User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Template talk:Caliphate

Hi, you mentioned here that a recent extensive discussion is required before one should seek assistance at DRN. At that time, I had discussed the case extensively, but that was many months prior to opening the case. Now the discussion has begun once again at Template talk:Caliphate where I have opened an RfC, but for which, unfortunately, I have not had an independent response. I'm thinking that I should open a case at DRN before time passes by. What do you think? Thanks.--Peace world 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You will need to wait for the RFC to close (the bot will remove the RFC tag), else the case will be closed at DRN for having a current RFC still running. As to whether to go to DRN, you need to take into consideration that all moderated dispute resolution processes — Third Opinion, DRN, and Formal Mediation — at Wikipedia are for the purpose of trying to help the parties in a dispute to come to consensus. That means, first, that all the major disputants must be willing to participate and, second, that there is at least the possibility that either one side or the other will give up or that some compromise is possible. (There's also a third possibility, that one side is clearly wrong under Wikipedia policy, but that kind of comes under the "giving up" part.) You have to judge for yourself if you think that is possible. Remember that since everything here is decided by consensus that "no consensus" is, along with a consensus for or a consensus against, a perfectly acceptable outcome, and has a set of ordinary outcomes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion

I'll just get straight to the point: why don't you run for ArbCom? No, really, I don't have anything against you; I really think you would be a good arbitrator. ;) I think we need people on ArbCom who have experience in resolving disputes, and you arguably have more experience in dispute resolution than almost any other editor here, having been very involved with the DRN and MedCom. Chances are you'll probably say no, but I just wanted to make the suggestion. I would definitely vote for you... --Biblioworm 20:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those kind words and vote of confidence! But I fear that I have two, and perhaps three, strikes against me for that position: First, I have very little experience in dealing with conduct matters; if I were to entertain such a candidacy I think I'd need to work at ANI and perhaps be an ArbCom clerk for awhile. Second, on those few occasions when I have delved into conduct matters, I have found myself leaning far too much towards sanctions-as-punishment rather than the proper sanctions-as-motivational-correction point of view (and also being somewhat uninformed about the politics and culture of conduct evaluation). Working at ANI and clerking would probably help correct those issues but, frankly, I think I'm fine for the time being on the content side of the equation. Third, I'm not an administrator and I don't think a non-admin has ever had a successful candidacy for ArbCom. (An aside in regard to that: With nine open positions this time, it may well be that a non-admin gets elected for the first time simply because there aren't enough at-least-semi-acceptable admin candidates to fill all nine spots — and that came somewhat close to happening in last year's election. If a non-admin is elected it's going to be interesting to see what kind of admin powers, if any, they will be allowed to use outside committee business while on the committee. They'll have to be given, I think, the checkuser and oversight bits, but I'm not so sure about the admin bit and, if they do get it/them whether they'll retain it once their time on the committee comes to an end.) Again, I really appreciate the thought, but I think I'll probably pass for the time being. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Smartsheet

Hi TransporterMan. I was looking for someone that may have an interest in software pages and content work. I came across your username on the Talk page of an FA page from WikiProject Software and thought you might have an interest in chipping in here. The current article is a bit stubby and promotional. I've shared a proposed replacement on the Talk page, but as I have a COI, the proper procedure is for me to request someone else consider whether my work serves Wikipedia's objectives. Any chance you have a minute to take a look? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hi, why was this message sent? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My question, too. I've been preoccupied at ArbCom, but check-in at DRN from time to time to see how things are going. Atsme^📞📧 05:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was sent to everyone who is listed as a volunteer here because of the concerns expressed here and because we had a number of cases listed which were ready for a volunteer. Redrose64, I now see the reason for your question and have removed that editor from the list, but if the question then becomes, "Why was s/he still on the list?" it would simply be that no one has noticed it until now. Atsme, no one was singled out: Everyone in the volunteer list (including me) got a copy of the message. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

les enfants terribles (café)

I don't know wiki from the inside - almost never log on so had no idea what had happened to my page until just recently didn't know anything about the warnings obviously since I'm the expert I'm also the prime source - but there are references I'd very much like to put the page back - do you know where the text is? Has it been kept - I don't have a copy as I thought it safe here.

