Talk:Sealioning: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:37, 18 September 2018

Internet culture Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Philosophy: Logic / Social and political Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Social and political philosophy

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Dictionary definition

This article reads too much like a dictionary definition, it might also be a neologism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it is a neologism, and the only real definition - which everyone sources to - is that little sea lion comic strip. Is sea lioning even a thing? The few instances I have seen anyone using the term is when someone is trying to weasel out of having to back up their claims. Tsuka (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about the inclusion of Jimmy Wales's opinion of the concept of Sealioning

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

IARish as somewhat involved; no one has offered any argument for inclusion and we've spent 9 days more than we should've discussing this Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the opinion of Jimmy Wales bear special attention in this article, or should such quotes be removed? --Jayron 32 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 01

Remove Jimmy Wales's specific opinion on this subject is not particularly germain to understanding the article. Per WP:UNDUE, those of an individual entirely unrelated to the subject, with no connection to it, bear no particular need for a direct quote, or to have their opinion cited. --Jayron 32 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, pretty much exactly per Jayron32. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the two above, if it survives AFD, I have nominated this for deletion as a WP:NEO Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - It's bizarre that an RfC is necessary to remove a line sourced only to a tweet. If some reliable sources report on that tweet, then reopen discussion, but seriously? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was just one person -- the person who originally added it -- who restored it. An RfC is not necessary to deal with an edit war/WP:BRD issues. I went ahead and removed it again. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove since there is no indication a secondary source thinks the opinion is significant. Stuff based on tweets is undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove In this respect, Wales is just some guy on the Internet. According to WP:TWITTER, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (emphasis in original), which is not the case here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: This is not a good use of the RfC process. I move that we close this and let WP:BRD do its job. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the D. That's kinda part of the process. --Jayron 32 11:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but does it have to be an RfC so quick? Can just ping people and discuss. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who should I ping? The RFC is how we attract neutral editors who are not involved in editing. Am I supposed to now cherry pick people to ping? That seems very counter to WP:CANVAS. --Jayron 32 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many different ways are there to ask this question until someone gets the "right" answer they wanted? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as far as I know this is the only discussion which has been held on the question posed by this RFC. Can you indicate the prior discussion if there was one? I cannot find it... --Jayron 32 16:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and lets have a polite discussion about why. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Created new threaded discussion section below. Please start the discussion by explaining why we should keep Jimbo's opinion in the article and not mine or yours. I don't see it, but am willing to be convinced. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Guy Macon, not one person has yet explained why a quote by Jimbo should be kept in the article. So far in this discussion, two people have asserted that it should be, with no justification, and if we count the person that was willing to edit war to keep it in, that person has also not shown up to comment at all. The people who have asked for it to be removed have all presented reasonable rationales as to why it doesn't belong. I'd like to hear the counter arguments. --Jayron 32 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Roxy may be being clever with this. I'm not sure which interpretation is the one that assumes good faith, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Nobody has proposed any particular reason the comment should be kept. I know Jimbo is a celebrity on Wikipedia, but using that as a justification for giving his comments weight is, at best, a self-reference. I can't see that his comments have any more relevance than all the other things people have said on Twitter about this. ApLundell (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Gor blimey, what a waste of time! No valid reason to include. Disputed content here. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Someone on the internet has an opinion? Stop the presses! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I see no convincing argument supporting inclusion. One opinion from one individual is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

(Start discussion here) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The sources each have different definitions of "sealioning"

