On 08/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:34:38 +1000, "Peter
Ansell"
<ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That may be true, but he is being more rational
about the situation
that you are. You seem to be using troll as a category to avoid
discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this
thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational
abusive troll. Having a personality clash isn't a good reason for
calling someone a troll.
Um, Flameviper posted a long screed denouncing [[WP:DENY]] as a
steaming pile of crap "because it insists on the existence of
trolls" when in fact it says no such thing. As I pointed out.
So I didn't address the issue he raises because it does not exist.
Actually WP:DENY is much healthier than the long-term abuse pages
ever were. Do we really believe that we do people a service by
immortalising their foolishness? I suspect that many people when
they look back in ten years will be rather glad we WP:DENY rather
than building silly monuments to childish vandalism.
Seeing as I do agree with what the page is doing with denying vandals
visibility the pages existence doesn't worry me. I am not familiar
with his case, but unless he is a known vandalising troll, as opposed
to just an annoying troll, it still seems to be a part of wikipedia
(possibly just IRC) culture that should be discussed. However,
according to his evidence he was called a troll in reference to that
page. Doesn't that at least worry someone even if they do agree he is
a troll?
"<Op> You were trolling.
<Flameviper> Excuse me?
<Op> [[WP:DENY]]"
Peter