Adrianstern (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Adrianstern

The text can be probably be recovered. The normal process is to ask the administrator who deleted the page, but that administrator has apparently left Wikipedia. I'm going to ping a friend who is a sysop, Mr. Stradivarius, and ask him to restore Les Enfants Terribles (café) to your sandbox where you can work on it. (When you're finished with it and ready to take it live, you can put {{subst:submit}} at the top of it, which will submit it to Articles for Creation to get a review from one of the volunteers there before it goes live; that's not required, but it might help prevent it from being deleted again.) Alternatively, you can try to get it restored into mainspace through Deletion Review, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for that if I were you. Several points you need to know:

If you have or had an ownership or other close interest in that place you should not be editing the article about it under our conflict of interest rules.
Remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit: Once an article, or material in an article, is submitted it is subject to being edited or submitted to our deletion processes by any editor. It's not "your" article, it's Wikipedia's article once you submit it. Acting possessive about it is considered inappropriate page ownership and the fact that you do not choose to regularly log in to keep an eye on it or defend it is absolutely irrelevant because the article must stand or fail on its own merit without you shepherding it.
You really need to read the Verifiability policy and the No Original Research policy to learn what kind of sources can and cannot be used. One kind which absolutely cannot be used as a stated source is your personal knowledge, or material which you have obtained by talking to other people, unless that knowledge is also stated in a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. For all practical purposes, every assertion in the article must be supported by a reliable source.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. For one thing, it's largely copied from http://lesenfantsterribles.adrianstern.com/main.pl, which means that it fails our rules about copyright violations. And I can't find any reliable sources online about Les Enfants Terrible at all, which means that it would be very likely to be deleted again. Subjects must pass the notability guidelines to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. If I restored this, it would probably just be a waste of everyone's time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, of course; frankly, I hardly remember it at all and can't remember if I included the copyvio issue in the PROD nom or not but I do remember that it was either unsourced or had no reliable sources and I couldn't find any, either. Thanks for giving it a look, Strad, I appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, you included the copyvio issue in the PROD nomination. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A word of explanation to Adrianstern: Due to the copyright policy violation issue, Wikipedia policy says that the material cannot be restored anywhere on Wikipedia, even in your userspace. Since it appears that the copyrighted source is probably your website, the copyvio problem can be overcome by donating your website (or at least the copied material) to Wikipedia. But that has an issue and two problems:

The issue: I've not looked to see, so this isn't an accusation or a comment about your site, but most personal websites are not so picky about copyright issues as is Wikipedia, so there may very well be material on your website which is a copyvio of some third party. That material may not be donated to Wikipedia.
First problem: When you do that, you're effectively putting your material in the public domain (or something very close to it, see the first paragraph of the "What it means to donate material to Wikipedia" section of Donating copyrighted materials for details, being sure to click through to the copyright license details), which to a large extent means that you lose control of how it may be reused here or elsewhere by third parties.
Second problem: Donating the material only solves the copyvio problem, it doesn't solve the need to have reliable sources because your website, as a self-published source cannot be used as a source, even if donated to Wikipedia. To say that differently, it allows you to reuse the text but that text must still be properly sourced by third party sources.

Rather than restore the text, therefore, it would be much better to simply redraft the article from scratch, preferably through the Article wizard so it gets reviewed by someone at Articles for Creation to help insure that it has what it needs to survive. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK! I'll do what you suggest.

I'm not too clear about the copyright issue as I acknowledge copyright when I know the source. However I put a disclaimer on the site asking those who feel their rights to have been infringed to contact me.

My own content I can of course put into the public domain - but the article for wiki is not the content of my site - and as such the only rights owner would be me.

As the only living expert on the subject (as far as I know) I can now provide references to the existence of the institutions celebrated (most of them)

We'll see what reaction I get to the sandbox version

Thank you so much for your time and help

Adrian Adrianstern (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)adrianstern

If you have a moment ...

Can you take a look at "George Foreman" ? I have no axe to grind here but just happened across the page. It was full of bad grammar, bad punctuation and thousands of needless links to words such as "Puerto Rico" which, if you live on Planet Earth, should be pretty self-explanatory. In fact, after I cleaned it up I saw another ten or twenty misplaced commas and pointless links but didn't bother fixing them. It could use a good going-over by a high school English teacher :)

An hour later it was reverted by some twit as "unconstructive". Fine, I don't care, but if anyone here would like the world to consider Wikipedia as a real source of information, those kinds of reversions need to be addressed.

