Jump to content

Talk:Sealioning: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Should there be a direct external link to the 'Sea Lion' strip?: It should matter, Drmies, it should matter a lot.
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(252 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi |date=10 January 2018 |result='''Keep''' |page=Sea lioning |date2=27 January 2019 |result2='''Keep''' |page2=Sealioning}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |class=Stub |importance=Low |needs-image=y |needs-infobox=y}}
{{Talk page header}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |class=Stub |importance=Low |needs-image=y |needs-infobox=y |logic=y |social-and-political=y}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=10 January 2018 |result='''keep''' |page=Sea lioning}}
{{Controversial}}
{{findsourcesnotice||OR "sea-lioning"}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Low |needs-image=y }}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low |logic=y |social-and-political=y}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism |class=Start |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Debating}}
}}
{{annual readership |expanded=true|scale=log}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Sealioning/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}


==Block quotes==
==Dictionary definition==
In the Description section we have two large block quotes. I fear they may be [[WP:COPVIO]]s. Any thoughts on that? [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 21:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
:Of course not. They're just quotes, and not even large at all. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Smuckola|Smuckola]][[User talk:Smuckola|(talk)]]</span> 21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
::I understand but large quotes like that are frequently boiled down for that reason. I'm rusty on the subject so let's see what if anything others say. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 22:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
:This is technical/academic stuff (and contentious in places), and I think it is better to have the proper quote as used (properly attributed) than a summarised version of it, which would be prone to its own POV. [[User:Aszx5000|Aszx5000]] ([[User talk:Aszx5000|talk]]) 01:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


== Notable examples of sealioning? ==
This article reads too much like a dictionary definition, it might also be a neologism. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 13:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
: Disagree. [[User:GigglesnortHotel|GigglesnortHotel]] ([[User talk:GigglesnortHotel|talk]]) 16:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
:: 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. [[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


It's interesting that the internet is full of explanations of what sealioning *is*, in abstract, but for those who haven't actually *seen* sealioning, those abstract definitions are very unhelpful, and could even be harmful.
== RFC about the inclusion of Jimmy Wales's opinion of the concept of Sealioning ==
{{closed rfc top|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 [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 04:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)}}
Does the opinion of Jimmy Wales bear special attention in this article, or should such quotes be removed? --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


All "sealioning" seems to be, on the surface, is a mocking word for those who ask questions. People shouldn't be afraid to ask questions when there's something they don't know! This is an important basis of any type of constructive discussion. This whole term could be extremely toxic where-ever someone would be accused of sealioning, quieting sincere questions. Maybe notable examples would be warranted in a wikipedia article, to illustrate why this term exists? Surely it shouldn't be hard to find actual examples, given how easy it is to find a definition. --[[User:Sigmundur|Sigmundur]] ([[User talk:Sigmundur|talk]]) 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
=== 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. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''', pretty much exactly per Jayron32. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per the two above, if it survives AFD, I have nominated this for deletion as a [[WP:NEO]] [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''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? &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:*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. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 23:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' since there is no indication a secondary source thinks the opinion is significant. Stuff based on tweets is undesirable. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
* '''Remove:''' This is not a good use of the RfC process. I move that we close this and let [[WP:BRD]] do its job. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*:This ''is'' the D. That's kinda part of the process. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 11:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but does it have to be an RfC so quick? Can just ping people and discuss. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 17:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
::::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]]. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' How many different ways are there to ask this question until someone gets the "right" answer they wanted? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*: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... --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep:''' and lets have a polite discussion about why. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' Zalophus californianus.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''barcus''']] 16:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*: 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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*::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. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 19:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*:I suspect {{u|Roxy the dog|Roxy}} may be being clever with this. I'm not sure which interpretation is the one that assumes good faith, though. :) &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 00:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 17:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' Gor blimey, what a waste of time! No valid reason to include. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sea_lioning&diff=819725559&oldid=819703658 Disputed content here]. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 23:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
* '''Remove'''. Someone on the internet has an opinion? Stop the presses! [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - I see no convincing argument supporting inclusion. One opinion from one individual is [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Meatsgains|Meatsgains]] ([[User talk:Meatsgains|talk]]) 04:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


EDIT: here's an example from [https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/06/socratic-grilling/#comment-863588 SSC comments]:
=== Threaded discussion ===
The first notable sealion in usenet history is probably Sedar Argic, a bot that replied to every instance of the word ‘turkey’ with a long copypasta denying the armenian genocide — which became problematic around thanksgiving.
(Start discussion here) --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


