User talk:Keithbob/Archive 7

Talk page archive for 2015

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)

Request your possible involvement

This probably takes some explaining. At the recent ArbCom case regarding Landmark Worldwide I suggested that maybe it might be possible to get together a group of editors with some broad experience of wikipedia and knowledge of the general topic area to get together and review the sources available on the topic with the intention of ultimately starting a broader discussion, probably through RfC, about the issues involved. It is more or less in line with a proposal I made for something like a "content" committee, which would probably be more reasonably called a "comment" committee, given the role I think RfC and the hopefully wide variety and number of editors might play in the real outcome of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. ArbCom itself requested some broader input in the topic area in its decision.

I was thinking of editors around here who might have some sort of broad experience in the social/religious issues involved and you were one of the first names that came to mind for maybe taking part in reviewing information presented and evaluating sources and the like. If you would have any interest in maybe taking part in this sort of test run for such a committee, I would obviously welcome it. I haven't actually started a separate section on the article talk page yet, because I wanted to see if there were any responses from the individuals I was considering, or, potentially, anyone else who might be interested. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John for thinking of me. I'm flattered. I'd be open to participating in a content committee if the community were to establish one. Happy new year!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

archives

Hi Keithbob. Fyi, I noticed that links to the archive pages are missing from Wikipedia talk:POV railroad. It's probably just a template adjustment. Ignocrates (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean mizrabot auto-archive on the talk page. I'm a klutz when it comes to archiving. I've tried it a few times including my own user talk page and it never seems to work right. If you have any skills in that area and could set up the talk page archive bot properly it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and happy new year!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An admin from the help desk has fixed it. Admin privileges were required to reset the archive file to Archive 1. Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks my friend! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

perseverance and willingness to compromise

Thank you for quality biographies such as Norman E. Rosenthal, for writing and improving articles related to new religious movements aiming for a "balanced and accurate representation of reliable sources from all significant points of view", with "improve prior edit" a frequent edit summary, for discussion instead of reverts and for dispute resolution: "... mindful of their tone. I understand this process is slow and frustrating but WP requires civility at all times and we should try to remain calm and respectful, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 731st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! You are too kind......-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lori Greiner article

Hi Keithbob. FYI: You might be interested in this issue on the Lori Greiner article. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lori_Greiner_article
Any help or clarification is useful, especially since you've communicated with the editor (User:Philpallen) in question in the past in 2013. Best wishes. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems the AN thread has been archived with no action taken. I also did some editing on the article to create more accurate/neutral content and removed the clean up tags. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, the Admin board is quickly triaged. Someone did put a COI flag. Very Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

Sorry to bother. I tagged you in a note at Talk:Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman concerning additions to the history section. Was hoping you could help. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Making sure that you saw it

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I saw it today and a response is next on my WP to do list :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism

You have a more difficult mediation case than Sunray does. Now that one of the editors, who appears on a very cursory glance to be the most reasonable of the editors involved (and I have always known him to be a reasonable editor), has had to take a break from mediation due to illness, the topic has been jerked back to WP:ANI. My sympathies. Unfortunately, it appears that mediation is likely to fail, and you know better than I at when mediation fails. (A few editors have complained when I have failed moderated discussion at WP:DRN, although I thought that they were unreasonable editors, and I don't know how to mediate with unreasonable editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The ANI case is about a recent behavioral issue. The mediation is about a large and long standing issues of content. The two are separate as they should be and they'll get worked out individually by the appropriate people at each location.Meanwhile, Thanks for all your help at DRN. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B Hinckley Dispute Resolution

Thank you for taking a look at the request for dispute assistance. As you noted, since the request was placed, discussion and edits ceased awaiting assistance. If you are still interested in volunteering I invite you over to the talk page.Mormography (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper comment

On the one hand, you are absolutely right in agreeing that the final commentary will be written six to twelve months from now by other authors. However, that doesn't change the fact that it looks to me like a content dispute with conduct complications. As a more experienced mediator, you may have reason to be optimistic that we might be able to resolve it without it being sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a general comment about the problem of recentism on WP. I have no opinion regarding the status of that specific case at DRN. If you take the DRN case, I send you good wishes for success as I remain optimistic that every dispute has the potential for resolution. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For remaining civil in spite of harsh personal attacks at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Certain people may not think so, but go MedCom! Banedon (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very kind. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda DRN discussion

I know that this is almost certainly completely unprecedented, and probably according to guidelines and policies maybe unsupportable, but if there might be any way to call a "code red" type situation regarding the above DRN discussion, seeking at least nominal input from as many DRN volunteers as possible, I think it might be useful. I have been marginally involved in some of the related content over the years, which is one of the reasons I am not volunteering per se there, but do think that for some of these more, well, emotional and sometimes long-term disputes, maybe the best possible outcome might be some sort of almost super-RfC at the DRN which would with luck have sufficient outside involvement and input to more or less resolve the matter fairly solidly at least in the comparatively short term. I doubt very seriously if there is any sort of real precedent to that, as I said, but if it were possible to get some more generally informed and aware individuals involved in some of these long-term vexatious discussions, I think it might be one of the few ways to really resolve them to the proximate satisfaction of all those involved, maybe even more so than formal mediation, because of the greater involvement of (hopefully) well informed and neutral editors. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its always good to have lots of outside input from uninvolved editors. Unfortunately there a many RfC's that only draw in one or two outside opinions and fail to provide consensus or resolution. WP:RfC says that RfC's can be listed at relevant noticeboard to get further input and there are also many editors who get random reminders of new RfCs on their talk page. It's not usually enough, I know, but there are chronic and egregious man/woman-power shortages all over WP. Its a major problem for the project in my opinion. Good luck and thank you for all your contributions! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Diane Black

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Diane Black. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. 209.104.250.2 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with your threats. I am cleaning up a sloppily written and formatted article. Happy to discuss any concerns with you on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Helmut Diez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helmut Diez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Diez until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Acknowledged. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Landmark discussion continued