Gracias muchas 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at it and don't consider the reversion necessarily inappropriate due to your removal of the links from a large number of terms. If you had a good reason for that, try reverting and at the same time making the case for the removal on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

i like

Good Bangaja7 (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediation Shenanigans

You recently accepted a case on behalf of the medation comittee. However I am not sure as to what "problems" are left to mediate, and I presume that the filer has just forgotten to withdraw the case. The filer of the case Code16 himself has agreed to everything that I asked him to do.

I had requested that Israr Khan be removed and the filer removed him
I had requested that Hallaq should not be given Undue weight and the filer removed the excess weight
I had requested that Hallaq should not be given a category all by himself and that was done by changing the entire article to create new categories.

So as far as I can see the current state of the article (which has been created through consensus and TP discussion with the majority of edits being made by the filer himself) looks good to me and as the filer himself created this state he should be good with it too. Be kind enough to decline/remove/nuke the case. 'For the BARBARIAN HORDE that causes the Mediation committee headaches' FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User FreeatlastChitchat has left out some key details. After an admin reverted his deletions and another editor also became involved, this user took the following steps:

dropped his objection to Hallaq being an unreliable source, without expertise on the hadith.
dropped the charge that I was "misrepresenting" the source.
dropped his objection to the new category I created ("Authenticity")

After he stopped arguing the above core points, (the rest of the stuff was just procedural) if you notice my last update (#4) to the mediation page, I said that it's up to this user to agree that we can close this case. He did not respond. So I didn't withdraw it unilaterally.cӨde1+6^TP 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether you agree or disagree with his reasons, his above request to "[b]e kind enough to decline/remove/nuke the case" constitutes a non-consent to mediation, causing the request to fail to satisfy at least two of the prerequisites for mediation (see the mediation page for the details) and I have, therefore, rejected the case and withdrawn the call for a mediator. No editor is ever required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, and may decline to do so for any reason or no reason at all. If the dispute continues, and you believe that the parties may be willing to participate, the case may be refiled at MEDCOM or at some other dispute resolution venue. You may, of course, also seek input from the community as a whole by filing an request for comments, but that will preclude the use of other forms of dispute resolution until the RFC is closed. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Sounds good and no worries :) It's clear that this user does not want to re-challenge the above points I listed, so I'm sure the matter is settled. Thanks for closing the case. cӨde1+6^TP 17:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

An RfC question

Hi TransporterMan. Would you please answer a question for me. Is it permissible, in an RfC, to have the RfC question include one or two permanent URL links (ie, [[Special:Permalink/314159265|article name]] to previous version(s) of the article, assuming there is a good reason for doing so? Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Out of context it's hard to say for absolutely certain, but I don't see any reason why not so long as you make it clear that the link is to an older version of the page. But I'm not an expert on RFC's, so let me ask: Is there some specific concern that you have (or perhaps some wrinkle of policy, procedures, or guidelines with which I may not be familiar)? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan. What this is all about is I might soon be starting an RfC concerning which of two photos should be used as the lede photo in an article, and I think the best way to let the participants compare how each photo would look in the article would be to provide links to two recent versions of the article, each version using a different one of the two photos. (The difference in article content is otherwise zero to minimal.) I just wasn't sure if using such links in RfC's was permitted.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason that would not only be absolutely fine, but indeed an excellent idea. Go for it! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan. Thank you. I'm not sure at this point whether or not the RfC will be necessary. But if it does turn out to be necessary, at least I know that my technique for allowing participants to compare the two photos is OK. And even if this RfC proves to be unnecessary, I may someday use the technique for some other RfC. Your help and advice are always appreciated. Again, thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

TRR refusal

Thanks. As you may have noticed, I've been floundering around trying to (unsuccessfully) have these problems properly settled. I will use alternative procedures. But not right away. Need to get all the documentation I want and be relaxed when I make another request for help. Edited part of your response on talk page; not displayed but still retained. ('fraid a bit paranoid) :) Appreciate your time RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC closure

Hi TransporterMan.
I have a couple policy and procedure questions I hope you can answer for me: Suppose an RfC and run its 30 days, and one of the participants has requested formal closure by an administrator. And suppose over a month has passed with no administrator willing to formally close the RfC:

Can any participating editor supersede the original closure request with a request for closure by any uninvolved editor. (Or may that only be done by the original editor who requested the (administrator) close? and
If this is permitted, how should it be done? Should a new request for closure (not restricted to administrtors) be added right below the original request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Or must it be done in some other way?

