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.

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)[reply]

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

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

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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi. What happens next?
  2. The MedCab guy issued "final" comments on the one that he started at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conradi's not interested? Wow, he's the one that filed for RfM in response to our RfC! I guess that was just a tactic. As for the rest of the process information, thank you both, Redwolf/Matt and Essjay.

--William Allen Simpson 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been going over it at Talk:Grunge music with a admin. I'm not 100% sure it is completely settled, but we are at least close. I'll let you know if we need help. Thanks. -- LGagnon 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I'm still on Price-Anderson, though I believe I've pretty much failed there. Happy to take another case at your discretion. Ral315 (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that case looks pretty much dead. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a moderation at Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association. Arguments and reverts have been going on for days over the categorization of NAMBLA as an LGBT organization. Dave 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco is sleeping right now, but whenever he comes back he'll begin mediation on it. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in mediation, but it seems no one is responding to my request on the project page. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, yes i would like mediation, i think an outside mediator will help a lot. i would prefer email, as am not familiar with irc. Appleby 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes mediation is needed! As I've said, I have all but given up, I just don't know what to do! Thanks, --sansvoix 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm around. --Improv 06:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm around. Hmmm, if you had looked at the history, you would have seen that I had been systematically removing the old requests only after making sure that they were not wanted anymore, but I guess deleting them all at once is more efficient. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm begginning to believe that my old request isn't wanted by the community, as no one has commented nor voted on it ethier way. Perhaps I should remove it..? -MegamanZero|Talk 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the page is more settled now, I am still interested in mediation or advice on Nick Baker (disputed conviction). The two points are: 1) Should a comparison of Japanese and U.S. arrest and conviction rates be allowed 2) is it fair to note the size of the media discussing a case, such as "Metropolis, the largest circulation magazine in Japan." More info on Talk:Nick Baker (disputed conviction). Thank you for your help. Sparkzilla 12:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Redwolf24, Im SWD316. I would like for you to join in of the conversation about the above user at Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test about his possible fake score on the test. I contacted you because you were one of the top scorers on the test, so you could probably tell if the score is fake or not. We would appriciate your input. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm semi-active, yes, and I can take a case. Andre (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied via email. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. -Ste|vertigo 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]