A subpage of AN has been created.
Subpages are a good way to hide conversations from the non-cabal.
Full Version: Round 10,003
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 28th October 2010, 8:40pm) 
But the tactic proved ineffective against knuckle-heads and wiki-nomics majors such as this user:
QUOTE(Thparkth)
Speedy deletion is not an option for [BLP] articles created before March 18th unless they contain contentious or negative unsourced information (or of course, unless they meet one of the established criteria for speedy deletion). The majority of the "backlog" are entirely uncontentious and should not be summarily deleted, according to policy as currently writtern. Thparkth (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
[…]I just wanted to raise the point because there has been some invalid speedy tagging of non-contentious grandfathered BLPs (does this count as WikiLawyering yet?) as a result of this thread. In terms of your question, I'm not clear on why it's suddently urgent to delete inoffensive articles. Thparkth (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 28th October 2010, 5:43pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 28th October 2010, 8:40pm)
But the tactic proved ineffective against knuckle-heads and wiki-nomics majors such as this user:
Cabal, wikinomists, wikilawyers, Ottavalicians, whatev. No doubt they've all found it, but the BLP victims never will.
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 1st December 2010, 11:50am)
Gack! I sort of... (it's difficult to say this)... agree with Cyclopia!
QUOTE
Hello chaps, is there a point about this? In which case a user RFC would be in order. Oh hang on, you've never mentioned any of these problems to me before, so that wouldn't be in order. Or perhaps one of you could just remove the section. --TS 03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears you have a remarkably poor memory, Sidaway. Once, long before many of the people here started editing, you were an Admin, & a clerk for the ArbCom -- but your behavior cost you all of that. Or maybe you don't think that counts because none of that involved filing an RFC. More recently, I've warned you about your disruptive ways. Don't get all sanctimonious here. When you encounter a situation you don't like, & you have the choice of engaging other people in a reasonable manner to create a consensus that would strengthen the community, or making a scene with outrageous behavior that alienates or drives people away in order to win the dispute, why is it you always go for the more disruptive of these two choices? -- llywrch (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I shall continue to ignore you until you have something substantive to say on any topic. --TS 04:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears you have a remarkably poor memory, Sidaway. Once, long before many of the people here started editing, you were an Admin, & a clerk for the ArbCom -- but your behavior cost you all of that. Or maybe you don't think that counts because none of that involved filing an RFC. More recently, I've warned you about your disruptive ways. Don't get all sanctimonious here. When you encounter a situation you don't like, & you have the choice of engaging other people in a reasonable manner to create a consensus that would strengthen the community, or making a scene with outrageous behavior that alienates or drives people away in order to win the dispute, why is it you always go for the more disruptive of these two choices? -- llywrch (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I shall continue to ignore you until you have something substantive to say on any topic. --TS 04:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Tony cannot help but troll; it's who he is. Much of the time, his primary purpose for doing anything is to be noticed. He will make any argument whatsoever as long as the argument itself is likely to be inflammatory. Tony is a keen observer of people, which makes him very valuable in, and good at, defusing conflict. Unfortunately, it also makes him very good at fanning conflict, and he cannot be counted on to resist that urge. As a result, he's a fundamentally disruptive individual in any community; in short, a troll.
Part of the problem Wikipedia has now is that so much of the psychosocial model that it uses to manage internal conflict has been developed in reaction to having to deal with so many trolls like Tony. With so many people running around in Wikipedia deliberately fanning flames, Wikipedia has concluded that anyone who reacts passionately to anything that happens is doing so for the specific purpose of expanding the conflict and not simply because they feel strongly about whatever the underlying issue is. With people like Tony, whether they react strongly to something is unrelated to their personal feelings on the issue; rather, it depends on how much drama they think they can milk from the situation. Wikipedia has concluded (based on biased evidence) that that this is how most people behave. And while that claim is vacuously true of Wikipedia dramaseekers, it's not true of most people who get sucked into Wikipedia's conflict engine because they're trying to resolve real issues with Wikipedia's content. A good number of banned and disaffected editors are likely that way because of this particular issue.
Part of the problem Wikipedia has now is that so much of the psychosocial model that it uses to manage internal conflict has been developed in reaction to having to deal with so many trolls like Tony. With so many people running around in Wikipedia deliberately fanning flames, Wikipedia has concluded that anyone who reacts passionately to anything that happens is doing so for the specific purpose of expanding the conflict and not simply because they feel strongly about whatever the underlying issue is. With people like Tony, whether they react strongly to something is unrelated to their personal feelings on the issue; rather, it depends on how much drama they think they can milk from the situation. Wikipedia has concluded (based on biased evidence) that that this is how most people behave. And while that claim is vacuously true of Wikipedia dramaseekers, it's not true of most people who get sucked into Wikipedia's conflict engine because they're trying to resolve real issues with Wikipedia's content. A good number of banned and disaffected editors are likely that way because of this particular issue.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 1st December 2010, 11:39am)
Part of the problem Wikipedia has now is that so much of the psychosocial model that it uses to manage internal conflict has been developed in reaction to having to deal with so many trolls like Tony. With so many people running around in Wikipedia deliberately fanning flames, Wikipedia has concluded that anyone who reacts passionately to anything that happens is doing so for the specific purpose of expanding the conflict and not simply because they feel strongly about whatever the underlying issue is. With people like Tony, whether they react strongly to something is unrelated to their personal feelings on the issue; rather, it depends on how much drama they think they can milk from the situation. Wikipedia has concluded (based on biased evidence) that that this is how most people behave.
And yet, miraculously, nobody bans or punishes Tony. Why is that?
If Greg Kohs or you had shown up in that "seekrit subpage" and said what Tony said,
there would have been admins lined up to toss the malefactor and revert.
Is it perhaps because Tony is "more equal" than any of the other pigs? Because he's
been ass-kissing on WP servers since 2004, and has 78,000 edits (mostly trivial ones),
he's "special"? Does he have magical knowledge of how to deal with BLPs, unsourced
or whatever? I seriously doubt it--he's clearly just there to "amuse himself".
Read this. If you dare.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.