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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
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.
Regardless of the benefits or detriments provided by your solution(s) in general, the "don't use your real identity" suggestion isn't practical and doesn't address any problem. There's not really any such thing as a kept secret on the Internet. It's too easy to find out who is behind an obfuscating identity and, in any case, some people choose to use their legal identities for various purposes, often in part because of the perceived added credibility that comes with personal accountability.
If there's a problem that needs fixing, "don't use your real identity" won't fix it. If you really don't want your "real identity" associated with something, the only way to ensure that is to not associate with that something at all, which in this case would mean abandoning Wikipedia to others and having nothing further to do with it as an editor. I don't think that's a productive or desirable solution.