On 22 Jun 2007 at 17:23:26 +0300, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com 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.
a policy of "let the better arguments win" requires someone to judge who has the better arguments. A policy which permits any one of a thousand people to step up and declare himself the judge is not adapted to doing this well. Their inability to judge is manifest by the way they argue themselves--most of the admins, myself included, have definite views on many things, and the only things we can judge neutrally are the things we know so little of that we cannot understand. (that's why I have never closed an XfD--I know my limits)
On 6/22/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 at 17:23:26 +0300, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com 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.
-- == 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
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.
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.
- White Cat
On 6/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 at 17:23:26 +0300, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com 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.
-- == 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
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.
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
I intended more than that. of course closers should-- and mostly do-- ignore diversions and trolls and sockpuppets; that part is fairly easy. To decide between two interpretations of policy, both plausible and put forth in good faith, or between two conflicting statements of policy is another matter, and I do not see how anyone can do it without injecting his own views about what the policy or the interpretation ought to be. Most closings go right because most people who close are sensible themselves. But not all.
On 6/23/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com 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.
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.
- White CatOn 6/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 at 17:23:26 +0300, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com 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.
-- == 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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/22/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 22 Jun 2007 at 17:23:26 +0300, "White Cat" wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com 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.
-- == 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/
And it's a bit common for some.
KP