Thank you very much for your help and guidance.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone can ask that an RFC be closed by an admin, but per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, fourth bullet point, any uninvolved editor can close one. Thus, one can ask, but cannot insist. I think that what you did here is exactly what I would have done in that situation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
Thank you for your reply (and for the compliment). I had not been aware that requesting an administrator formal closing is not binding; and I'll bet there are a lot of editors who are not aware of it. And even among those who are, I suspect that for most, seeing the words "Admin closure requested" would be enough to deter them from getting involved.
If nothing has changed by Dec. 15, I definitely do want to request formal closure by any experienced and uninvolved editor. And of course I want to do it correctly. When the time comes, would it be appropriate for me to create a new subsection on that same page, right below the old subsection, and basically make the same request for formal closure Darkfrog24 made (except without requesting an administrator)? Thanks for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that the discussion has now been closed, but just for future purposes, I can't point to anything that says you shouldn't, but I don't think it would be a good idea as it might be seen as pointy. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
Thank you for your reply; but I must admit it leaves me puzzled. It seems like you're telling me that it was appropriate for me to make the suggestion of broadening the request to close the RfC (to include non‑administrtors) on Dec. 15; but that it would not have been a good idea for me to actually follow through with it when the time came. I don't understand. Unless............ Were you saying that since I was the one making the suggestion, I should leave it to another editor to actually implement it? If it's not that, would you clarify it for me?
Of course I realize that the whole thing is a moot point now. But I very much respect and appreciate your advice, and for that reason I want to make sure I completely and thoroughly understand it. (Just in case I ever find myself in a similar situation again.) As always, my sincere thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It might well be that I misunderstood what you meant by "subsection." What you did initially was just to supplement an existing request; what I thought you were proposing was to create an entirely new request under the existing one. That was what I was commenting upon, not supplementing or expanding the existing request. I don't think further supplementation would be pointy, but at the end of the day the fact is that there's no real rules in this instance. Best regard, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
I think we may have both misunderstood parts of what we were writing to each other. What I actually posted on the Village Pump policy page (old version) was only a proposal that the request for closure be expanded (to include non-administrators) if nothing significant had changed by Dec. 15. The part about posting a new request for closure in a new subsection under the old one was what I was thinking about doing if and when Dec. 15th came and the RfC was still not formally closed. But since you suggested that that was not the best way to go, I'm not sure what would have been the appropriate way of actually implementing my own proposal, had conditions become appropriate.
I realize that I might seem to be going to an awful lot of trouble here for something moot; but I think only the (now formally closed) RfC is moot. I may someday find myself in a similar situation, and if that happens, I would want to know the best way to handle it. Thank you for your time (and patience!).
Richard27182 (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tom Spahn

Can you please take a look at the Tom Spahn page? I believe I have addresses the credible citation problems that create the nasty heading:

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.

If not, please tell me what I need to do. Please don't refer me to the Style Guide, I've been round and round forever on that.

Thanks

Kmccall (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph and the second sentence of the third paragraph are unsourced and, particularly since this is a living person under the BLP policy, they really need to be cited to reliable sources (contentious or not). The items in the vocal coach section also need to be sourced. IMDB is not generally considered to be a reliable source. CDUniverse is not a reliable source, though the album itself may be an acceptable primary RS if Spahn is credited on the liner. The same is true for the items in the Discography, Videography, and Musicals sections: if he was credited in the liners (or in the official program on the musicals), then the items themselves are reliable primary sources. (In all those cases, however, if any interpretation or analysis is necessary, they can't be used; please read the "do nots" in the primary policy for details.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Lisak DRN case

Hey TransporterMan, I just wanted to ask if you would prefer to be listed, or not, as an involved editor due to your WP:30 involvement in the dispute? I'm going around ATM finding the involved editors (more than one comment) but wanted to check with you after the recent "controversy", if it can be called that, with Hasteur's DRN vs. Wrestling involvement. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. C, I'm certainly not a disputant in regard to what I said about the 3O, since my comments were merely procedural in nature, and my comments at RSN didn't go to the real dispute but were more sidebar comments, so no, I don't need to be listed and will not challenge any results reached at DRN. I don't even really consider myself to be conflicted out, but will almost certainly keep my hands off that case as a volunteer/coordinator at DRN just to avoid the mere appearance of inpropriety. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

