| Revision as of 03:40, 7 February 2006 editCrotalus horridus (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,850 edits No grounds for closure was provided. I gave a detailed rationale for the MFD, and summary closure/reversion is not helpful nor conducive to discussion.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:41, 7 February 2006 edit undoPhyschim62 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers33,631 edits →[]: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *"RFCs act as trials without verdicts" - freestylefrappe | *"RFCs act as trials without verdicts" - freestylefrappe | ||
| The User RFC process has gotten out of hand. The Kelly Martin RFC - basically a long, long hatefest on both sides - was an extreme example, but the same thing on a smaller scale is seen continuously. This is an utterly useless and destructive step in "dispute resolution", because '''when was the last time that a dispute was actually ''resolved'' via filing a user RFC'''? Basically, all this step does is give people an opportunity to get madder and madder at each other while preparing for ]. Enough. '''Delete''' and then replace with a '''protected archive''' page, and urge the community to devise better preliminary dispute resolution steps. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | The User RFC process has gotten out of hand. The Kelly Martin RFC - basically a long, long hatefest on both sides - was an extreme example, but the same thing on a smaller scale is seen continuously. This is an utterly useless and destructive step in "dispute resolution", because '''when was the last time that a dispute was actually ''resolved'' via filing a user RFC'''? Basically, all this step does is give people an opportunity to get madder and madder at each other while preparing for ]. Enough. '''Delete''' and then replace with a '''protected archive''' page, and urge the community to devise better preliminary dispute resolution steps. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. This page is an established procedure in dispute resolution. To suggest its deletion is preposterous. -- ] ] 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. This page is an established procedure in dispute resolution. To suggest its deletion is preposterous. -- ] ] 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. While user RFCs are far from perfect, I don't think this is the correct way to obtain consensus for changing them. ] ] 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:41, 7 February 2006
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct
I realize that proposing a process page like this for deletion is likely to be hotly controversial. But we've seen an unbelievable explosion of incivil behavior and bad will on Misplaced Pages in the past couple of days and I think it's time to start rolling back this process. And WP:RFC/USER is a good place to start. Virtually no one is happy with the user RFC process as it currently stands. Here are a couple of examples from the AAP (WP:AAP#Requests_for_comment_is_not_taken_seriously_enough):
- "people RFCs generally don't work at all. Some degenerate into personal attacks, many are filed in bad faith, and the majority are mostly ignored or disregarded by their subject." - Radiant!
- "Currently, RFC's on specific admins are turning into heated, emotional diatribes instead of offering real solutions." - Zzyzx11
- "User RfCs rarely accomplish their goal given the circus like atmosphere that tends to preside" - Jareth
- "RFC as it is now is completely useless." - Ulayiti
- "RFCs act as trials without verdicts" - freestylefrappe
The User RFC process has gotten out of hand. The Kelly Martin RFC - basically a long, long hatefest on both sides - was an extreme example, but the same thing on a smaller scale is seen continuously. This is an utterly useless and destructive step in "dispute resolution", because when was the last time that a dispute was actually resolved via filing a user RFC? Basically, all this step does is give people an opportunity to get madder and madder at each other while preparing for Arbcom. Enough. Delete and then replace with a protected archive page, and urge the community to devise better preliminary dispute resolution steps. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This page is an established procedure in dispute resolution. To suggest its deletion is preposterous. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While user RFCs are far from perfect, I don't think this is the correct way to obtain consensus for changing them. Physchim62 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)