[WikiEN-l] Requests for comment

Sat Mar 12 18:07:07 UTC 2005

Why do we have such a nasty dispute resolution process as the user conduct RfC? And one that creates so much bitterness from those who have been through it?

As I see it, the rules are this: two users have a disagreement with one user (User X) and cite them on RfC.

User X gets permanently listed on a troublesome users list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_conduct_disputes). There is no appeal and no provision for User X to be removed from that list - and any Wikipedian (or, as SlimVirgin has noted on  - any potential employer can see that User X is trouble from it too).

The arguments for retention seem to be the follow:

(1) we'll need the info in the RfC for if/when the case goes to ArbCom; and 
(2) we like a record of these things (ie it is interesting to the prurient)

As a result of the nastiness of the process, trolls and bullies know they can threaten people with the process. Of course, the one-sided nature of the process makes it much more likely that User X reacts badly so that the case has to go to the ArbCom.

Should RfC really remain vicious and interesting for those that like a dispute?

Or should it not be changed to encourage disputes to be resolved, and quickly forgotten, so those who wish to make WP a better encycopaedia can get on with that aim? (And, going back to the SlimVirgin point - should the RfC process not take account that potential employers often do make internet checks of potential employess?)

Kind regards

jguk

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 