On a sidenote

If you are "TransporterMan", then why do you sign ""ChairPerson" at the Mediation Committee? I mean, isn't that overdoing the political correctness? :) Debresser (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

More than you want to know after your casual, friendly, and appreciated remark: I use chairperson because that's the official title of that position. Frankly, when I chose my username, lo those many years ago, I thought that I was just here to make a few edits about transporter bridges. Little did I know that I'd become so involved. Had I known, I probably would have chosen a different username and that's partly because the "Man" tends to (unintentionally) support the male dominance in Wikipedia, partly because people usually think that it has something to do with vehicles, and mostly because I just don't like it very much. However, I'm known by it now and every time I see a regular editor change their name it results to some degree or another in confusion. Going back to the chairperson bit, however, while I think that is the best and proper way to title that position, I also recognize that it's one of those terms which hasn't made it into everyday usage in everyday English and seems rather clunky. (And, in fact, I have on occasion slipped and typed "Chairman".) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Potentially dumb question on DrN

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere and I just overlooked it: I think that there are actually some "involved" users in the dispute "Campus sexual_assault/Archive_3#Reverts" who aren't included in the DrN notice. (see this conversation) Can I/should I notify those other editors, and, if so, what's the best way to do that? Nblund (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor and would consider this an effort to votestack/canvass. This dispute has been between me and Nblund, although a couple of other editors have come upon this by chance recently.Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's only votestacking if editors are selectively informed based on their previous positions. Most of the involved editors do disagree with your position, but that doesn't make it votestacking to inform them of the dispute. Nblund (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You've been warned. Cheers. Mattnad (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the recent discussion and added three additional parties to the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Season's Greetings!

Hello TransporterMan: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hey TransporterMan, Merry Christmas and I hope the New Year brings easier disputes to mediate. Have a great holiday. Holiday cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jesus conflict closed

I returned to WP today and was surprised to find the discussion closed. I thought we were waiting for a moderator to step in, and I'm not sure what happened. The last time I visited the page, the discussion was marked as Needs Attention, and now it's closed. The conflict over the Gospels section has been going on a long time, in some form for years, so I'm disappointed to see that this conflict resolution step is closed. I'm not sure what I could have done to keep the discussion open. The instructions say that we could continue discussion on the talk page, which we were doing, so the conversation was still underway. I guess I'm a noob at this conflict resolution process. Is there a way to re-open the process? Is there a way for me to see an archive of last bit of the discussion, which I guess I missed? Thanks in advance, and sorry for the trouble. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Everyone who works at DRN is a volunteer and is not obliged to do more than they care to do. Sometimes there are cases which no one wants to take and when a case has been listed for a few days and no one has expressed an interest in taking it, it will be closed. That was one of two independent reasons for your case being closed, either of which would have been a sufficient reason to close it; the other was that I don't believe that there is a dispute. You may be questioning whether the result of the RFC was a proper reason, but the RFC closed the dispute. It's fine to try to build a new consensus to overturn the old one, but dispute only handles disputes and until the previous consensus is set aside (or at least has some age on it) then the matter has been decided by the consensus and there can be no dispute. As I said in my closing, that's just my evaluation of the RFC and you're free to obtain a different evaluation at AN, but even if I'm wrong on the consensus the case was still stale and needed to be closed since it had become apparent that no one was interested in taking it. As for refiling, you are free to do so but the case will be quickly closed again if no volunteer takes it right away, which is likely. All parties to the case must be re-notified if you refile, since at this point they may no longer be watching the DRN page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that to me. I really would like to get an expert's opinion on the dispute. The RFC was specifically for whether to move the history section first, but the bigger issue is how far the page diverges from RSs in its treatment of the topic. This is a decade-old issue, so if it takes a long time to sort out, that's fine with me. I guess I'll try my luck with AN. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