-The first source ("Beyond Mansplaining") says sealioning involves "asking unanswerable questions over and over again" - which is not reflected in the comic, nor do the other sources claim anything of the kind, nor are any examples listed. In fact, it isn't even the source itself, but merely quotes the actual source, which is this: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ I am replacing "Beyond Mansplaining" with the simplikation link, as that's the actual source.
-The second source (Rambukanna) I am going to delete as it doesn't even mention sea lioning. It doesn't even touch on the topic, so why it was included in the first place, I have no idea.
-The third source (Davis) claims sea lioning is when you insist on having your questions answered because you are polite. As it seems to misunderstand the comic, and doesn't support the Wiki article's definition, I will delete it.
-The fourth source (Sarkeesian) is close to the Wiki article's definition, except that it accurately reflects the comic by stating that sea lioning is an intrusion by an "uninvited stranger", which implies a setting other than open internet forums (indeed, the comic itself describes stalking). I am going to add this to the text of the Wiki article.
-The fifth source is simply the comic itself. Fair enough.
-The sixth source is also simply the comic itself. And it's not the Independent, as claimed, but a comment on Indy100 which is a share index launched by the Independent, but the Independent cannot be said to vouch for incidental posts on Indy100. Anyway, since it simply re-posts the comic, this source has clearly just been added to increase the bulk of references to make the article look more legit. It is a duplicate source, so I am deleting it.
-The seventh source (Maxwell) has this definition: "in an online conversation, repeatedly asking a person questions or making comments which suggest that you are interested in what they are talking about, but are actually intended to annoy them." We can see how this contrasts with Davis's definition, which focused on the polite presentation and did not even mention the repeated questions. Maxwell, on the other hand, focuses on the repeated questions and does not even mention the politeness. Moreover, it points to a criteria which is impossible to validate: "Though in principle, particularly in the context of a debate, [demanding evidence] might seem a reasonable thing to do, the crucial thing about sea lioning is that the person asking (also known as the sea lioner) isn't genuinely interested in the answers to these questions." This leads to "sea lioning" being used as an excuse to refuse to provide evidence, and I daresay this accounts for nearly all - perhaps even all - cases where "sea lioning" has been used as a counter.
-The eight source (Poland) is explicit that sea lioning involves harassment and invasion of privacy: "The remainder of the panels feature the invariably polite sea lion invading every part of the woman's life in an attempt to force her to discuss her dislike of sea lions." This is not mentioned in the Wiki article at all, so I'm adding it. Tsuka (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the comic does show the sea lion invading every part of the woman's life, that is not part of the definition of sea lioning used by most sources. Most sources consider it to be sea lioning if someone acts that way in one Internet discussion, even though they don't literally show up in person in your bedroom or at your breakfast table. In other words, sealioning and stalking are two different things, both of which the sea lion in the comic does. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, though: In order for the behaviour to be objectionable, it had to be presented as invading someone's privacy. If the sea lion had merely asked for evidence (and you'll note that in the comment, they never actually answer the sea lion's question), then this is nothing less than reasonable and expected. It only becomes a valid nuisance if a) someone keeps asking the same question even though it has been answered, b) following someone around on different boards asking the same question even if it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, or c) badgering someone who is trying to ignore them. Of these, a) is not sea lioning but simply being a pest (and will earn someone a ban on any moderated forum), but b) and c) certainly qualify - though in the case of c), the "sea lioning" is actually being provoked by the deliberate act of ignoring a person. Remember, the invasion of privacy is in the comic for a reason. If it is not analogous to something the "sea lion" does, then it fails to be a legitimate criticism. Tsuka (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy Macon and disagree with almost everything said here by Tsuka.

"Uninvited stranger" can absolutely apply in an open environment like Twitter. Socially, posting on twitter is not considered an open call for debate opponents.

But more importantly, while the term originated by analogy to Malki's comic, the comic should not be taken as an authoritative text on the subject. This article is about the phrase as used in general, not about implications of the comic itself.

Sea-lioning is not just about badgering someone, but insisting that they back their conversation up and debate you on an assumption you took as given in your original statement. Maybe that would be acceptable behavior in a courtroom, or a formal Socratic debate, but not in normal human conversation. (Where such conversations will tend to be between people who share most of the same assumptions.) ApLundell (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "sea lioning" is something quite abstract from the comic itself, then the comic should not be posted as source. And as I pointed out, all of the sources initially referenced in this article had different and differing definitions. The only exceptions were the duplicate source, and the source which did not even mention sea lioning. This marks the word as a neologism, as it has not yet been sufficiently widespread to solidify its definition - but instead the people who use it mold it as they see fit. Which is why people are liable of being accused of sea lioning for simply being polite, or for asking for evidence - even just once.

I do not myself have a twitter account, nor have I ever, so I confess I do not know how "private" that avenue is considered to be. My main experience is from forums, which are open to all members. If you are a member, you are by definition invited. But I cannot see how you can argue that Twitter is by any means private when tweets are public, and it is possible for others to comment. It isn't a private space, online or otherwise. And it isn't used as such, either.

