For some people, I've noticed, the definition of disruption takes either the form of "Doing something I don't like" or "Making heated discussion". Disruption though, is more along the lines of being POINTed, page moves, etc.
Far too many people, in my opinion, simply look at something that they don't themeselves like as disruption. The comments cited by Tony show less disruption and more of "I don't like their comments, so they are disruptive and trolling". Have we all forgotten about assuming good faith, or does that take a back seat depending on whom is making the assessment.
I'm not trying to rile things up, I have serious disagreements with the definitions of "disruption" and "trolling" that have been used today.
-Cascadia.
"Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote in message news:42f90dc00704192029i772e26cfr4b8f97df226774f7@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
Written policy tends to lag actual practise. More importantly here is that, just like constitutional principles, when differing principles overlap, the actual policy in-practice may not be exactly as described in only one policy page.
In general, using multiple accounts is tolerated but not actually wholly approved of *provided it does not disrupt*. It's at least being argued that in this case it is being disruptive at least in the case of some of the users doing it.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l