MedCom

I've notified the participants and removed the Christian Terrorism case from the MedCom list. Is there anything else I need to do to archive the case?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have objected to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made a proposal at the mediation page, that one specific point of agreement was, indeed, achieved in the course of the mediation, and should be formally recognized as a result. Otherwise, the entire effort was wasted. It would be a terrible waste to let that happen. I request in the strongest possible terms that this very reasonable conclusion be allowed, as part of the closing of the mediation case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Keithbob to prevent technical difficulties with our bot in case you wish to reconsider (which I'm not suggesting that you should or should not do), I'm going to let this lie for a day or two before adding the tags which will cause the bot to close this out and notify the parties. (And just in case you've not spotted it, TFD has now commented at the mediation page.) Tryptofish, whether or not to close a case is within the discretion of the mediator assigned to the case. I feel that I must also inform you that you may request that a different mediator be assigned via the procedure set out here, but do not take that to imply that I'm recommending or suggesting that you do or do not do so or that such a request would or would not be successful if you do so. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Thank you, TransporterMan. I fully understand what you are telling me, and I appreciate having an extra day for us all to think about it. Please understand that what concerns me the most is that, if there had been a notice from Keithbob that the case would be closed in another day unless editors were to reply to the notice, then I would have had an opportunity to reply, and either restart the mediation or, as now seems more likely, worked towards a more organized process of arriving at a closing consensus. Instead, this came abruptly out of the blue. Surely, the important thing is to do what's best for Wikipedia, rather than to have a rigid adherence to a procedure. And what's best for Wikipedia is to come out of the mediation with whatever consensus we've already achieved through all that work, even if it is a very imperfect consensus. At this point, it's up to Keithbob and TFD whether we do anything more, and if we do, I'll participate. Otherwise, I'll probably let this drop, and I'll return to the page and try to improve it using what I have learned during the mediation. If that works, great, and if not, perhaps I will come back and request a new case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto and T-man for your comments, input and suggestions. Tryptofish, I have great respect for you and your contributions to MedCom and the topic area under discussion. As the person who brought the issue to MedCom and one of the most active participants at the proceedings I understand your frustration. I support your desire and attempt to finalize a consensus on a takeaway for the current case. But based on the discussion there, I don't see that happening. Even if TFD had a change of heart, I'd have a hard time calling that a consensus and its unlikely it would have any weight at the talk page, especially since MedCom is non-binding to begin with. So my position is the same, I'd like close the case. If you would like to ask for a new mediator, I fully understand, and would not be offended. The fundamental problem is and has been inactivity for many months. There is hardly anyone left from the original list of participants who is willing to be active on the case......... My apologies for the abruptness of my decision but I feel it is the right one. Like you, my desire is to do whatever is best for the project as a whole. So I'm open to further comments and insights from others. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as well for being so gracious. I appreciate it very much indeed. I've been thinking things over, and I've ended up coming to that same conclusion. After posting this comment, I'm going to go one more time to the case page, say a few things, and then I'll be happy to consider it closed. The main thing that bothered me was just that there was no advance notice. As I see it, if we were to continue with it, it would simply end up as a never-ending dialog between TFD and me. Jytdog has largely left Wikipedia, and everyone else had left or been banned previously. And, although the last discussion between TFD and me a while back did seem to me to make a minor breakthrough in terms of some limited agreement, it seems clear to me from the most recent discussion that TFD may not be that interested any more, and that he probably isn't open to changing his mind any further, so it is unlikely that we would really be able to get anywhere with it. And I think I might be able to see my way to returning to the page itself and editing it in a way that may solve the problems that the page had, so I think that it makes much better sense for me to go ahead and do that, instead of trying to prolong the mediation. Again, thank you, and thanks to MedCom, for the help that you have provided. My best wishes to you all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add the code to close out the page at my first opportunity, which due to real life matters may not be until later today or tomorrow. Thanks to both of you and Merry Christmas, Joyous Holidays, and Happy New Year, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto, you are a gentleman (or maybe gentlewoman?) and a scholar! Happy holidays in either case!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, and I'll take gentle fish!

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Hello TransporterMan: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

		Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
		May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A question about promoting RfC's

Hi TransporterMan.
I have a question that I am relatively anxious to find the answer to. Is it permissible for an editor to advertise⁄promote an active RfC on the Village Pump if the editor is not the editor who started the RfC, but simply an editor who joined the discussion some time after the RfC was started? And if the answer is "yes," is it required to obtain consensus for such promotion, or may the editor just go ahead and do it? (Of course this assumes that the RfC is not already being promoted on the VP, and it goes without saying that the promotion must be completely neutral and totally without bias.)
Thank you. I really appreciate your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If the RFC starter does not do so, I think that it's fine for someone else to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC withdrawal

The RfC has been withdrawn on my end. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