I also don't know what this sentence means: "insisting that they back their conversation up and debate you on an assumption you took as given in your original statement". I'm sorry, but having read that sentence several times I have no idea what it means. Could you rephrase, please?

It is interesting that you bring up the comparison with courts of law. There is no reason why something would be valid there but not elsewhere. In courts of law one barrister gets to speak at a time, with one witness at the time, and the "sea lionesque" questioning in this setting is for the exact same purpose as in internet fora: to keep someone from changing the subject, or otherwise evading criticism to their own arguments. Politicians are being "sea lioned" all the time, but the only reason for this is because politicians are notoriously evasive.

I have never seen an example which could qualify as "sea lioning" in a "normal" conversation where the participants are in accord, because there would be no reason for such behaviour. That said, there is absolutely room for formal Socratic debates in friendly conversation among people who share most of the same assumptions. But the only instances I have seen of people accusing others of "sea lioning" them, have been in debates - between people not of the same mind.Tsuka (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "If "sea lioning" is something quite abstract from the comic itself, then the comic should not be posted as source", nonsense. The comic is the origin of the phrase. Would you have us not mention the play or the two movies in our article on gaslighting simply because in most contexts the phrase has nothing to do with murder, jewel theft, or Gas lighting? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comic is not only the origin of the phrase, but is being actively used - in this article and elsewhere - as an example of what sea lioning is. Your reference to gaslighting is a strawman, as it originates from a 114 minute long feature film and as such contains more than just the core themes. The main theme, however, is well reflected in the term "gaslighting". But what you are now saying here, there is nothing from the sea lion comic which is relevant, except the presence of a sea lion? If that is the case, the comic must then have been picked at random.Tsuka (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one should expect a neologism to have a precise and universal meaning. Indeed, if there were a simple "this is what sea lioning means" definition, this article would not exist per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Obviously a comic has to convey its message in a simple way and should not be interpreted as a definitive and literal definition of how the term is used. The MacMillan reference is someone's opinion and is not satisfactory as an in-Wikipedia's-voice ruling about the merits of the term. Sea lioning can be seen at many of Wikipedia's discussions; it's just another form of filibustering. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filibustering is a pretty good description. And you are right about the MacMillan reference merely being someone's opinion and not a satisfactory source, but this is one of the original sources of the article - and the same can be said for all the sources which have provided a definition of the term. And neither these, nor any other source I have come across, have deigned to provide examples. They do tend to claim that it is a frequently used tactic, however. I rather suspect that accusing someone of sea lioning in order to avoid having to back up one's own arguments, is a far more frequent tactic than actual sea lioning. I have seen examples of that, but in my 20+ years of posting on various forums I have never encountered sea lioning - as in, feigned civility in order to discredit someone (not sure how that would even work), repetitious questioning in bad faith to make the debate stagnate. Oh, I have seen persistent demands for evidence - but only in cases where the "target" was equally persistent in refusing to provide any.Tsuka (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"My main experience is from forums, which are open to all members. If you are a member, you are by definition invited."

Sure, to the conversation in progress, but that's not the same, socially, as an open call for debate opponents on anything the poster happens to mention.

For example, if I mention a feminist charity that I think is doing good work, it would not really be socially acceptable for you to reply by starting a debate the merits of feminist philosophy, and then continue, through sheer stubbornness, to repeatedly insist that I should justify the entire concept of feminism.

Of course, I say it's socially unacceptable, but a minority of people disagree, and ... well ... now we have a term for that behavior. ApLundell (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what you describe already covered by "changing the topic" or "derailing", though? "Sea lioning", the way most people seem to use it, has to do with demands for evidence for an actual claim made. Which begs the question, when is or isn't it reasonable to demand evidence?Tsuka (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming off-topic for an article talk page, however, there are plenty of examples in the archives of the Gamergate controversy discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right.

Back on topic, good job removing a redundant source, but I don't think it's a problem that the definitions in the remaining sources don't exactly match.

And even if it was a problem, what would we do about it? ApLundell (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added section on suggested way to deal with this specific type of trolling

Dr Claire Hardaker, a senior lecturer in linguistics at Lancaster University, who has researched trolls and the content changes are based on the article excerpt below:

Sea lioning is the process of killing with dogged kindness and manufactured ignorance by asking questions, then turning on the victim in an instant. “In this, the perpetrator endlessly nitpicks and relentlessly pursues the topic, but oh so very politely and, when the target finally gets annoyed and retaliates, the sea lion takes on the wronged victim of abuse role,” says Hardaker.