:It's typically not about asking questions to genuinely gain knowledge, it's typically about bad faith question-asking because the sealion (incorrectly) thinks that any statement on social media is an invitation to public debate. If you're asking a stranger a question you already know the answer to because you want to use the other person's response as the setup to some logical argument you want to make against their position, then you're probably being a sealion. (If someone is into that sort of thing then instead of hassling strangers, they should join a debate club.)
==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.<br>
-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.<br>
-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.<br>
-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.<br>
-The fifth source is simply the comic itself. Fair enough.<br>
-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.<br>
-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.<br>
-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. [[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
: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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
:::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.) [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 21:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
::::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.<br>
::::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.<br>
::::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?<br>
::::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.<br>
::::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.[[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::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]]? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::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.[[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::::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 [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/sea-lion.html 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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::::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.[[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


:But to answer your actual question, I don't think naming and shaming individual trolls is a good idea. I think that would be tricky for a number of reasons, including BLP and not feeding the trolls. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 21:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
::::"''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. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 03:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::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?[[User:Tsuka|Tsuka]] ([[User talk:Tsuka|talk]]) 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::This is becoming off-topic for an article talk page, however, there are plenty of examples in the archives of the [[Gamergate controversy]] discussions. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
::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? [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 08:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

== 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. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking]

Please feel free to update my changes, thanks everyone - [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 21:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

: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."[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&type=revision&diff=855549622&oldid=855282318]

:...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).[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking]

: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[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&type=revision&diff=855567579&oldid=855549622], 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&type=revision&diff=855580301&oldid=855567579]

:'''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 [[Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning|RfC]] on this to see what the community thinks. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

::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? [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

:::Evasion noted. I repeat, '''YOUR OUT OF CONTEXT PARTIAL QUOTE DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE SOURCE YOU CITED SAYS.''' --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::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. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

== RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning ==

{{rfc|soc|rfcid=C982C1C}}

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

* 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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC) modified 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:<small>I don't know what a "suck opinion" is ;) [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 01:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)</small>
::<small>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)]]'''. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)</small>
:::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.[http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/claire-hardaker(b94c8e2a-1739-45a4-866c-82a01dbded51).html] This makes it most relevant and a good reference on dealing with this particular type of troll, from all the evidence I have found. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. I hesitate to now remove it since you have opened an RfC, [[User:Guy Macon|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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 02:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC).
:: 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. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::: Simple question Guy: have you read the source yet? Your comment, {{tq|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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::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. &nbsp; :( &nbsp; --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 02:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' I think we are talking about [[Special:Diff/855580301|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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:*Where is the Google Scholar [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BlWbj70AAAAJ&hl=en] listing of Dr Claire Hardaker's published works on the subject as this has been her life's work.[http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/claire-hardaker(b94c8e2a-1739-45a4-866c-82a01dbded51).html] She is far from 'non-notable person on the particular brand of sealioning'.[[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::*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]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::*Someone that regularly sought out and quoted as an expert[https://www.theguardian.com/profile/claire-hardaker], has published multiple works on the subject area[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BlWbj70AAAAJ&hl=en] and has made this her life's work is as a professor and lecturer[http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/claire-hardaker(b94c8e2a-1739-45a4-866c-82a01dbded51).html] is not notable, that makes perfect sense. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 05:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::*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 [[WP:WTAF|write the article first]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::: 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. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 05:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''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.[https://www.theguardian.com/profile/claire-hardaker][http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/linguistics/about-us/people/claire-hardaker][https://www.facebook.com/lancasteruniversity/posts/dr-claire-hardaker-of-linguistics-and-english-language-lancaster-university-spea/10151432719332827/] 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.[http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/claire-hardaker(b94c8e2a-1739-45a4-866c-82a01dbded51).html] 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[https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BlWbj70AAAAJ&hl=en], 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.) [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 03:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
**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. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::: 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.[[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::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]].). --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::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. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 06:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::"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 [[WP:OR|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 [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=BlWbj70AAAAJ&hl=en&num=20&oi=ao Hardacker's academic work] where appropriate, but misrepresentation does Wikipedia no good (and her no credit). [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 07:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::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. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 07:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::Guy Macon already explained this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&diff=prev&oldid=855692940 Your correction] is appreciated. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 18:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Are we talking about a sealion here or a trout? This RfC seems to be little more than a follow on from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&diff=855567579&oldid=855549622 "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? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:* 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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::* Guy, you removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&diff=855549622&oldid=855282318 the addition] of {{tq|direct them towards third-party sources.}} with the summary, {{tq|(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, {{tq|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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 15:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''Remove in current state''' This coverage is undue with only one source. [[Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth]] ([[User Talk:PeterTheFourth|talk]]) 13:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''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."[http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/claire-hardaker(b94c8e2a-1739-45a4-866c-82a01dbded51).html] [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 04:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
**I'm fine with citing the ''Guardian'' item as a source and getting a sentence or so of content from it; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&type=revision&diff=855549622&oldid=855282318 original edit] that started this whole mess was bad text, and I'm still not really a fan of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&oldid=855695570 what the page says now]. We're an encyclopedia, not an advice manual. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
***Wait...what? We are an '''encyclopedia???''' So ''that's'' what I have been doing wrong the last twelve years... --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''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. &rsaquo;&nbsp;[[User:Mortee|<span style="color: purple;">Mortee</span>]] [[User talk:Mortee|<sub>talk</sub>]] 16:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' - As I stated in the previous RfC, one opinion from an individual with no connection to the subject is [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Meatsgains|<span style="font-family:Broadway; color:#00008B; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Meatsgains</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Meatsgains|<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>]])</sup> 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' and the article should be deleted. It's just a dictionary definition. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 13:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
:* Note: in the previous (January 2018) deletion discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sea_lioning] the !votes were 6 merge/delete and 14 keep. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
:::"Please familiarize yourself with [[WP:BLUDGEON]] before you continue responding to every comment."[[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 23:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''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!" [[User:Uamaol|UaMaol]] ([[User talk:Uamaol|talk]]) 23:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

