Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination)

Confusion

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see so many people voting "keep" despite agreeing this is a useless process. Some people suggested "improvement". This was tried before. RFC is a failure conceptually for user disputes. If you are willing to change the process conceptually, you might just as well propose a new separate process. -- Cat ^chi? 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A major concern is that we haven't got anything better at present, and the options being given as replacement just aren't viable. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is completely a useless process as it stands. Its abolishment won't change a thing as far as DR is concerned. -- Cat ^chi? 13:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will. There'll be no step in between doing nothing, and sanctions from ArbCom. The arbitration committee hears cases where the community has has failed to solve disputes. Removing this page will not give the community the opportunity to solve disputes. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

When was the last time RFC solved anything let alone a dispute? Community should not bother with RFC at all if it is not solving anything. There are other less bureaucratic ways to demonstrate that the community hasn't been able to resolve a dispute. -- Cat ^chi? 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be some confusion, on my or on others' parts. RfCs are intended to be a request for comment, and an attempt to determine, qualitatively, the community's consensus. The act of discussion and of determining consensus cannot, by itself, resolve disputes. Resolving disputes via the RfC process requires well-meaning people to realise that the community is in support or in opposition to their position, and to act accordingly; and it requires others to attempt to enforce the apparent consensus by social pressures, possibly including blocks. That said, most issues on Wikipedia are so polarised that consensus is not easily determined. But I don't think that is always the case, and thus I think RfCs are still occasionally beneficial. Does that make sense? (Especially that RfCs are not meant to resolve disputes, but are meant to be a method by which to determine consensus?) --Iamunknown 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply