This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Necrothesp (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 12 February 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:57, 12 February 2015 by Necrothesp (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This will ensure that conversations remain together! |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Alevism
You have closed the dispute resolution discussion on Alevism. The Alevism talk page discussion itself is not productive since the other editor(s?) doesn't use sources as a basis for editing. How many times do you advise I get reverted for the same bold edit before you would think it no longer "premature" to get resolution? On the Misplaced Pages Tea House I was advised that I should use dispute resolution for the Alevism page, but you have blocked this. Edging (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition you say the talk for this issue is "old". Does this mean that if the other user continues to refuse to engage in further talk on the talk page, the matter can never be taken to dispute resolution? Edging (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but all forums here, such as the Teahouse, do not have a firm grip on the rules of the various dispute resolution forums. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, or consider filing a request for comments to bring additional editors into the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I probably do not have the time I expect is required to go through the failure-to-discuss procedure or other dispute resolution. Since you have now seen the page, its history, and its talk page, I am hoping perhaps you are in a good position to give your own opinion on the various edits. Edging (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi.
I think there's a new section that request for unreliable and questionable sources on WP:EAR. Other admins can't help anymore. 115.164.188.205 (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've responded there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.
We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.
If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.
Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
Rejection of request for mediation
Do you have any suggestions as to how I might proceed with this given the legal threats? If a mediator is unavailable, how do I navigate this? Panyd 12:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since you're WP:INVOLVED, I'd suggest reporting the legal threat (as well as the other editor's confession that his is, or is very close to being, a role account) to ANI, but be sure to point out that he — kinda/sorta — apologized for the threat at the mediation request page, though he didn't quite withdraw it, which is what's usually required with legal threats. Once you've dealt with the conduct issues you can probably then deal with the content issues on a straightforward basis on the article talk page and go to DR as needed. In short, let other admins sort out the conduct, then deal with the content. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Help with DRN process
Hi, can you help with a few general questions about the Dispute Resolution process? I've been invited to take part as one of the disputants here but since this is my first "dispute" I'm not sure of the etiquette. I've read the big panel at the top of the DRN Misplaced Pages page, and tried to search around about the issue, but I can't find answers to my specific questions. They are:
- I think a few other editors need to be invited to participate. Is it OK for me to do that, and if so how? I myself was invited via a message appearing on my Talk page, so I guess that's the mechanism. But is it OK for me (as opposed to the person initiating the DR/N) to do that, and if so, how?
- Assuming it is OK to invite those other editors, does the invitation process automatically update the required sections on the DR/N page, or do I have to do that manually (i.e. in addition to inviting them)?
- How then do I participate in the discussion? There's a section header already added with my name, and with some text implying I'm supposed to add stuff there ("Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters ... etc"). Do I simply add text to that, or is there anything else I should be aware of?
thanks! Thomask0 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is perfectly acceptable for you to add additional parties. Indeed, since the purpose of DRN is to bring all editors involved in a dispute into mediation with a view towards achieving consensus, not much can be effectively done without them. Generally only editors who have been involved in the talk page discussion are included, but that's your call. Be sure to notify the editors who you add. You can add {{subst:drn-notice|Battle of the Somme}} — ~~~~ to the bottom of their user talk page to do that (edit the entire talk page and add that at the bottom of the existing text of the page without a title, it will create a title and new section for itself) or write a customized note.
- No, you must manually create their response sections in addition to notifying them.
- Yes, just make an opening statement in that section.
- @Keith-264: Just making you aware of this conversation.
- Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I mentioned Thomask0 because the other people seemed secondary but if he'd rather have them along I don't mind. I thought Buckshot's suggestion was a quick way out of a dead end too. (Have I overestimated Thomask0's experience as a Wikieditor?)Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TransporterMan .Thomask0 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I Give Up
READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA: http://wikibias.blogspot.com
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA: I have a number of recommendations for Misplaced Pages, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource: First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too). Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative. Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset. Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation. Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Misplaced Pages is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Misplaced Pages must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Misplaced Pages needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Misplaced Pages administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.
Please forward ... if anyone at Wiki gives a darn.
