Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Some people think the page is good, lighthearted fun. Others think it exacerbates Guy's tendency for blunt commentary on other editors. Both arguments have merit. I encourage those who have disputes with Guy to resolve them. Jehochman Talk 15:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon

Re-opened after closure by non-admin, see edit summary.
The primary purpose of this user page appears to be the creation of snide comments in edit summaries (see [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] for some examples.) I don't think this is in keeping with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and I don't think it is the kind of behavior that we should be encouraging. *** Crotalus *** 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page doesnt even make sense....BonesBrigade 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of JzG's idiosyncrasies. He can do what he wants. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    How very true. And no actual reason for keeping. Neıl ☎ 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a harmless joke to me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Declaring comments to be trollish when removing them is not a harmless joke. -Amarkov moo! 06:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, some editors do troll... some don't do anything but troll, some add zero content and instead just hang around areas of drama helping to stir the pot....aka trolling.--MONGO 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Uh, but why should we keep the page? Neıl ☎ 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see that it harmful or interferes with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 08:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the page itself doesn't seem to be the concern here, but the edit summary that JzG is using. He could just as easily have the same edit summary with a different link target. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep For gods sake. This is in user-space and we allow wide lattitude to productive users of the cxommunity for keeping stuff there. This should be kept speedily not because its a bad faith nomination but because the outcome is predictable and mandated by precedent. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Er, it's a joke, guys. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • JzG, would you agree not to create any more edit summaries like the ones cited above? If so, I will withdraw the deletion nomination. Joke or not, I don't consider it civil to refer to good-faith users as "trolls" in edit summaries. *** Crotalus *** 08:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If people troll my talk page, I will remove it as trolling, with or without this link. There is a difference between trolling, the act, and a troll. Some trolling is not actually done by trolls - much of it is done by ordinarily decent people who are just trolling for some reason. Regardless, the link is just a bit of fun. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right that some trolling is done by otherwise decent people. Hopefully that's the case with this page you've created? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete used for trolling.  Grue  10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per its use as a device to label people JzG doesn't like trolls. "Wide latitude in userspace" doesn't include pages blatantly used to attack other users. Bellwether BC 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Common mistake. A trolling comment does not make the commenter a troll. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not such a joke for those people who have been labelled trolls by JzG while linking this page, clearly not used as a joke page despite the attempt at humour in the text as demonstrated by the edit summaries. ViridaeTalk 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep obviously. The skins are getting dangerously thin around here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out here: when that argument is used in other contexts, people usually take a lot of offense to the suggestion that those who are bothered by something should just grow thicker skins and ignore it. -Amarkov moo! 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So what is the reason to keep? Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Really? He's just having some fun in his userspace. Let him be. It's harmless. нмŵוτнτ 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Those wrongly labelled as trolls would disagree with you. Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    If this is about him calling users trolls, that's a different issue. The issue is... what's the difference between this and saying the exact same thing in the edit summary w/o the link? нмŵוτнτ 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious trolling. --MediaMangler (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotes an authoritarian image of adminship, and is likely to drive good users away from the project when they get labelled as "trolls", which happens on a near-daily basis. Also per Bellwether, who put it quite nicely. WaltonOne 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This isn't about him calling them trolls, though... since Guy will continue to call them trolls whether or not this is deleted. This actually makes calling someone a troll more lighthearted, in my opinion. нмŵוτнτ 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but Guy should link to it only on his own talk page. Franamax (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    So why should we keep it? Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, pretty hilarious. Ron Duvall (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    "Hilarious" is a poor reason to keep. Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spreads harassment memes. It's a BADPAGE that nobody has any sensible reason to link to. How does it help building an encyclop[a]edia? Well, that's how I'd !vote if I was thinking the way JzG does in most other Wikipolitics, but in real life I'm much more easygoing than that and I won't stand in the way of his having something humo[u]rous in his userspace, so long as he stops using it to harass people. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's funny, in userspace and harmless. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't pass the Giano test. While (like DanT) I appreciate the humour, most other editors wouldn't get away with linking to such a page in edit summaries directed at other editors, whether or not there was an allegation of trolling involved. Risker (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, solely used to insult editors Guy doesn't like. If it was anyone other than JzG who had created it, it would have been nuked under G10 long ago. Neıl ☎ 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with many of the delete arguments above - this page is just used to provoke and inflame disputes by dismissing comments as "trolling," a catch-all word that is dreadfully overused by many. But I'm not sure forcibly deleting this page would accomplish much; I'd really rather see JzG voluntarily improve his temperament instead. :/ krimpet✽ 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, there's no Temperaments for Improvement (WP:TFI?) page. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    And Guy has shown in this very discussion that he doesn't listen when people ask him nicely to stop doing something problematic([6]). Neıl ☎ 01:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Humor has its privileges. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay. You, sir, are an idiot for saying that. HAHA THAT'S HILARIOUS, so I get the privelege of keeping it, right? -Amarkov moo! 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, no, show the humor first, then you get the privilege, not the other way around. :) And if you add the smiley face, well, then everybody knows you're not seriously insulting anyone, right? :) Guy might want to consider a :) in version 2.0. :) Noroton (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And yes, I think you should get the privilege of keeping that comment, because you're really such a sweetheart, Amarkov. :* Noroton (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Just to make my opinion explicit: I don't believe this page violates WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF because I don't believe it promotes incivility. If Guy improperly links to this page in an uncivil way, that is a separate act. If using edit summaries to state "rv troll" is uncivil, then linking to this page is a humorous, lighter action than that. I think every editor who justifies this page by calling it funny is essentially making the same argument. Noroton (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - what possible value does this add to anything? Guy decides an editor, or edit, is trolling, and gets to slag off in edit summaries or elsewhere with no recourse? I think not - show me another editor in the entirety of WP who would not get smacked down, rightfully so, for anything approaching this. Achromatic (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is not another editor in the whole of Wikipedia who compares to ZeesGuy... ;) Franamax (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Needlessly and deliberately inflammatory. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't really seem to have much practical use and isn't very funny. --Coredesat 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the drama to a minimum and stop harassing people about their user pages. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Because it's inconcievable that calling people trolls might cause drama. Of course. And not wanting people to be called trolls is harassment. -Amarkov moo! 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • No, because this page doesn't call anyone a troll and deleting it won't stop anyone from pointing out the trolls; and the perpetual harassment of a single editor over trivialties is, indeed, harassment. If you don't like the word "Troll-B-Gone" in edit summaries take it to ANI. --DHeyward (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • He uses the page only to call people trolls, as is demonstrated by the diffs provided above. It's not meant to be humorous, it's meant as an edit summary attack mechanism. Bellwether BC 15:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • DHeyward, I agree that this MfD is being misused by some as a coatrack to stage criticism of JzG which simply doesn't belong here. OTOH, the harassment lingo is just as needlessly inflammatory as any avoidable usage of the word troll/ing. Imho, you're weakening the validity of your own position by using this word. Even if it were nothing but harassment: needless and avoidable additional drama comes off using it here. The fact that some don't realise that this is the wrong venue for what they are trying to do doesn't mean it'd be a good idea to join in on that impertinent level. User:Dorftrottel 15:18, February 19, 2008
  • Keep - It's a joke. I swear, some people can find a reason to be offended at anything. Lighten up. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Its funny, but why is that an argument? Something can be very funny and very irritating/ disruptive at the same time... just let the page be, its not as if he's going to stop using the word "trolling" just because his joke prop is gone.Relata refero (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's funny, and I've always found JzG to have a more finely tuned trolldar than anyone else. Will (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    And we should keep it, why? Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Incredible how much discussion this generates. No opinion on the page btw which imo defaults to wide latitude for user space usage. User:Dorftrottel 17:53, February 18, 2008