This is becoming personal and unproductive

Hi John, You said: It is worth noting that there was a previous request for MEDCOM involvement which seems to have been not accepted because several of the parties who might have been involved chose not to participate, and at least one, me, who was theoretically unable to say anything at the time. Under the circumstances, that might make even some individuals who might have considered accepting mediation opt not to, as it would be unlikely to be accepted with as many people rejecting it as it had. And, has been said repeatedly, even in this thread there are questions regarding whether individuals who may have demonstrated or been accused of having POV/COI issues which might make their input potentially problematic. I would be interested in knowing whether you think that perhaps MEDCOM might be, perhaps in conjunction with an RfC or perhaps group of RfCs, perhaps effective in helping to determine such matters. My Responses: MEDCOM was rejected because several parties declined participation. ----- This is normal. As you know [participation in] dispute resolution procedures such as DRN and MEDCOM are optional. I think you are saying that a second request for mediation is not being considered by participants for fear it will fail again for the same reasons. I would suggest a staw poll on the talk page to see how many would participate in mediation if a case was accepted. COI matters should be addressed at COIN only. If the COIN discussion comes up empty then the COI allegations should be dropped as WP:COI says that allegations of COI should not be used as a stick in content disputes. Any remaining issues of POV should be handled in the standard manner ie discussion, RfC and other forms of dispute resolution. I don't see MEDCOM having any role in that process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Add to words in brackets to my cmt.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I think the operative individuals involved might be me, blocked at the time (deservedly, in this instance), and @Astynax:. The question about MEDCOM and RfC was that, basically, if you read the talk page and recent history, it seems that at least a few individuals on what one other editor has called the "pro"- and "con"- Landmark sides consider their "opponents" biased beyond the capacity of placing policy and guidelines before opinion. And, unfortunately, as someone who has generally only been peripherally involved in the overall history, I can agree that there seems to be consensus among numerous outsiders that at least one of the more active editors historically on the article on Landmark is driven by POV to promote his side. An admin has recently said he has "seen evidence" of COI with another editor, although that editor denies the claim. In this particular case, I think it isn't unreasonable to think that neither "side" really either trusts the other side or thinks that the other side is capable of placing policy and/or guidelines before POV. This sort of thing has happened before, with Scientology, and it might potentially happen the same way here, with blocks or bans accumulating on multiple sides. In fact, one admin recently more or less said he was thinking of blocking or banning pretty much everyone involved and hoping outsiders would take over. I'm not sure that might not be a bad option myself, even if I'm included in that number, but I wonder if there might be some way to maybe bring in the outsiders without heads metaphorically rolling in large numbers. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Keithbob Thanks for your efforts to bring some sanity to this discussion. As you are probably aware the MEDCOM request that I made [1] was rejected because all six of the "anti-Landmark" editors declined to engage with it, several of them with insulting comments. John Carter (with a chorus of supporters) has made numerous accusations against me of having a COI, despite having failed to produce a shred of valid evidence, and despite the fact that this accusation has "come up empty" not only at COIN but also at ANI, at ARBCOM, and at AE. The whole catalog looks more and more like a classic case of a WP:POV railroad. I have made repeated attempts to resolve the content aspects of the problem, not only with the mediation request, but with two RfCs, and with extended discussions on the Talk page. Invariably these are met with personal attacks, accusations of bad faith and aspersions, rather than with logical responses to the points raised. The tone and style of expression of some of the editors pushing for an article more critical of Landmark is illustrated by this example: [2]. DaveApter (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I believe the evidence of the MEDCOM indicates rather the opposite of what DaveApter says above. The absence of a statement should not reasonably be considered a refusal, and the page itself [Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Landmark Worldwide here] indicates only six people total expressed opinions, so it is rather an unsupportable misstatement of fact to say as is said above that all six declined. I know I at least was, as I said, blocked at the time the request was made, and so was not in a position to cast a vote one way or another. And I think that the "chorus of supporters" (by the way, note the inherently prejudicial nature of that comment in itself, which seems to indicate that they are all my "backers") include User:Drmies. However, I do note the apparent inability in the above comment to either make factually accurate statements, something which seems to be rather a persistent problem, as per his unfounded accusations against Theobald Tiger which led that basically new editor to retire until others verified the falseness of the claims, and his own conduct in the ARBCOM, which might merit review, I think have demonstrated both DaveApter's biases and his inability to recognize them. It also should be noted that [{WP:COI]] specifically does not demand a financial connection, but indicates other factors can and do raise the possibility of COI, although it seems that is the primary, if not sole, reason for Dave so categorically rejecting the term is because of his lack of financial involvement. FWIW, there is a draft essay, at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, still in the early stages, which deals more explicitly with such situations, and, Keithbob, you would be more than welcome to make any additions or changes you might see fit. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Maybe John has illustrated my point? And if we do have to hair-spilt over the MEDCOM request, of the six editors operating from an "anti-Landmark viewpoint" who were named, three declined, two ignored it, and John could not comment because he was blocked at the time. DaveApter (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Actually, what you have honestly illustrated is (1) your perhaps absolute inability to recognize your own bias, which is I believe frankly obvious to everyone but yourself, and (2) your rather paranoic insistence that anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your own transparent biases is as you call it someone from an "anti-Landmark viewpoint" or "enemies of Landmark," seemingly even including those who came into the discussion as a result of the ArbCom request for further input. I also notice how once again DaveApter seems to be engaging in his ongoing effort to not only refuse to assume good faith, but actively posit bad faith, of anyone with whom he disagrees, and a rather obvious tendency to willfully misrepresent facts when they don't support his own viewpoint, by jumping to the irrational assumption that those who disagree with him are biased, and his continuing to paint the actions of others in the worst possible way. In this case, by using the inherently prejudicial term "ignored" to describe others who may have, honestly, just not chosen to respond for whatever reason, even though he obviously seems to be assuming one and only one, and his early misrepresentation of fact saying I refused to participate when in fact I was not able to at the time. I believe these ongoing problem he has demonstrated regarding inability to assume good faith of anyone who is not in wholehearted agreement with him, his inability to recognize his own conflict of interests, which might perhaps be more prejudicially phrased as being that he has no real "conflict" of interests, but perhaps has only one interest, to promote Landmark, and his ongoing refusal to see if his incendiary rushes to judgment regarding others when making his inherently prejudicial statements are in fact accurate. I think his own comments, here and elsewhere, are probably one of the best reasons to indicate why so far as I can tell virtually everyone who does not share his obvious "pro-Landmark" viewpoint has described him as having a bias as overriding as his own COI as per WP:COI, which is not limited to employment only, and also his rather regrettable assertion of transparently false and/or unfounded accusations of others, rather clearly violating basic conduct guidelines. WP:AGF is not intended to apply to individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated that their own actions are not necessarily guided by policies or guidelines. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I've capped this discussion as it's becoming increasingly more and more personal and less and less productive. My talk page is also not the appropriate place to hash out a long standing dispute between two (or more) editors. You may continue on one of your own talk pages if you feel it will help you to progress in your understanding of each others position. I have no dog in this fight, only a desire to see the situation cool down and reach some compromises. I know that contentious topics and articles can be very frustrating and difficult. Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - I was about to suggest that it was unfair to take up space on your talk page with this kind of stuff. Apologies for my part in prolonging it. DaveApter (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

