[WikiEN-l] Requests for comment

Sat Mar 12 18:17:27 UTC 2005

Just, don't use your real identity.  You would also be deleting this history of accuser-"litigators", or mobocracy supporters.  Why assume it is just the "unfairly" accused and maligned that you are protecting?  It is best to have an open system.  In the real civil and criminal court system, it is the dirt that gets "sealed" or "expunged", to the detriment of society.

Whatever identity you use, if your overall behavior continues to be exemplary, eventually it will reflect negatively on the accusers, unless you expunge the records.  Besides, perhaps they will have retained some notes themselves.  If there isn't an "official" record, then their,  perhaps selective records may go unchallenged.

                        -- Silverback

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> 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 
> _______________________________________________ 
> WikiEN-l mailing list 
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org 
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l 