[WikiEN-l] Changing the AfD process (Was: Re: [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again)

[Ray Saintonge]

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 at 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.
>>