However, I do think that the evidence indicates that the individuals involved for any length of time have some degree of obvious problems assuming any good faith of those that disagree with them. This lack of AGF unfortunately seems to be extended to those who came in, as they said, as per the request from ArbCom. Sometimes this may be founded, sometimes not. But it does indicate that, maybe, the one way to resolve this might be something like a MEDCOM conducted not to determine what the individual content of each of the relevant articles should be, which I think it would never be likely to reach consensus on, but maybe to determine what topics need to be covered in one or more of the articles and to devise a jointly agreed-upon RfC or series of RfC's to get the issues resolved by outsiders who, one hopes, will not instantly be called "biased" if they disagree with the positions of individuals on either side. Alternately, I think, the likely outcome is either indeff full protection without any changes, despite the apparent need to them, of the LW article, or perhaps a war of attrition to determine who the last editor unblocked is, unless some such actions are taken. I doubt either option would really appeal to most individuals involved. Also, like I said, Keithbob, if you can think of anything you want to add to the User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet page before it might be moved to mainspace, feel free to do so. I do know and acknowledge up front that at least some copyediting is likely required. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

Sorry to bother. I tagged you in a note at Talk:Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman about incorporating peer review suggestions. Was hoping you could review. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Keithbob,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words; I'll be back to DR/N, I just have other drahmahz at the moment. Feel free to ping me if you get a backlog going. Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virtual Wallet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 20:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

got it, thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Will Defer to Your Opinion

I will defer to your opinion. I didn't think it was off-topic, but will take your advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Thank you for suggesting mentorship at DR Talk - may I choose you? --Atsme^📞📧 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Atsme, Yes, I'd be happy to assist you anytime. Just leave me a note here whenever you need something. On the outside chance you have something private to discuss you can send an email but put a note here saying you sent an email as I don't check my WP email everyday. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN moderating

Hi Keithbob. Noting your comments on the DRN talk page regarding mentor-ship in moderating, I'd like to take you up on that offer. I've had, largely in theoretical teaching, experiences with meditation in real life, but it compares nothing to that of Wikipedia. My typical philosophy is one of finding asking for what everybody wants and asking them to produce more and more similar versions, but I now see that it may not be the most efficient method here. Regardless, I wish to remain involved in dispute resolution here, so I thought that you may be able to point me in the right direction. Any comments are helpful. Thanks in advance! Kharkiv07 (T) 00:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, do you have any questions about a case you are moderating now? Or do you want to look at a past case and give some comments? Just let me know what you need. I'm happy to help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The case I currently have is a bit of a dud that I think I'll be forced to close... perhaps I'll come back when I take up the next and you can guide me through it? Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, just give me a ping, when you start :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Closed Osgood

