing is strange. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, per my Talk, I think the filing IP was Autonova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since the DRN filing implied that the comments by Autonova, were theirs. I also think that MGK206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In an edit on Autonova's talk page a one-edit editor by the username Poorpony says the DRN filing was theirs. So unless there's some gaming and socking going on, it's not Autonova's (not that we've never seen gaming and socking more ham handed and poorly executed than this would be, if that were it). I rather think that it's more likely someone with some interest or involvement in the original real-world event and that the DRN filing - which included "WP:BLP" as a party - was more of a demonstration that CIR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, I am Poorpony and what does it matter how many edits I have? The author of this page should be held accountable for implying the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations was a hoax! This article is related to government officials trying to hide the fact that government officials are having child sex, This article is of a very sensitive subject and should not have been written so lightly and immature. The author should take the time and add all relevant facts to the case. For example, the boy was compensated in a civil suit however the author failed to mention this in their sources. There are many articles the author could have shared about this case but chose not to for what reason? Is the author part of a people trying to hide sources which would portray the United states as faulted as other countries and people? I have been an avid reader and money contributor to Wikipedia over many years and because of this authors most awful puke display of an article I made an account and my first edit. Poorpony (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

When I saw the above by an obvious conspiracy theorist who is obviously not posting for the first time. I though, "Benjamin Franklin? Aretha Franklin? Franklin, Quebec? USS Franklin (1795)? Franklin Roosevelt? Roosevelt Franklin? It turns out that the obvious sock puppet is talking about Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Which was a hoax. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion

You might be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wide-Ranging_Content_Disputes concerning content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Dustin Stockton

Thank you for closing. As you said, that isn't the sort of dispute that DRN is for, and we occasionally get every kind of issue that you can imagine and a few that I didn't imagine. I have advised the filer to ask for advice at the Teahouse, but it probably won't do them much good. I will make a statement requesting that the G11 be declined, but I won't accept the draft. It isn't bad enough to be deleted or good enough to be accepted. It's a not-very-good draft that is promotional, just not promotional enough to need deleting. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Dispute: Who We Are and How We Got Here

Hello Transporter Man, I would appreciate your help with a dispute I'm having with Generalrelative on the Who We Are and How We Got Here page. There is a fairly extensive discussion on the Talk page under the WP:DUE section. I sort of got drawn in unexpectedly as I merely went to the article to see what kind of reception the book had gotten and lo and behold there was a Reception section. I took issue with some things and perhaps ill-advisedly said something was ludicrous and had to do with political correctness. Anyway, my edits were about clarifying the statements in the article, not about fomenting discord. If you would please, could you take a look and let me know what you think. I don't know how to open an official dispute resolution process. Nor do I know how to alert Generalrelative. I went to his Talk page and tried to open a discussion and he reverted my statements. Thank you. Dynasteria (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm kinda-sorta-semi-retired at this point though I still do some maintenance work at Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and off and on elsewhere. I don't do private dispute resolution from my talk page. I'd suggest that you list this at Third Opinion. Read and follow the instructions there to do so; you need not notify the other editor. If you'd prefer to list at DRN, read the instructions at the top of the page there, click the "Request Dispute Resoluion" button, read and answer the question that pops up and then fill out the form that comes up next; to notify the other editor (as required by DRN, unlike 3O), go to their user talk page, edit the entire page, and put (exactly like this):

{{subst:drn-notice|Who We Are and How We Got Here}} - ~~~~

at the bottom of the page on a line by itself (it doesn't need a heading line, it will generate one) and then Publish the page. But I'd strongly recommend starting with Third Opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Just spent over an hour composing a long email to you. When I sent it, it vanished! I have a proposal for you,

Thank you.

DON PEVSNER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16ConcordeSSC (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Responded by email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Darn you!!!