The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. However, this can be difficult to do – a suspected sea lion may in fact just be a genuinely curious individual looking to learn more. So rather than ignoring them outright or devoting precious time to discussing the individual merits and drawbacks of a point with them, courteously directing them to a third-party resource – a couple of links to news stories about the matter at hand – can help nullify their attempts to derail your day. [1]

Please feel free to update my changes, thanks everyone - 24.16.106.217 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your version says:

"According to Dr Claire Hardaker, a senior lecturer in linguistics at Lancaster University; the best way to deal with a suspected sea-lioning attack is to direct them towards third-party sources. If they are seriously curious individuals, they will be able to learn more without taking up time and resources."[2]

...but what Dr Claire Hardaker actually wrote was:

"The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. However, this can be difficult to do – a suspected sea lion may in fact just be a genuinely curious individual looking to learn more. So rather than ignoring them outright or devoting precious time to discussing the individual merits and drawbacks of a point with them, courteously directing them to a third-party resource – a couple of links to news stories about the matter at hand – can help nullify their attempts to derail your day.

What to say: “Here’s a peer-reviewed, academically rigorous link explaining all the information you need. Have a great day!” *Block*" (emphasis in original).[3]

So you took an editorial opinion that says "ignore them, but if you must, direct them towards third-party sources and then block them" and claimed that it said "direct them towards third-party sources".

And when I attempted to fix the obvious problem that the content you added did not match the source you cited[4], another editor (one whom I am reluctant to engage with, based upon my observation that no previous discussion with him has been fruitful) reverted me with a factually incorrect edit summary.[5]

So, User:24.16.106.217, I am asking you to voluntarily self-revert your edit because it doesn't say what the source you cited says by leaving out the all-important "ignore" and "block" advice. (Unlike Wikipedia, most social media sites allow you to block another user so that you don't see anything they write).

On a related note, I question whether we should give this much WP:WEIGHT to any individual's advice on how to respond to sealioning. I think that it is WP:UNDUE. I have posted an RfC on this to see what the community thinks. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 'opinion' is stated as such and it is relevant as Dr Claire Hardaker has made research into trolling her life's work at university. When do we remove expert opinions? 24.16.106.217 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion noted. I repeat, YOUR OUT OF CONTEXT PARTIAL QUOTE DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE SOURCE YOU CITED SAYS. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit made to include, "the best way to deal with a suspected sea-lioning attack is not to engage them in the first place; but if you must, then to direct them towards third-party sources." as this seems to have been your objection. Perhaps it might be best to focus on improving this article, rather than deleting any changes? Perhaps find more sources and more expert opinions; rather than cutting out what little is here? It makes it hard to build anything if others are always tearing down, thanks. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Society, sports, and culture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Does the opinion of an individual regarding how to respond to sealioning bear special attention in this article, or should such opinions be removed? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfC: Talk:Sealioning#RFC about the inclusion of Jimmy Wales's opinion of the concept of Sealioning

Previous discussion: Talk:Sealioning#Added section on suggested way to deal with this specific type of trolling

Discussion

Remove. The specific opinion of any individual on how to respond to sealioning is not particularly germane to understanding the article. Per WP:UNDUE, the editorial opinions of an individual entirely unrelated to the subject, with no connection to it, bear no particular need for a direct quote or to have their opinion cited at all. I would have no objection to having such opinions - if published by a reliable source -- listed in the external links section. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) modified 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a "suck opinion" is ;) Tornado chaser (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just changed "having suck opinions" to "having such opinions" in my comment above. See User talk:Guy Macon#The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her (Ode to a spellchecker). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Claire Hardaker of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University has made this her life's work and it is therefore an expert opinion from a respected and published professor of forensic corpus linguistics.[6] This makes it most relevant and a good reference on dealing with this particular type of troll, from all the evidence I have found. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I hesitate to now remove it since you have opened an RfC, Guy Macon, but IMO you're wasting community time with that formality — you'd have done better to remove it yourself. As you say, the addition misrepresents the source. Also, the article is so short that the IP's addition — one of only two paragraphs — gives far too much weight to an individual's opinion. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