    • Ok, a bit more. I think the page is unfunny as hell, and the word troll is far too often both needlessly and avoidably used in a sometimes deliberately inflammatory fashion (much like the "harassment" shibboleth as used in this very discussion). Yes, trolling exists, but calling someone a troll is a different issue altogether. That said, civility is overrated and this arguably bad-faithed, or at least highly personalised MfD is not the most elegant way to go about it which means I am all for tolerating and keeping it. User:Dorftrottel 18:03, February 18, 2008
  • Delete per Neil. EJF (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete it. I agree with Scott5114. Acalamari 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Do you have a reason to keep it? There are a number given to delete it. Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I do have a reason to keep it: I said I agreed with Scott5114. The reasons for deletion of this page have not convinced me that it needs deleting. In fact, I also agree with Spartaz, and as long as JzG refrains from linking to the page in edit summaries, there should be no problems. Acalamari 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am a harsh critic re mfds but this one looks harmless, and doing no harm is part of where wikipedia is at. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How exactly is it "harmless" to call people trolls? -Amarkov moo! 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well it depends if they are trolls. I believe Guy is right that trolling exists and needs opposing. There is a troll template somewhere that survived an mfd ages back, perhaps you supporting folk would care to mfd that again first. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The trolling template was a totally different situation; that said "this topic tends to attract trolling", not that any specific person is a troll. And yes, trolling does need opposing. But Guy is not able to distinguish between actual trolling and comments he just doesn't like, so it really doesn't matter. -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I think that is where you and I disagree. I have full confidence in Guy. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Let's say that Guy can accurately determine who is a troll. It's still a horrible precedent that someone is allowed to just call others trolls. -Amarkov moo! 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Hardly a precedent. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, there are two possibilities. One, other people get the privelege of calling people trolls too, which does make this a precedent. Two, people don't get that privelege, which means JzG is afforded special treatment because he's just so darn JzGish. Neither of those is particularly good. -Amarkov moo! 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Who was it Guy was calling a troll. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • *points to diffs at top of page* -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I am talking about what is on the current page we are discussing, and I see no individuals mentioned there. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • At the risk of assuming bad faith, let's not pretend we don't understand the issue is JzG using this page as a "handy" link in edits and edit summaries, rather than itself being a laundry list of "Here are users I find trolls, and users I don't find to be trolls, but who do troll or make troll-like comments". Achromatic (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Response to Squeakbox: I did MFD the troll template a while back, and I continue to believe that it is a violation of WP:AGF and should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As it happens I agree re the template but not re this page. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If the page is going to be used to insult people, and has no other purpose, then the page should be deleted. It would be just as effective to sanction Guy, but that is very unlikely to happen. -Amarkov moo! 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The page as constructed, is harmless. The rude, arrogant and disruptive individual behind the page is what needs to be deleted. The fact that his persistent pattern of abuse -- and references to Troll-B-Gon are the least of it -- is tolerated and the fact that he somehow has retained his unlimited powers as an admin, are the real problem that needs to be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just the kind of task-oriented comment we so direly need to keep the drama at bay. </sarcasm> User:Dorftrottel 13:23, February 19, 2008
  • How Funny - A while back, SqueakBox objected to accurate quotes and links as an "attack page", but this page, which is clearly designed to mock others, he supports? Maybe because Squeak has made a virtual career out of calling anyone he dislikes or with which he disagrees a troll. I'd like to see him have some sort of consistency other than "who I like and who I hate". Alas, no.
THAT SAID, I find that this page is along the same lines as the one I voluntarily deleted during the DRV. What's wrong with a tongue-in-cheek page like this? I thought it was marginally funny. Not much, but a little. And what will deleting the page actually do to "prevent" edit summaries like those shown? No links? So what... the words remain.