== 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.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Stokel-Walker|first1=Chris|title=How to handle a troll and neuter a sea lion …|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking|accessdate=August 18, 2018|publisher=The Guardian|date=August 18, 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Lindsay|first1=Jessica|title=Sealioning is the new thing to worry about in relationships and online|url=https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/05/sealioning-new-thing-worry-relationships-online-7680577/|accessdate=July 5, 2018|publisher=Metro News|date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

*Why remove details that explain the specifics of 'Sealioning' as different from other trolling?
[[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 18:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:We already had this discussion in the RfC above. Stop [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::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 (British newspaper)|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.
::[[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

: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.
:[[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 17:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::Whether or not the RFC above is relevant doesn't matter, because the text was a copyright violation and must be excluded per policy. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 17:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 22:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::::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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::::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 &mdash; maybe not the only one, but certainly a viable quick fix. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

** 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. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

::::You are talking about this comment,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASealioning&type=revision&diff=855674653&oldid=855648607] this ref,[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 this RfC,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASealioning&type=revision&diff=855674675&oldid=855674653] Right? If you are talking about something else, please provide diffs.

::::If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.

::::And you agree that I did correctly quote the words of 24.16.106.217[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&type=revision&diff=855549622&oldid=855282318] and the ''Guardian'' article,[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking] Right?

::::If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.

::::And you agree that the first paragraph of the ''Guardian'' article[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 paragraph which you have repeatedly claimed is the only part of the ''Guardian'' article I have read (without explaining how it is I managed to correctly quote the 10th paragraph of a 19-paragraph article), does not mention sealioning, Right?

::::If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.

::::And you further agree that the only places sea lioning is mentioned in the ''Guardian'' article[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking] are the title and the "Sea lioning" section, right?

::::If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.

::::And you further agree that I quoted the only place where ''Guardian'' article[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking] mentioned sealioning, right?

::::If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.

::::Unless one of the above assumptions is incorrect, it appears that you are claiming that

:::::''"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."''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&type=revision&diff=855549622&oldid=855282318]

::::...and...

:::::''"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."'' --Claire Hardaker[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/how-to-handle-a-troll-and-neuter-a-sea-lion-dealing-with-online-attacks-astroturfine-trolljacking]

:::: Have the same content.

::::If this assumption is incorrect, please explain, in detail, why.

::::In particular, please reconcile the claims "the best way [...] is to direct them towards third-party sources" with "The solution is a simple one: just don’t engage with the troll in the first place".