So the answer for the lack of expert opinions, to balance out this one; is to remove it, rather than to add more? Now that is an interesting way to build an article and encyclopedia. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add an expert opinion. You added something that doesn't say what the source you cited says. Also, nobody is an "expert" on how to react to Internet trolls, but there is a broad consensus across the Interenet to not feed the trolls -- the exact part of the alleged "expert opinion" that you left out. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question Guy: have you read the source yet? Your comment, Not what the source actually says: "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. is obviously wrong, and based on having read just the lead of the article, not the body of it where her actual quote is (and yes, she does state what she's claimed to have done). Now go and read it, realise you were wrong, close this and we can all go home. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove it myself, Dingley reverted me, and based upon previous experience I then had a choice of edit warring or posting an RfC -- I have never been able to get Dingley to agree to anything though the preferred route of discussion and seeking consensus. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I find myself agreeing with Bishonen's comment in its entirety. The source can be kept as a footnote or an external link; it's high-profile enough to be worth recording. XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I think we are talking about this edit which reverted removal of the IP's edit. While I sympathize with the urge to pad the article out, the passing opinion of a non-notable person on the particular brand of sealioning they might have seen is undue. It also misses the point of what sealioning is, but my opinion should not be in the article either. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Google Scholar [7] listing of Dr Claire Hardaker's published works on the subject as this has been her life's work.[8] She is far from 'non-notable person on the particular brand of sealioning'.24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, "non-notable" refers to WP:N, the notability policy that must be satisfied for an article on a topic to exist. If the person is notable, see WP:WTAF. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone that regularly sought out and quoted as an expert[9], has published multiple works on the subject area[10] and has made this her life's work is as a professor and lecturer[11] is not notable, that makes perfect sense. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insult. It just means there is no article on the person because WP:N is not satisfied or no one has noticed there is a missing article. The way to evaluate notability is to write the article first. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Clarie is a nobody that nobody should consider listening to, unless she has a profile on Wiki, first? No matter that she has spent her scholastic life in this subject area, is highly regarded and sought after; that makes no sense, and even less logical as a reason to cut out a good suggestion for dealing with Sea-lions. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an expert opinion from a reliable news outlet. Dr Claire Hardaker has made research into trolling her life's work at university.[12][13][14] She is well respected in her publications and among her peers at Lancaster University where she has made research aggression, deception, and manipulation in computer-mediated communication (CMC); her primary life's work.[15] She approaches this from a forensic linguistic angel, based on a corpus linguistic methodology; but due to the multidisciplinary nature of the research, she inevitably branch out into areas such as psychology, law, and computer science. This opinion is not mere that of your average person on the street, but one based on a lifetime of study and work[16], it should stay in some form. (Sea-lions should be politely redirected to 'third party sites' before you 'block' them, as you do not know and so must assume good faith.) 24.16.106.217 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your summary here disagrees both with the original source and with the addition to the article currently in question. The source does not say that one "must assume good faith". And while Dr. Hardaker's professional area of specialization is relevant here, I still think that making half the article a regurgitation of one expert's opinion is not quite cricket. To write decently encyclopedic material, we need more experts, and we need to summarize their views accurately. XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most internet forums require politeness and even assuming good faith of others, that assumptions of good faith are not include in the article is because the Guardian piece did not specify it. I agree with you that we need more expert opinions, but removing this one, will not improve this article, only diminish it's usefulness by removing a logical and reasoned response this this type of trolling.24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLUDGEON before you continue responding to every comment. While you are at it, Wikipedia indent style is to indent your reply one level, not two (I fixed all of the double indents you have posted so far per WP:TPOC.). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresented Dr Hardaker as some 'individual' and not an expert on trolling that has spent her life's work in this area, before I could fix this oversight; people responded. Also, I have no objection to you adding to this article, perhaps focusing on adding more expert opinions, is in order, not removing them as a course moving forward. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could be an expert in biology or mathematics or a lot of other things. However, there is no such thing as an expert in the topic of sealioning, certainly not as far as the term is used in a lot of contexts. For example, sealioning occurs at Wikipedia where the quoted remedy would do nothing other than concede to those using the tactic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So gutting a reasoned and scholarly opinion is now the Wiki way for not having more expert opinions on the subject to balance it out; this seems like an excellent way to tear down, not build articles. Certainly she did not directly cover this in her works from 2014; but since that was published, she has spent much more time on the specific subject, if you have been following the developments in trolling studies. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Most internet forums require politeness and even assuming good faith of others, that assumptions of good faith are not include in the article is because the Guardian piece did not specify it." This is Original Research, i.e., adding ideas not present in the source, which is not a thing we are allowed to do here. (It is also factually wrong.) What you wrote misrepresented the source; we cannot build on top of error, only correct it or remove it. I have no objection to citing Hardacker's academic work where appropriate, but misrepresentation does Wikipedia no good (and her no credit). XOR'easter (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was is my observation and no, it is not included in the article, only items from the Guardian article, did I include, thanks for your observation. What point, pray tell did I 'misrepresent' as I will correct it immediately. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon already explained this. Your correction is appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we talking about a sealion here or a trout? This RfC seems to be little more than a follow on from "Not what the source actually says: "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. ... *Block*" and defending an indefensible entrenched position. Clearly Guy read the lead of the article, but no more than that. To be talking about blocks? Well how about boomerangs? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another false accusation from the editor who's ongoing behavior is the reason we are having an RfC instead of a civil discussion on the talk page. I quoted the BODY of the article and explained, in detail, how the edit that you restored does not match the BODY of the source cited. And several other veteran editors have noted the same problem. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI and experience WP:BOOMERANG up close and personal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you removed the addition of direct them towards third-party sources. with the summary, (Not what the source actually says: "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place. ... *Block*". Now that's good advice, found everywhere from Professor Elemental to the opening of this article.

