| Revision as of 03:25, 7 February 2006 editNetoholic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,916 edits re-closing. was speedy kept, but decision was reverted by nominator← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 7 February 2006 edit undoCrotalus horridus (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,850 edits Converted Neto's improper closure into a voteNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background-color: #F8F3FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| 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 ] 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 (]): | 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 ] 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 (]): | ||
| Line 15: | Line 8: | ||
| 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) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div> | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Keep'''. This page is an established procedure in dispute resolution. To suggest its deletion is preposterous. -- ] ] 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:27, 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)