Hi - can you tell me why there is a tag that says "no closing comments were detected"? I put "closed" in the status, and for archive I gave the reason for closing. --Atsme^📞📧 18:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Solved in the course of solving a related problem. She had accidentally used the {{DRN archive top}} template at the bottom, as well as the top, rather than {{DRN archive bottom}} . What this did was to hide all subsequent threads. Typos in templates are common, and usually obvious and so corrected immediately by the template-inserter. In this odd case, the effect was unobvious, but puzzling to someone who remembered what the previous cases had been. I corrected the bottom. The lack of a closing comment applied to the hiding of everything by accident. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch Robert. Thanks! Atsme, does that answer your question or do you need more explanation or assistance? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert handled it perfectly, Keith. I'm good to go. It was an oversight on my behalf and I will certainly be more cautious in the future. Thank you! Atsme^📞📧 05:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad it worked out. I've made many 'mark up' blunders on WP. Don't worry, you are doing great! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Question, re:sanctions imposed by biased admin

I realize my questions exceed the usual DRN issues, and I apologize. I originally posted to Transporterman's TP so I wouldn't be bothering you with something not DRN related, but it appears I've been railroaded for edit warring when it was actually the other editor who was edit warring but we've heard that before, right? I need a 3O and was hoping you could help.

• I removed material that was noncompliant with NPOV and expanded the lede citing 3 quality reviews and a 3rd party NBCNews interview using inline text attribution - all compliant with MEDRS and NPOV.
• The admin who imposed the article sanctions against me has demonstrated an unmistakeable bias toward me in the past, and it has shown up here again. That same admin has demonstrated support of what appears to be a very organized group of editors who have a history of disruptive editing and patterned behaviors. This isn't the first article I have been subjected to their disruptive behavior and attempts to railroad me into a TB.
• I asked the sanctioning admin to remove the sanctions and to recuse himself from further interactions with me because of his bias. It wasn't that long ago that he imposed an ARBCOM warning against me for a harmless pun and the placement of a rogue emoji on an article TP. It took me nearly a week or more to prove the emoji was not my doing, and included providing screen captures, repeated explanations, and finally getting Technical 13 to validate it from a tech POV. I won't go into the details but the bias is evident.

1. Do you think this admin's behavior toward me is actionable?
2. If I file at ARBCOM, should I name all the parties (the admin, the editors who have shown repeated behavioral patterns, diffs of tag-teaming, ill-will and reverts?
3. Will ARBCOM also decide on the current imposed article sanction and admin's action or do I have to file a separate action?
4. If I file at ARBCOM, should I also provide evidence (diffs) showing past behaviors of the same admin and editors at different articles other than the one where the sanctions against me are now imposed since this isn't the first article where ill-will has been shown toward me and my edits have repeatedly been reverted based on arguments that are not substantive?