I cannot abide that we, as a Wikipedia community, seem to think that Vandals matter and Editors don't matter. Talk about backwards. Let's focus on the real threats to Wikipedia, such as personal attacks, vandalism, and personal biases. But yes, the page is inflammatory and insulting and designed for use as personal attacks. But it's all Status Quo for Wikipedians in the know (the opposite of where I am, apparently, as I cannot even have a factual page of quotes and links to diffs). But I don't feel the need to go on deletionist sprees on others. If only those in the know had the same courtesy...
VERY Weak Keep for all the reasons I gave KEEP, and all the truths above my comments, VERY WEAK. • VigilancePrime • • • 19 07:32 Feb '08
  • Keep - I thought it was amusing. If deleted, JzG would presumably use 'rv troll' or similar, which isn't substantially different. Addhoc (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    "He'll just do something else" isn't really a reason to keep it. Neıl ☎ 08:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a perfectly good reason to keep it since Addhoc's point responds to the argument that the page promotes incivility. The page itself isn't uncivil. The objection to it is that JzG will use it uncivilly. Addhoc undermines that point by saying JzG will call someone a troll whether or not that page exists. Noroton (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The difference between "Removing comment with Troll-B-Gon 1.0 Professional" and "rv troll" as edit summaries is the former indicates a degree of light-heartedness, and Wikipedians need all the light-heartedness we can get. (Those who do not pick up on these sort of connotations are going to have trouble fitting in here anyhow.)
    BTW, if you have a problem with Guy's bluntness, why on earth would you think deleting this page would do any good? Besides, the page is funny, in a "Ha, Ha, only serious" way. (Troll-B-Gon? Mmmm, Troll-B-Gon. I want my Troll-B-Gon.) Cheers, CWC 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
CWC's is the wisest and clearest comment I've seen on the page. Thank you, Clear, Wise Commenter. Noroton (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedians do not need light-heartedness when dealing with trolls. Actual trolling is not something to be dealt with jokingly. Treating it like a joke only encourages people to misidentify trolls; after all, if you're being light-hearted, what's the big deal? -Amarkov moo! 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's taking up valuble server space. Discombobulator (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • For the record, deleting the page will not affect server space: if deleted, the edits will still remain, but only admins will be able to see it. Acalamari 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment for closer - please try to close the discussion based on the merits of the arguments, rather than head counting. Neıl ☎ 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer Please note that the policy referred to in this discussion is WP:CIVIL, and the discussion has been about whether that policy applies to this page. Many statements that have not explicitly referred back to the policy have nevertheless addressed whether deleting this page would be a reasonable application of that policy. Calling the page "harmless humor" is one of those arguments to be judged on their merits.Noroton (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Neil. ➪HiDrNick! 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Stuff like this is why we have trolls in the first place. Treat people like dirt and they don't go away... they stick around and get angry. Duh. A smartass "You're a troll!" comment has never, in the history of the internet, caused a troll to do anything but accelerate his trolling. --Rividian (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Trolls who don't stop can always be blocked, however. Plus, what's the difference between this and saying the exact same thing in the edit summary w/o the link? нмŵוτнτ 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it helps the project to say the same exact thing w/o the link, either. It just helps increase the number of trolls and their motivation to keep antagonizing. --Rividian (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • So not having this page would be no different than having it? If it's calling people trolls that you think is wrong, that's a conduct issue. нмŵוτнτ 15:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Rividian's argument has persuaded me this is more likely to be harmful than helpful. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • But this isn't about calling people trolls. Plus, the weight is on those wanting to delete the page. It doesn't have to be argued so much that it's helpful as the nom has to stress that it is harmful. If it's not more harmful than those same edit summaries without the link to this page, it stays. It's not the page's use that we're debating. Note that WP:USER gives a little leeway to very active & productive editors who aren't causing any damage with the page itself. This page is harming no one. Therefore, it should stay. нмŵוτнτ 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hate it when the community digs into people's userspace to complain about stuff that offends them. Don't you have better things to do with your time? This article is harmless, it's funny, it's interesting, it's good, and I like it. And it's in userspace. If it offends you, then you really need to take a wiki-break because you're taking Wikipedia far too seriously. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.