There are several stopped clocks here.
The word "troll" dehumanizes the subject and stops the conversation dead in its tracks.
Flameviper, for example, seems to be many baneful things that are not beneficial to Wikipedia, and I've had no second thoughts about having blocked him indefinitely; but labeling him a "troll" is just laziness. Efficiency of expression is not a good reason to use jargon that is harmful to community. It's clearer to spell out that someone is too disruptive, immature, and self-centered to waste any more time with, if any expanation other than "disruptive" is necessary.
On Nov 7, 2007 6:46 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Nov 2007 09:38:35 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Once a person with sufficient wisdom and
authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL. No more time should be wasted on them.
That sounds a lot like the Orwellian "Unperson", or Scientology "Suppressive Person", concepts, and can be really unfair to people who are unjustly labeled this way. Didn't an early version of WP:NPA specifically say that labeling somebody a "troll" was an impermissible personal attack? The Wikipedia culture has changed since then, and not necessarily for the better.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l