If ARBCOM determines that I am a disruptive BF editor because my edits have been to correct noncompliance with PAGs, then so be it, but I have grown weary of my work being reverted by what appears to be a very organized team of editors who are misapplying MEDRS and NPOV to support what appears to be an advocacy position. I think Someguy1221 nailed it with the following: Under Verifiable "Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles." It's happening now. --Atsme^📞📧 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, Based on the information that you've given me I don't see this as the kind of long term behavioral problem that ArbCom is known to address. Generally they only accept cases that involve years of problems and only after all other types of content and behavioral dispute resolution have been exhausted. ArbCom turns down 3-4 times as many cases as it hears. Furthermore, it sounds like this dispute might be taking place at an article already covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions ie "fringe" topics and ArbCom would automatically refer it to WP:AE. There are other places you could take your dispute such as WP:ANI but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect there and at WP:AE as well. WP has no effective 'justice' system. It is administrated by a changing array of individuals (even ArbCom members change each year) and as such it is random and inconsistent and based on the disposition of whatever Admin(s) show up on that day/week. My advice to you is to walk away from the issue and find some other topics to edit that are non-controversial. Probably not what you wanted to hear but that is the best advice I can offer.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith. I went to the admin's TP and provided the evidence that supports my position, and requested he repeal the ban/remove it from the log. I realize it's only for a week, and that admin may have had good intentions but had the wool pulled over his eyes - I tend to hold our admins too high on a pedestal because of their knowledge of the system and the work they do as volunteers - and that may contribute somewhat to my disappointment over his actions. While I have walked away from articles that were inundated with disruptive POV pushers (including some admins), I can only half-way agree that walking away from it is the answer because doing so only emboldens the bullies. You are absolutely correct that we should walk away from it for a while to gather our thoughts. However, if we don't do our best to identify and treat the cancer that's plaguing our encyclopedia, and choose instead to just sit back and allow it to take over, then we are equally as guilty for what happens, and in this case, it appears to be trending toward a loss of trust in WP as an encyclopedia. The issues reach much deeper than what most can see at the surface. There are obvious patterned behaviors of advocacy tethered to individual COI that are at play here, and their goal is to remove the competition (or opposition) from "their articles". WP:OWN is rampant in what has become "series of articles". PAGs sometimes prevail but when admins are members of the advocacy, we can't expect much to happen. It's spreading like wild fire, and we're losing GF editors as a result. See the essay I created and co-authored WP:AVDUCK because it addresses some of the issues. Please feel free to add what you think needs to be included. Short of a miracle, I just don't see how I can avoid filing an ARBCOM case going forward and doing whatever else I can to expose the patterned behaviors, bullying, hounding, railroading, etc. It's a crap situation and the smell is offensive. There has been talk of a task force. Atsme^📞📧 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I admire your courage and integrity. Good luck with your efforts. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Keith. I will definitely need the luck. As I see it, my edits are consistently reverted which is the same as not editing so there really isn't much more to lose by trying. 😊 Atsme^📞📧 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Belvedere and Fulhold

Hey, I reinstated some of the original content on these as there were factual errors and misunderstandings in the material that you added to both. Some of the refs you used didn't support the content they were against either. We also need a proper lead for both. I think you also need to be wary of saying that the Belevedere connection caused the suspension of Fulhold. Although it probably did, we don't know for sure. In addition the allegations about Belvedere remain unproven. Please discuss on talk before editing them further. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've outlined all of my edits and sources on the talk page. Let's discuss and come to an agreement. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

We would like to wait and wish best to The moderator User:Steven Zhang for family emergency. Hope he will be blessed by god and on his return he will do the justice. Keithbob Sir during this waiting period Disputed last para of the lead about election 2014 be removed. It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last fifteen days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Although it's unhelpful to a dispute, there is no rule that says that changes must wait until an ongoing dispute resolution has been completed. I hope a new DRN volunteer comes forward to help you with your case. Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN

I presume it's still a bad time to ask for oversight on the case I'm opening? No pressure whatsoever, whatever works for you! Kharkiv07 (T) 00:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Kharkiv07, I'm happy to help. I'll keep an eye on the thread and give a comment if I have a suggestion. Meanwhile feel free to post here if you have a concern. My first suggestion :-) is to have an open discussion rather than asking participants to comment in their own section. DRN is an "informal" place for dispute resolution and in my observation sectioning off the comments is counterproductive and decreases the chances of resolution. However.......... there are a few people who use that formalized sectional format and it is your personal choice as to what format you use to moderate the case. So use what you find comfortable and effective. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. First question: Normally it seems with DRN that there's room to negotiate, I give you this sentence and you give me one, however in my current case it's a single sentence that is phrased pretty neutrally. I question the suitability of this case for DRN, as it seems that one party has to be "right", if not I'm not sure how to proceed. Advice is much appreciated. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look and then comment here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there is room for discussion on all kinds of things 1) the veracity of the sources 2) placement of the sentence in the article 3) the wording etc. It's possible, in theory at least, that there could be compromise in one of these areas. The crux of the discussion is whether this minor mention is relevant to the article per WPs summary style. We don't put every detail of every source in every article. So there is a judgement call here. The easy way out (and maybe the best) is to ask the participants if they could agree to having an RfC. The RfC would say simply: Does this sentence and citations belong in the article? Yes or no. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07, The DRN case seems to have withered. This happens sometimes. I suggest you ping all the participants and let them know that the case needs to move along and if there is no willingness to keep the case moving you will need to close it in 24 to 48 hrs.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's my fault, as I remarked there yesterday, I've had a death in the family and won't be editing. I marked it as "needassist". Kharkiv07 (T) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll find a new moderator. So sorry for your loss. Best wishes to you and your family.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC collapsible boxes

