One mans troll (garbage) is another's treasure approach is exactly why trolling flocks on en.wikipedia. Mine isn't a proposal, it is how deletion discussions are meant to be conducted. Works fine on commons.
Criticism and sane arguments are not trolling. NPA vios and other forms of harrasment can be trolling. Even if it isn't trolling, it still shouldn't be tolerated. People should be required to be in their best behaviour when participating in community discussions.
NPOV does not apply to AFD, RFA, MFD, and etc. NPOV is for article content. NPOV has no jurisdiction whatsoever on AFD. "Very strong vote for deletion" without an acceptable rationale (for example the hypothetical deletion nomination of [[Michigan State University]] by a bunch of [[University of Michigan]] students) will and should be kept despite an overwhelming amount of '''delete''' votes and vice versa.
- White Cat
On 6/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
If Article A was undergoing deletion, any comment not relevant to why
that
article should be kept/deleted, any comment that is not relevant to the
AfD
covered can be considered as trolling. There should be fairly simple
reasons
why an article should be kept/deleted. Any irrelevant discussion should
be
discouraged if not out right banned.
This is an unduly harsh judgement. "Considered as trolling" by whom? For me, trolling implies some element of intentionality. Who decides what is relevant? Your proposal is not simple; it's simplistic.
Judging an AFD isn't that hard so long as you do not treat it like a
vote.
It is as simple as protecting a page or blocking a user or editing an article for that matter. If a judgment isn't a part of an AFD closure, we are simply promoting sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry.
Sure, a small handful of people should be able to keep an article despite a very strong vote for deletion. Basing such actions on a majority vote invites a tyranny of the majority. Equating AfD to these other processes is tantamount to accepting the principle that there is someone who knows the difference between right and wrong, and that would be contrary to NPOV.
Ec
On 6/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 at 17:23:26 +0300, "White Cat" wrote:
Trolling should be strictly forbidden. Anyone trolling on RFAs, VFDs,
CFDs
should be immediately blocked rather than given any slack. Trolling
itself
should also be removed. If people are not able to give a rationale
reasoning
they shouldn't be participating in the discussion anyways.
How exactly do you define "trolling"? Labeling one's opponents in any debate as "trolls" is just as unfair a tactic as trolling itself.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l