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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l