HELP! pleaseTranscendental Meditation DRN close

I'm not that experienced at DRN, but I have not done too much damage where I have volunteered-(also volunteered as IP previously), but this closing so soon after I opened this one has me stumped and I think I messed something up? I agree it was a premature close, but does it have to go to a RFC? I tried to re-open but think I made a mess. I also tried to follow your link but it did not direct me to a discussion topic in RFC. I'm not sure how to proceed here, but I think that this topic does need discussing and I am happy to participate as volunteer, thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The case should not have been opened due to lack of sufficient discussion and you should not have begun discussion before all major parties had weighed in by giving summary statements (~~though if all else was equal, I might have wavered on that latter point since Doc James and MastCell had not participated in the discussion at the article talk page at all~~). Moreover, there are at least two other editors — Ronz and Littleoliveoil — who had participated in the discussion at the article talk page (I may not have any of those 4 names spelled or capitalized correctly, I'm doing this from memory) and who should have, as a preliminary matter, been included if Doc James and MastCell were to be included. Also the statements which you did make at the DRN discussion brought in, without any particular apparent reason, issues which neither the listing party nor the one responder had raised. Frankly — and I hate to be abrupt — it does not appear that at this point that you yet have the experience editing Wikipedia or the extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy or guidelines needed to participate as a volunteer at DRN. I would strongly suggest that you leave your name listed as a volunteer, but then spend some time at Third Opinion and answer 20 or so requests there. It's a great training ground and, since since 3O's aren't tiebreakers and don't count towards consensus you can gain experience without too much fear of doing any serious harm. We truly appreciate you wanting to work at DRN and to help improve the encyclopedia, but it's just a bit too soon for you at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) Update: I was wrong about Doc James and MastCell not participating at the article talk page, so my point about starting discussion without opening statements from all editors was valid. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict figured that out got it.)OH. You closed it because DRN was premature? Complete misunderstanding by myself-I thought that you meant that the DRN was closed too early. If that is the case, how can I appeal to you to re-open? I think there was some discussion happening on the DRN. Personally, I don't like the article in it's present state, and I think that some positive changes could shake-out from a DRN. There are multiple TP archives there, and even-if they have produced good changes, the current condition of the article shows that something should be done to address problems and bring it within encyclopedic parameters.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for 'splaining. And I am inexperienced in DRN, and volunteering at DRN, but I assure you that I am experienced enough with this project just so you know. Mostly as IP.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN isn't for the purpose of generally improving articles, it's for the purpose of resolving specific disputes between editors. If you feel the article generally needs improving, you should join in the editing there as a "regular editor" and not as a dispute resolutionist. As for reopening, the case simply isn't ready for moderated content dispute resolution yet (I would have also rejected it for that reason had a request for mediation been made on it at Mediation Committee, where I'm the current chairperson). However, if you wish to contest my decision to close it as premature, you should raise the issue on the DRN talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I felt like resolving or discussing the dispute would be overall helpful to the dispute, the article, and to WP, I still do, but I'm going to keep hands-off unless anyone else or involved editors really want to re-open. As an uninvolved party looking at it after much discussion on the TP, I am astounded that TM is being treated as a medical topic, or "alternative medicine"-(as opposed to a philosophy, a business, or a religion- to name better classifications imo), although I do see a need for medical claims to be treated as such. Thanks for your help here.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Close

Okay. I will revert the close. But should I recuse, or should I continue? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to recuse at this point. If someone requests it, I'd take it to the DRN talk page if I were you since nothing you did was improper. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Re your post on Robert McClenon's talk page

(I'm responding here to save Robert McClenon from having to host something I have to say to you on his talk page.)

I have three things to say in response: First, my comment about the other editors understanding of logic and rhetoric was -in retrospect- borderline insulting and I accept that I should not have made it. It was not intended as an insult, but I can recognize that it can certainly be read that way.

Second, my comments about ownership were a direct refutation of FL or Atlanta's repeated assertion that the discussion was progressing and the article improving. There was no call for sanction against him nor demands that he cease misbehaving, merely me refuting a claim he's made by pointing out that the facts support a different conclusion. That this conclusion takes the same form as an accusation is understandable, but essentially unavoidable. Any response I made that did not reference article ownership would have amounted to a wordier version of "Nu-uh!" This is the point of discussion, after all: for the two parties to engage each other.

Third, phrasing of the the mediation policy assumes that the specific volunteer who took a case be the (it is implied, only) one mediating it. Whether this phrasing is intentional or not, it certainly gives that impression. A second mediator jumping in to collapse parts of one side's arguments, while ignoring similar content from the other side was a most unwelcome occurrence in a discussion which has been contentious enough already.