::::Or you can continue to act like a total dick, making accusations without providing any evidence in the form of diffs. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::Demanding that someone answer a long list of questions "in detail", is not good etiquette, not required for productive discussion, and veering dangerously close to ironically embodying the article topic.
:::::[[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems like every editor here, except for Guy Macon, agrees that, regardless of whether those paragraphs should ''be there'', they were '''not''' covered by the RFC which answered a much more narrow question? [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
:Taking into consideration everything that has been said, I would recommend including the sources and expanding the article. I would also like help regarding the exact text to use so there are no issues of copy right. This seems far more helpful way to build up this article than deleting any and all additions. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
::I would ''like'' to expand this article, but plagiarism is not the way to do so. Including whole sentences from other sources is unacceptable, even if a few words are altered. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 20:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Are we clear that the sources ''can'' be used (and ''should'' be used), and that the RFC and its associated objections were just to the specific text cited to them and not the sources themselves? Because it feels like that's the core disagreement here. My reading is that the RFC was about the text that was cited to them, not the sources; yet it feels like Guy Macon intended it to be on whether we should cite those sources at all, for anything. Copyvio concerns are easily addressed by rewording, but I want to be clear on what the actual disagreement is before I proceed. In my eyes, the article clearly requires some expansion, and these sources are good ways to support it. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
::::Are you considering re-adding the opinions of Dr Claire Hardaker after we had an RfC telling you not to do that, or is there something else in the source which you wish to add to the article? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
::::: Well I, just for one, would support re-adding it. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 00:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Glad the references are now included, regardless of the exact text which matters far less. I hope there may be a future reconsideration about adding expert opinions on the subject and the article may be expanded over next few years. It appears the term is here to stay, so we had best, do our best to make this a top grade article with considered expansion. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 00:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

== Should there be a direct external link to the 'Sea Lion' strip? ==

Attempts to add a direct external link to the original strip was the origins of the term are being deleted without reason[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sealioning&diff=860060027&oldid=860059650]:

* [http://wondermark.com/1k62/ The Terrible Sea Lion], [[Wondermark]] #1062

Without a direct external link, it is '''more''' difficult for users of wiki to find and understand the origins of this phrase. [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 02:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

== Why are attempts to expand this article so difficult to achieve? ==

'''Note''' {{Internet-stub}}

So the expansion of this article in an encyclopedic manner should be encouraged, with helpful edits that help the reader to achieve a fuller knowledge of all aspects of this article; yet it seems as if any attempts to do so are met with additions being deleted, even if all that is needed is some editing to improve them. This is disheartening for the editors and a disservice to the readers, IMO [[Special:Contributions/24.16.106.217|24.16.106.217]] ([[User talk:24.16.106.217|talk]]) 02:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:41, 17 July 2024

Block quotes

[edit]

In the Description section we have two large block quotes. I fear they may be WP:COPVIOs. Any thoughts on that? Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. They're just quotes, and not even large at all. — Smuckola(talk) 21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but large quotes like that are frequently boiled down for that reason. I'm rusty on the subject so let's see what if anything others say. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is technical/academic stuff (and contentious in places), and I think it is better to have the proper quote as used (properly attributed) than a summarised version of it, which would be prone to its own POV. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable examples of sealioning?

[edit]

It's interesting that the internet is full of explanations of what sealioning *is*, in abstract, but for those who haven't actually *seen* sealioning, those abstract definitions are very unhelpful, and could even be harmful.

All "sealioning" seems to be, on the surface, is a mocking word for those who ask questions. People shouldn't be afraid to ask questions when there's something they don't know! This is an important basis of any type of constructive discussion. This whole term could be extremely toxic where-ever someone would be accused of sealioning, quieting sincere questions. Maybe notable examples would be warranted in a wikipedia article, to illustrate why this term exists? Surely it shouldn't be hard to find actual examples, given how easy it is to find a definition. --Sigmundur (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: here's an example from SSC comments: 

  The first notable sealion in usenet history is probably Sedar Argic, a bot that replied to every instance of the word ‘turkey’ with a long copypasta denying the armenian genocide — which became problematic around thanksgiving.
It's typically not about asking questions to genuinely gain knowledge, it's typically about bad faith question-asking because the sealion (incorrectly) thinks that any statement on social media is an invitation to public debate. If you're asking a stranger a question you already know the answer to because you want to use the other person's response as the setup to some logical argument you want to make against their position, then you're probably being a sealion. (If someone is into that sort of thing then instead of hassling strangers, they should join a debate club.)
But to answer your actual question, I don't think naming and shaming individual trolls is a good idea. I think that would be tricky for a number of reasons, including BLP and not feeding the trolls. ApLundell (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sealioning&oldid=1235089551"