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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:46, 18 February 2008

User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon

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)[reply]

The page doesnt even make sense....BonesBrigade 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of JzG's idiosyncrasies. He can do what he wants. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How very true. Neıl ☎ 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a harmless joke to me. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Declaring comments to be trollish when removing them is not a harmless joke. -Amarkov moo! 06:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Uh, but why should we keep the page? Neıl ☎ 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Er, it's a joke, guys. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete used for trolling. Grue 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^B _C 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common mistake. A trolling comment does not make the commenter a troll. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Viridae ^Talk 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Keep Really? He's just having some fun in his userspace. Let him be. It's harmless. нмŵוτн τ 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious trolling. --MediaMangler (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Walton^One 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Guy should link to it only on his own talk page. Franamax (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty hilarious. Ron Duvall (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep - It's funny, in userspace and harmless. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's no Temperaments for Improvement (WP:TFI?) page. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep Humor has its privileges. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

There is not another editor in the whole of Wikipedia who compares to ZeesGuy... ;) Franamax (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needlessly and deliberately inflammatory. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 **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. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 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? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' used for trolling. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 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. [[User:Bellwether_BC|Bellwether]] [[User_talk:Bellwether_BC|<small><sup>'''B'''</sup></small>]][[Special:Contributions/Bellwether_BC|<small><sub>''C''</sub></small>]] 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)