You beat me in closing that DRN by 20 whole seconds.... gosh darn it!!! Nightenbelle (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

'Ya gotta be quick on the draw to beat this sheriff, pardner 😁! Thank you, very, very much for all the hard work you do at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Copy of “Notice of Informal Motion Concerning Insertion of Self-Published Gambling References”

Please take notice and go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blackjack to read “Informal Motion to Remove All References Placed by Objective3000 in Blackjack, Card counting, and Shuffle track and Wherever They May Also Appear in Wikipedia Articles to His Self-Published Commercial Websites qfit and blackjackincolor and Others Not Identified.” The Informal Motion is also placed at Card counting, Martingale (betting system), and Shuffle track. This Notice of Informal Motion is also placed as a courtesy at the user talk pages of those who have shown interest in the subject, namely, TransporterMan, Orangemike, QFIT, El C, and Rray. Additional information has been placed on the User talk page of El C. Thank you.Aabcxyz (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

I'm kinda-sorta-semi retired and even if I was not, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. My only part was to offer some advice from the position of a neutral dispute resolution party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, not to have an ongoing or continuing interest in the matter (especially one that still persists almost 11 years after my last comments). So I'll pass, but thanks for the notification. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

16ConcordeSSC

There is a new AN-notice concerning this editor here Blue Riband► 05:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:City of dallas logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:City of dallas logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion request

Hello. I made a request for a third opinion on the discussion of the definition of Donbas. Then the discussion did not meet the requirements and the request has been declined. Now, I suppose, the request can be submitted? Since the discussion has obviously started to go in circles. -- Eksul (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Third Opinion request may now be resubmitted. I've only glanced at the discussion, but it seems to in part revolve around whether certain sources are reliable for the purpose that they're being used for. If that impression is correct, you might get a more definitive answer to that question than you would with a 3O by posting a well-framed inquiry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But if the question is bigger than just that, then perhaps a 3O is a better choice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Yes, at the top of the discussion we did not agree on the reliability of Britannica, but this, in my opinion, is not too significant for the discussion as a whole, especially against the background of several dozen other sources, in the reability of which I have no doubts. With gratitude, Eksul (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Two Editors Flailing at DRN

Thank you for your one-and-one-half closures at DRN. I think that we agree that both editors were and are seemingly flailing, and are just making things worse for themselves, and there is only so much that we can do. It seems that I forgot to sign the closure about Jeremiah Lisbo and that you added the fact of the RFC to it, and then signed it. That editor has gone to almost every possible forum either to ask about the phrase or to ask about procedure for the content dispute involving the phrase. Either the editor has a conflict of interest, or the editor doesn't have a sense of proportion. Yuck. The Palmer Report editor seems to be even more helpless, and now has gone to the Teahouse, and in the process has said that another editor is a rogue editor. Yuck.

In the days before Internet access was universal, and university bulletin boards and systems were linked by the Usenet and the Bitnet, September, when the first-year students showed up, was when there were users who didn't know what they were doing. With the Internet, it is said that it is always September. But in addition, now September comes in August.

I hope that they calm down and don't do themselves any harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard filing on qfit.com and blackjackincolor.com and blackjack-scams.com

Reliable source noticeboard now has a discussion as to the lack of expert status of Objective3000, and that therefore the references to the self-published webpages qfit.com, blackjackincolor.com, and blackjack-scams.com are in violation of WP:RS and WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#qfit.com,_blackjackincolor.com,_blackjack-scams.comAabcxyz (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Zen Dispute

Thank you. I wasn't going to close it, after being said to be biased. It needed closing. However, I have a small point. You said that the editor could register an account if they are interested in learning. Yes, maybe. But I think that they already had an account, and are blocked. They have some knowledge of how to use Wikipedia, and the sort of attitude that leads to blocks. Anyway, they have been given a short range block. It remains to be seen whether they come back. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know how to proceed

Hi! You recently left a greatly insightful comment in Talk:Sharon A. Hill regarding a request for third opinion I made. I proceeded with the steps (approximately) but since then my edit has once again been reverted. I am unsure how to proceed as it is now the third time that my edit has been reverted but two of those were by different IPs. None of the three reverters has responded to my justification for my edit nor given any meaningful reasons for their reverts ("No consensus" and "Nope. Here we go again. YOU explain your edits to long-standing text in detail on talk. Especially the COI comment... I don't think you understand what COI means.") What do I do? I thought AN/Edit Warring might make sense if it was the same editor but it being three different ones (I hope, unless Rp2006 is purposefully unlogging which I highly doubt and in any case would assume in good faith he isn't), but seeing how it's a bit more complex than that I'm somewhat lost on how to proceed. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just realized both IPs fall within the same IP range so is highly likely they are the same person. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Welp, the IP has now "contacted [my] university about [my] Wikipedia vandalism" so I guess I'll have to escalate it to AN regardless. Fun. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)