Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Essjay (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 10 January 2006 (→RFM subnational entities?: Proxy response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm Out!! talk:Redwolf24&action=purge (Purge Server Cache)

Welcome to the picnic! If you are a new user thanking me for the welcome, create the section with "Thanks from (your name)" or something similar, not just Thanks or Thank you, as this gets hard to track. :)

When do I archive? Whenever the page is over 30KB. No sooner, and only later if there's an active topic.

• Enter the archives.

RfM

this William / subnational entity naming thing? it's quite since at least two weeks. fine with me not todo anything there. thx a lot and happy new year. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFM - Beatriz Marinello

Thanks for your kind offer. Mediation would most likely be fruitless. Billbrock 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFM subnational entities?

Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't quite understand the processes yet, and they are not well documented.

• When do the the RFCs become complete? I don't see any time limit listed, and it's hard to figure out where everything stands:
  1. Conradi never responded to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi. What happens next?
  2. The MedCab guy issued "final" comments on the one that he started at Misplaced Pages:Request for comment/Naming conventions (subnational entities). Again, what happens next?
• Meanwhile, having been driven off the "(subnational entities)" project page, I posted my proposed text on the superior project "(places)" — and after virtually no controversy (unlike the fierce fights over US and Canada there), it's all now part of the adopted guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (places). It probably helped that I've some experience writing international standards (Google is your friend).
• Really, it all came down to the tamper tantrums of one guy.
• The reasons for the tantrums became apparent when I discovered Conradi had been vigorously moving/renaming pages to create a de facto standard after losing the straw poll of August 2005.
• The issue isn't resolved with finality, as there are still thousands of pages to be moved and fixed to conform to the new guidelines.
  • Do RfCs persist until all the problems are fixed?
  • Would a goal of RfM be that Conradi help in putting things back where they belong?
• After so long a wait, I'd hate to give up the opportunity for actual RfM help, but as I don't know what's the regular practice for completion of RfCs, and how RfM fits into the schema, I don't know what to do next.
• (I'll watch here for the answer.)

--William Allen Simpson 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Conradi isn't interested in mediation it appears, so the mediation won't happen as both parties must agree. As for your other questions, I'd really like to answer them all but I'm busy trying to reform RFM right now... Redwolf24 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With Red busy reforming the Mediation Committee, he's asked me to step in and answer the rest of your questions. First and foremost, as Red said, Mediation can't happen if both parties don't submit to it. As for RfC, for the most part they go on until they stop (i.e., people stop adding material) and if a clear consensus has emerged, then that consensus should be respected. Quite unfortunately, there is no official method for determining what said consensus is, or even if consensus has been reached. What I mean is, there is no RfC Committee that swoops in, closes the discussion, and announces a verdict. It is most certainly a flaw in the system that often renders RfC nothing more than an evidence gathering stage for a later RfM or RfAr.

It sounds to me as though a consensus has developed, even if not at the RfC, and it has been adopted as the standard. I don't think requiring the other party to help "fix" things is a good idea; it is only likely to fuel further conflict. If a number of identical, repetitive changes are being made, then one of the many bots approved for such tasks may be of help. You can ask at WP:BOT.

For now, I would say go ahead with making the articles conform to the consensus as it has been adopted, and put the rest of the unpleasantness in the past. If problems persist where the other party is acting against consensus, then bring it to the attention of administrators via WP:AN/I.

I hope this helps, and if you have other questions, feel free to ask them of me here or on my talk page. — Essjay · Talk 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)