With that being said, I've requested closure. I don't want to participate in a discussion being moderated by someone with whom I've just butted heads, and whom I could argue has already taken a side, as nothing was done about FL or Atlanta's assertion that I don't understand the concept of authority, while my comment that FL or Atlanta doesn't seem to understand formal logic and rhetoric was hatted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (hope I'm not overstepping here) MjolnirPants, you can request for a change in moderator on the DRN talkpage should you still wish to have the dispute moderated at the DRN. If you also have specific concerns about a comment being hatted (or not hatted), you may also discuss them on the DRN talkpage for other DRN Volunteers to view and comment on since you have already received the moderator's response (Robert McClenon). By no means does this mean either request must be met/actioned, but this allows for such requests to be properly heard, discussed and possibly actioned on depending on the outcome. Remember to be civil in wording the requests. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drcrazy102: I always welcome input. I, for one, don't considered your to be overstepping at all. The butting of heads was not the only reason I came to doubt the value of moving forward with Robert as a moderator. I don't have any concerns about him beyond the scope of this particular request, and I do believe that his actions were motivated more by a miscommunication (mostly my fault, but still) than by any pronounced personal bias on his part. All in all, it seemed better to drop the request than to push forward. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

About Dispute over New Year's Eve sexual assaults article

Hi, sorry to bother you. I added my self upon your request. Is there something else I have to do now? Or should I wait for others to do something first? Thank you (Sorry I'm new here) --Det&cor (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You should go ahead and make an opening statement in the summary section you have created. Please be brief, less than 2,000 characters. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN on Laksa

Hi TransporterMan, I see that the DRN on this was closed. As this is the first time I am doing this I am unfamiliar with the procedure. Is this being closed because of the RFC I previously requested on the page? I thought it would not matter since it was a while back and no one has come in to comment. Does that mean I have to first withdraw the RFC by removing the RFC tag, and can you then reopen it or would I have to resubmit the whole thing DRN?I just want the whole thing to move forward. Thanks in advance for your advise, and best regards. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The RFC must be either withdrawn or allowed to run its course (ordinarily 30 days) then, in either case, the DRN case refiled, not reopened. Don't be too hasty to withdraw the RFC. Since they do run for 30 days sometimes folks aren't in a big hurry to answer them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! First time I'm doing this, and am not sure if I'm even filing it with the appropriate group. Will leave it for a month and see how it goes. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning another administrator

Hi TransporterMan. I'm writing to you because you are an administrator and the person I'm writing about is also an administrator; so I figured that would increase the chances of your being able to help me. I've communicated on many occasions with DESiegel, getting helpful advice or occasionally just exchanging a friendly message. Since I've been editing Wikipedia (May of 2015) I've observed that he does a lot of editing, posting, etc.; so I became concerned when I noticed that he has posted nothing for over a month. (I did check his User: and User talk: pages, and there is no mention of a hiatus or wiki-break or anything like that.) Do you know (and if so would you be able to tell me) if he's OK? Otherwise would it be wiki-appropriate for me to send him a brief email just saying I've missed communicating with him and asking if he's OK? Any information or advice that you can provide would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

First, just so you know, I've never been an administrator and I have no special ability — though I don't think admins do either — to check on his status. It would be entirely appropriate to email him and express concern about his status and I'm sure he'd appreciate your expression of concern. Bear in mind, however, that many editors have separate email accounts for Wikipedia communications (since sending email reveals the sender's email address) and if he's just taking a break he may not be checking that account, so if you don't get a response that may not mean very much and don't assume the worst. Also if you look at his stats you'll see that he has had gaps of a year or more in editing in the past, so even if he's gone for awhile, he may not be gone for good. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
And thank you for your reply and for the information. (I'm not sure why I thought you were an administrator; anyway thank you for clarifying that.) Anyway I've just sent DESiegel an email saying that I've missed seeing him on Wikipedia and that I hope he's OK.
I understand that he may have a special email account just for Wikipedia, and that if that's the case he may not see the email. But I feel it's worth a try.
I had no idea that he's had Wiki-breaks in the past lasting a year or more and I'm very glad you told me that; otherwise after a few more weeks I definitely would have assumed the worst. I'll let you know if I hear back from him. Thanks again.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)