However this article also says, in the specific section on Sealioning, What to say: “Here’s a peer-reviewed, academically rigorous link explaining all the information you need. Have a great day!” *Block*. So your edit summary, if not your whole reversion is wrong.

So far we have had a disagreement over your edit summary. The presence of this content, or not, is another matter - personally I'd keep it, as a relevant comment by a RS academic. However stop saying that you're being attacked by other people reverting your changes (you've been reverted once), stop trying to defend your edit summary (if you need me to screenshot that text before you withdraw your false claim, "Not what the source actually says" then it will be posted to ANI, not here), stop digging that hole and stop hitting that poor sealion with a stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of factually incorrect claim is why I don't want to have a discussion with you. The quote "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place." is in the second paragraph of sea lioning section of the article, about halfway through the article, not in the lead. That's twice you have threatened me with ANI. Do it! Either put up or shut up. I am tired of your empty threats.

I am now going to follow my own advice and ignore your trolling. If I see any further comments with your signature on them. I will simply skip to the next comment without reading whatever you have to say. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove in current state This coverage is undue with only one source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This 'individual' is Dr Claire Hardaker, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Corpus Linguistics at Lancaster University and specialise in "research aggression, deception, and manipulation in computer-mediated communication (CMC), including phenomena such as flaming, trolling, cyberbullying, and online grooming."[17] 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh - Leaning towards keeping it. People were quite gung ho about keeping this article at the AfD despite nearly all of the reliable coverage being the same repeated definitions and descriptions of the comic. Now there is something beyond that and it should be removed because, well, because there's so little to write about it? Might've been enough coverage for squeaking by GNG, but I still think NOPAGE should've applied. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with citing the Guardian item as a source and getting a sentence or so of content from it; the original edit that started this whole mess was bad text, and I'm still not really a fan of what the page says now. We're an encyclopedia, not an advice manual. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait...what? We are an encyclopedia??? So that's what I have been doing wrong the last twelve years... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. It might make sense to cover anti-sealion strategies here, WP:NOTHOWTO notwithstanding, but one person's advice doesn't amount to anything encyclopedic. I think we should wait for sources that mention several people's views on this together before including a section about it. Contra the IP, adding more individual opinions for balance doesn't strike me as a good idea since it could quickly get into needless WP:SYNTH debates about whose opinions are worth including. › Mortee _talk 16:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - As I stated in the previous RfC, one opinion from an individual with no connection to the subject is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove and the article should be deleted. It's just a dictionary definition. E Eng 13:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in the previous (January 2018) deletion discussion[18] the !votes were 6 merge/delete and 14 keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLUDGEON before you continue responding to every comment."24.16.106.217 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I informally suggest reopening the AfD for this article. It's a dictionary definition of an internet slang term. It should be merged into the Trolling, Debate or Dialectics articles. I can't see much expansion of the content beyond what this RfC is about. If it stays, then more on the terms usage to gag debate opponents. "You're asking too many questions, you must be a troll!" UaMaol (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reword; the sources seem useful, but the way we're using it could be improved. Also, procedural objection - it is unclear from the wording of this source whether the RFC is over whether we should use the source at all, or whether we should cite it to describe ways of dealing with Sealioning (but that it is otherwise a valuable source.) The wording and most of the responses imply the later (ie. people discussing that specific bit of information), but several of Guy Macon's edits elsewhere on this page imply that he sees it as a decision to exclude those two sources completely. Strong objection to that, but I want to clarify that I don't see this RFC as addressing that point (and therefore, regardless of how it is closed, I'll re-add them under other contexts, since the article is short on sources and needs them) - if Macon wants to exclude them completely, we need an RFC stating so unambiguously. --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of the details regarding the specific nature of 'Sealioning'