To date, the RfC discussion at "Talk:United States" in the two sections “Enumeration of the territories” and “Sources” could be collapsed into respective boxes labelled “Mediation participant comments". This would avoid the wall of text off-putting to editors invited to the RfC. TFD has suggested the solution for "Sources", The Gnome has noted the potential problem at "Enumeration of the territories". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if you can collapse the refs in TFD section, if so, I'm fine with collapseing my "See also" section. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding here because there, it's collapsed, by you:

"This section is being collapsed because it is counterproductive to the RfC." I agree, the people continuing their interminable fight is counterproductive. I'm not part of that.

"This is not a place to rehash or extend the mediation discussions." I agree; my statement has nothing to do with the mediation and everything to do with the implementation.

"Your job is to make an official statement and walk away." My job is to COMMENT in a section for "COMMENTS" in a REQUEST FOR COMMENTS. I have no "official" statement to make as I am not a party to the mediation anymore. I was; I gave up because it was a total mess. I did not interact with the mediation process after that. I'm simply now making comments that I would end up making in the future if the implementation was poor. Is that a problem?

"At this point in the process we want to hear from the community not from mediation participants." I will refrain from expletives here.

"I know this a long standing dispute and there is a lot of history and pent up frustration but please exercise some restraint." Likewise; don't antagonize people by hiding legitimate comments. --Golbez (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, your objections are noted.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my fury above. You likely had no reason to think that you were stepping into a nest of scorpions. --Golbez (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Golbez ,Thanks my friend. In situations like this it's inevitable that some people will be unhappy no matter what the process or outcome. As mediators we try to find the middle ground but its a thin line we tread :-) I know that emotions run high in these situations but your willingness to come back and apologize speaks volumes for your character. Thank you very much. I hope we can all work together for the best possible outcome. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Links

Hi Keithbob, is one of the Register links you placed on Jimbo's talk wrong? (You've got the same link twice.) And it might be worth linking Wales' Guardian piece as well. Best, --Andreas JN466 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I've added a comment with better links and clearer explanation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC statement exceeding 200 words.

TFD has approximately 175 words of statement, and approximately 925 of bibliographic essay. He is entitled to the 175:

The position of most legal experts as well the Supreme Court of the United States, the executive and Congress is that the unincorporated territories of the United States are administered by the United States but not part of the United States. The legal position was settled in the Insular cases, which is still good law. As a consequence, the Constitution does not apply in full, although it does protect the fundamental human rights in those territories. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that these same rights apply to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. However, other provisions do not apply. Hence there is no birthright citizenship in American Samoa, there are different federal tax rules, etc.

The U.S. government treats the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories. That has not changed their constitutional status. Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is a minority opinion.

Surely 1100 words is not the intent of the RfC 200 word max limit, it violates both the spirit and the letter of the usual WP procedure. His sources might be allowed in a collapsible box in that the Mediation sources summary box is about 200 words... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good suggestion to collapse everyone's citations. As for the length I'd like to wait till SunRay get's back and then take stock of the situation. So far no one has voted but mediation participants. Until we start getting some outside input the whole process is not that productive. Let's give it a day or two and see where we stand. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Hi! I think you may now see why I wouldn't join that mediation. I've been following it, though. Sarna wrote, "He [Grant] consciously excluded any mention of it [GO11] from his acclaimed Memoirs." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Interview for my dissertation

hello, My name is yilmaz. I am doing master at Sussex in the field of media and cultural studies and I am writing dissertation about Wikipedia as a commons but I need to have an interview with at least three (3) Wikipedians. I send you an interview form, which consists of twelve questions. The interview is crucial to analyse the main logic of Wikipedia and digital commons. I hope you will help me for this. Best Regards, Yilmaz

