User talk:William Allen Simpson/User Tobias Conradi

comments within your proposal

...plz don't see it as attack in a negativ sense. it's meant to fix bugs. if i would comment somewhere else I always would have to describe where i'am refering to. BTW, I would be interested in a proposal D. that makes excessive use of parenthesis and does not use comma at all. would be interesting. It is not that i really love proposal A, but my primary concern was to reduce naming variants. I found the US schema widespread applied. But it allready has strange things like "X (village), New York" because there is a "X (town), New York" Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

don't try it with wrong edit summaries

summary: Proposal UP text

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28subnational_entities%29&diff=31204025&oldid=31198246

obviously you did alter much more. I assume it was simple revert. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi

see also User talk:Golbez

I take it that you're the one who started the RfC on Tobias Conradi. Very well organized, concise and clear. Excellent use of examples. OnceBitten 22:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

stop marking edits as minor

...stop marking edits as minor if they are not. You constantly delete lot of my contribution to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). Copy your additions into the page, but don't delete mine. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop your vandal-like behaviour

You deleted proposal D in the comparison table. You eliminated distinctins between someland and somelandian by using the word "Country". [1]

Using the word "Country" is inapropriate anyway, because it is confusing. Not the word country itself is meant in the table but rather the coresponding countryname/adjective. Furthermore you did hide your deletions by false edit summary, whether on purpose or not. Regarding the fact that you mark your reverts as minor I am inclined to think you do use wrong edit summaries on purpose.

Please stop your vandal-like deletion and misleading summary behavior. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to fix vandalism can be considered minor. Reverting over a content dispute should never be marked minor. Where this is mentioned, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it is, somewhere. --Golbez 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry For The Delay, the Mediation Cabal is On the Case

I'm going to be checking all the edits at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Naming conventions (subnational entities) over the next few days. I'll let you know what I think hopefully by the end of next week. karmafist 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, could you revise your proposed solution to be in regards to the policy itself rather than those who disagree with you? I've asked Conradi to be civil as well. That will be key in resolving this dispute. karmafist 04:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that i've finalized my analysis at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Naming conventions (subnational entities). karmafist 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, what's next? Given that I tried to head off the vandalization by promptly asking for mediation, and then RfC two days later, I'd like to get this cleared up quickly. --William Allen Simpson 14:28, 29 December 2005 (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)

(Posted there, copied here.)

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.

--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)

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)

Tobias Conradi and "Willy"

I have warned Conradi about his continued use of the "Willy" diminuative when referring to you, when you have expressed repeatedly how insulting you find it. If he continues to use the name, let me know, and I'll see what needs to happen next. - TexasAndroid 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

repeatedly? where? please provide diffs. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[2], [3] ---- These are the two spots I can find easily of William expressing how insulting he finds your use of the name "Willy". There are likely more, but I really don't feel the need to go digging at the moment. - TexasAndroid 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm. At the time of your "warning" I have not had read the latter. Willam could have posted it to the moon page, I would have read it neither. Willam talks about denigration. I am not sure what Wilm is referring to and what he has in mind when speaking of denigration. Did I say something about him that was NOT true? Texy - you say there are likely more (spots) - how did you come to this conclusion??? Is this your way of WP:AGF ? Assume something just because it fits into ... mmh into what? Why did you say this, Texy? Why did you say there are likely more? IMO you are biased in your assumptions. In my eyes you are REALLY A BAD ADMIN at the moment. You should block yourself if you do such things again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

William, this is not an isolated case. (See this.) John Reid 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Did I call you Jy? (shorten user name, add "y") Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)