This was removed without clear reasoning

What makes 'sealioning' different from other internet trolling, is that the perpetrator makes a point out of doing it so very politely, but persistently.^[1] No matter how proficient your answers, information is deemed sufficient, the sea-lion will ask for more. Their goals are not genuine, but an attempt to wear you down, or make you look silly, or to deflect your focus in the argument so you’re serving them over making your point on your own terms.^[2]

Why remove details that explain the specifics of 'Sealioning' as different from other trolling?

24.16.106.217 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stokel-Walker, Chris (August 18, 2018). "How to handle a troll and neuter a sea lion …". The Guardian. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
^ Lindsay, Jessica (July 5, 2018). "Sealioning is the new thing to worry about in relationships and online". Metro News. Retrieved July 5, 2018.

We already had this discussion in the RfC above. Stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The removed text is largely or wholly redundant with what we already had, and it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. Moreover, it is a copyvio of the Metro source. Here's an excerpt from their text:

The idea isn't to learn – because they could easily go and do that on their own. It's to wear you out and make you look silly, and also deflect your focus in the argument so you're serving them over making your point on your own terms.

XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the text that is being removed falls under the RFC that is being used to justify its removal.

In that RFC, Guy Macon asked if wikipedia should include "the opinion of an individual regarding how to respond to sealioning".

That does not describe the text that Guy Macon has now removed twice in the name of that RFC. It's hard to imagine how anyone would think it does.

ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the RFC above is relevant doesn't matter, because the text was a copyright violation and must be excluded per policy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because a copyvio can be easily fixed by proper encyclopedic paraphrasing.

However, Guy Macon is implying that it would still be unacceptable because of the seemingly unrelated RFC. ApLundell (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to being unrelated. The RfC was about the information in [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking ] The material I removed per the RfC was about the information in [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking ] And it most certainly is the opinion of one individual regarding how to respond to sealioning. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence was redundant with what our article already had; the second two were stolen intellectual property (in addition to having too many "you"s and at least one too few "not"s). Removing that content altogether was a reasonable course of action — maybe not the only one, but certainly a viable quick fix. XOR'easter (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the additional text and Guy Macon (who I had some respect for until last week) still needs to read the actual source past the first para. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- If I did something to offend you I would like to discuss it on my talk page. Unless, of course, you are more interested in being a jerk than resolving conflicts. That's twice you have accused me of not reading a reference that I have actually read closely. I find this behavior to be annoying. --Guy Macon (talk)

You are still persistently edit-warring to remove content, on the basis that it's not supported by a quote from the lead of a ref, when it is in fact a more-specific quote from the body of that ref. Yet you persist in denying what that ref very clearly says.

Now, the first cut of the RfC went to lose this section, which I see as a mistake (and some of the "Delete the article, and if I can't delete the article, delete as much of it as possible" arguments in that RfC were very poor), but that's how the RfC went and so I'm not looking to restore it. But repeatedly stating that a ref doesn't contan text it obviously does - well, I start to wonder if you're being served the same newspaper article in your country as in mine? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about this comment,[19] this ref,[20] and this RfC,[21] Right? If you are talking about something else, please provide diffs.