I'm not interested in being interviewed but you will likely find others who are more inclined. Good luck with your project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DRN -- closed as failed

Well, that was frustrating! And it seemed like such a straightforward case -- no, you can't synthesize, and yes, you need reliable sources. :D Thanks for your help! valereee (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If one party was not willing to embrace the standard interpretation of the guidelines then an WP:RfC would be good to demonstrate how the community views the issue and that would create resolution. You could recommend that to the party that filed the DRN. In either case don't feel bad 85% or more of DRN cases end without resolution. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith! I don't feel bad -- I just thought it was pretty straightforward.  :) I've watched the page, if I see it starting up again I'll point them in the direction of RfC, thanks! valereee (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

youngStartup

Hi Keithbob!

I was about to help fix up the entry to make it more balanced, I see you beat me to it. I will try to fix it up, better format of paragraphs and NPOV. I saw there were other errors in syntax with links causing it to be reverted. I will see what I can do. I am a long time reader of Wikipedia but new editor.

Please advise if I am helping.

Be well! CaMoBap24 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please wait till I have finished my rewrite. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I did some changes when I thought you were finished. Sorry if I troubled you. Also I wrote some on talk page there, I will see how the feedback is. I love Wikipedia and enjoy finally learning about all the work that people put in to it! CaMoBap24 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I have mentioned you on the School of Economic Science Talk page. -Roberthall7 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on September 5 2015. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until September 5 2016, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using so go ahead and delete. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediation

Thanks for your help in the Grant matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Delhi Cloth & General Mills

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Delhi Cloth & General Mills requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Bachi article

I invite you to discuss at Talk:Jim Bachi your removal of content from that article. It appears to be the same person, but I'd like to discuss it further. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, see you at the talk page! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

COI

I have mentioned you here [3] -Roberthall7 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tman, I'll try to keep an eye on things and take a case if I have time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 24 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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get up to speed and cast some votes soon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Katie.com vs Katie Jones (Web Entrepreneur)

You've made several changes to Katie Jones's wikipedia page - and now even removing it all together by just making it a redirection page to Katie Tarbox's book.

As per Wikipedia's rules regarding changes to pages for advertising purposes (as you have clearly done by editing Katie Jones's webpage over time to remove information) I was wondering why you have made Katie Jones's wikipedia page redirect to a book currently still in publish.

Let me know. ----- Unsigned comment

Here is the article you are referencing. To whom am I speaking? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that is the article. You've removed the article about Katie Jones - the web entrepreneur and redirected it to an article about Katie Tarbox's book - a completely different person, and a page advertising her book at that. I was wondering why, as I explained earlier, you changed a biographic page about a person and redirected it to an page about a different person's book.

Let me know. PhaseTime (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi PhaseTime. I just want to understand who I'm talking to. Did you also leave the unsigned comment above? Also are you the IP that reverted the redirect in this edit?

The merge and redirect was made by virtue of a consensus discussion held on the talk page of the Katie Jones article which you can read here. If you disagree you may reopen the discussion there and see if a there is a consensus that supports your view. In the meantime I would caution you and/or others not to disregard current community consensus by reverting past edits. Thanks for working with the WP system of discussion and WP:Consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen D. Sullivan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TSR. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Objection

I am really very very angry that you closed the mediation without even the courtesy of attempting to notify or ask editors beforehand. I strongly object. But if you would like to have a different member of Med Com take it up instead of you, that would be OK with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand you're reaction. In your shoes I might feel the same way. Let's continue our discussion on T-man's talk page to keep it all in one place. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's very nice of you (and tolerant of my initial response). I appreciate that. And I've mellowed out a lot since my initial reaction, so I no longer feel so strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, let's work through this together. At the end of the day we both have the same goal  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parry Aftab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fair Play. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

done.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)