On 08/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:34:38 +1000, "Peter Ansell" ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
That may be true, but he is being more rational about the situation that you are. You seem to be using troll as a category to avoid discussing the actual issues. At least in the post which started this thread, he hasn't said anything which pins him down as an irrational abusive troll. Having a personality clash isn't a good reason for calling someone a troll.
Um, Flameviper posted a long screed denouncing [[WP:DENY]] as a steaming pile of crap "because it insists on the existence of trolls" when in fact it says no such thing. As I pointed out.
So I didn't address the issue he raises because it does not exist.
Actually WP:DENY is much healthier than the long-term abuse pages ever were. Do we really believe that we do people a service by immortalising their foolishness? I suspect that many people when they look back in ten years will be rather glad we WP:DENY rather than building silly monuments to childish vandalism.
Seeing as I do agree with what the page is doing with denying vandals visibility the pages existence doesn't worry me. I am not familiar with his case, but unless he is a known vandalising troll, as opposed to just an annoying troll, it still seems to be a part of wikipedia (possibly just IRC) culture that should be discussed. However, according to his evidence he was called a troll in reference to that page. Doesn't that at least worry someone even if they do agree he is a troll?
"<Op> You were trolling. <Flameviper> Excuse me? <Op> [[WP:DENY]]"
Peter