Misplaced Pages Editor: Tolinjr--Tolinjr (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have copied your posting to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 48#Disgruntled user, which is the closest thing we have to an open forum about general Misplaced Pages issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Changing volunteer at WP:DR
TransporterMan, would you please review the volunteer's comments on the Battlestar Galactica request at DRN? I'm not at all comfortable this is a volunteer who is sufficiently experienced to handle a mediation, much less one as potentially volatile as this one could be if Twobells returns to the kind of behavior exhibited before his current block. The volunteer clearly does not understand the issue at hand, appears clueless regarding the handling of TV infoboxes, appears to have made no effort to read the discussion on the talk page, and doesn't seem to be aware enough to sign his posts. Moreover, he appears to think he can simply issue mandates, not act as a mediator. I have no confidence in him/her, and he/she should not be allowed to handle the case. --Drmargi (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The volunteer has withdrawn and a replacement requested. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Meghan Trainor
Please take a look at the moderated discussion of Meghan Trainor and offer your comments at the dispute resolution talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Dispute resolution over page WP:European-American Rights Organization
On 7:27 January 15, I initiated a Dispute Resolution process on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (I THINK. I'm very new at this). Little more than a day later, my access to editing was maliciously blocked by someone who was aware of my Dispute, and he (she?) should now be a party to this dispute, and his actions should be included in it. But I cannot find any indication of this process on the DRN now. And, due to the fact that I am very much an amateur here, I don't know how to track this down. Further, I want at this point to escalate the complaint to a FORMAL process, not merely INFORMAL, in part due to my having been blocked. Frysay (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The filing was closed (by me) as a conduct dispute rather than a content dispute. The record is here. DRN doesn't handle conduct disputes, speak to an administrator or go to AN or ANI for that. In light of your formal vs. informal comments, above, I think that's probably where you'll want to go. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but NO. It was NOT a "conduct dispute". It was (falsely) claimed to be dispute over the asserted violation of the 3RR. That assertion was made, and was a diversion, apparently to conceal the actual dispute: Over a POV issue. Precisely as I pointed out in my original complaint. At this point, I could ask that this matter be re-raised as an informal dispute, but I wonder if I am being subjected to the same kind of cabal-type behavior complained of by editor Tolinjr in his comment titled "I give up" on your Talk page. While I haven't checked the dates, it seems likely this matter was closed without getting my comments about whether this matter was actually a "conduct dispute" or a "content dispute". Keep in mind that I was (maliciously) blocked from ALL editing, INCLUDING from my own Talk page, for a total of about four (4) days. Naturally, I am not optimistic about the WP Dispute Resolution process, after this abuse. Frysay (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have added content to the section "My Complaint to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard" in the Talk:European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization article. The essence of the misrepresentation, his claim that I had violated 3RR, is that user Dougweller himself quoted the 3RR to say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." However, as I just pointed out to him, what I did was "a series of consecutive edits". In other words, Dougweller "adjusted" his interpretation of the rule to fabricate a false objection, and in turn used that false objection to obscure the fact that the original dispute was over CONTENT, not conduct. Frysay (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your "Dispute overview" was mainly about the conduct of the other editors and your "How do you think we can help" was only about conduct: "Read the material; decide that those other editors were variously misbehaving. Apply the appropriate sanctions." (Emphasis added.) Dougweller's comments had nothing to do with the closing. Feel free to refile, but if you do so, do not talk about the other editors' motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about them or their actions, as all of that involves conduct, not content, and only discuss the content matters in dispute. (Bear in mind that NPOV in an article is a content matter, but the POV of editors is a conduct matter.) There is a place to discuss conduct — an administrator or AN or ANI — but DRN isn't it. This isn't about cabal, it's about following the forum's rules. Also bear in mind that all that can be done in Misplaced Pages content dispute resolution is to do some form of mediation which involves trying to help the parties come to consensus, a form of facilitated negotiation, not making binding rulings about content. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be unaware that I'm new at this (editing WP) and quite new at putting forward a complaint. (Read my edit history.) My original basis for objection was that people were reverting my edits (intending to remove POV; or as you call it, NPOV; or at least balance it) for no stated reason, they were not using the talk board to discuss their reverts, and that their reverts were intended to protect POV in the article, and making false assertions (such as the false claim I'd violated the 3RR). Moreover, you have ignored my objection that I was maliciously blocked, in an attempt to keep me from employing the informal dispute resolution system. I reasonably expected that the Dispute Resolution system I was initiating would get to these matters. It never did. And no, you didn't help. I think it's obvious that an informal dispute resolution won't work: I must initiate a FORMAL dispute resolution. For the record, I will ask: How do I do that? You can still decide to help. Frysay (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are no formal content dispute resolution processes at Misplaced Pages. (Going to Mediation Committee is sometimes called "formal mediation," but that's just a nickname to contrast it to DRN, 3O, and RFC.) There is no board or committee or other group who can make binding and final decisions about article content, that's only done through the consensus process. The closest we come to that is, arguably, RFC which merely invites other editors into the discussion in a neutral kind of way, but even then the discussion has to achieve consensus through discussion, not through intervention of some authority. On the other hand, the processes I've already mentioned — an administrator or AN or ANI — are the informal conduct processes. The formal conduct process is Arbitration Committee, but you need to know that ArbCom will not handle content disputes and will ordinarily only handle conduct disputes which have first been taken to AN or ANI. If you want to complain about the conduct of an administrator, AN or ANI is the spot, with AN being slightly more proper than ANI. If by "formal" you mean taking the whole thing to some supervisor or board that has the power to consider it and take action, that doesn't exist. Misplaced Pages is "owned" by the Wikimedia Foundation — they own the software and servers on which we run — but they will not intervene in matters such as you're concerned about: they leave it up to us inmates to run this asylum (because that's what the entire wiki concept is about). (If some of that does not address what you mean by "formal dispute resolution" I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean.) I'll be going offline just after hitting "Save" on this message and will not be back on until about 14:00 UTC tomorrow. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe you will appreciate that to me, a newbie at this, what you just wrote is as clear as mud. It focused mostly on what can't be done, rather than what can be done! The false assertion that I somehow violated the 3RR seemed (in hindsight, since I was obstructed from accessing the system) to lead to the dismissal of my complaint has left a bad taste in my mouth. There _IS_, indeed, a content dispute. And I am unaware that any of the editors against which my complaint was directed has done anything more than (in one case) divert attention with that false claim of a violation of 3RR. So therefore, as far as I am concerned they have already conceded the matter. That leaves you to read the history of my edits, and the fact that with few and very brief exceptions, they weren't discussed by others on the Talk page of WP:EURO. What they did wrong was to improperly revert my proper edits with their improper reverts. That may ALSO amount to a conduct violation, but it is definitely a CONTENT violation. Frysay (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that there was an underlying content dispute, but what you brought to DRN, wrote up, and requested relief about was the conduct dispute dispute part. As I said, above: "Feel free to refile, but if you do so, do not talk about the other editors' motives, biases, editing practices, habits, COI, POV, or anything else about them or their actions, as all of that involves conduct, not content, and only discuss the content matters in dispute." — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
DRN Ikeda issue
Thanks for reminding to include the notice. I do not use the DRN very often and it slipped my attention that I have to infrom the person involved myself - I thought naming the counterpart would do that automatically. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Hope I did it correctly maybe you could check?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
General officers
Thanks for the compliment. No offence taken. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)