Erich gasboy (talk | contribs) →temp: accidental damage undone now |
Erich gasboy (talk | contribs) Adding a detailed alternative proposal |
||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
:Good points. Were it up to me sysops would have the option of a maximum 24hr ban (for flexable reasons), which if misused enough would result in desysoping. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new '''Spade''']] 00:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
:Good points. Were it up to me sysops would have the option of a maximum 24hr ban (for flexable reasons), which if misused enough would result in desysoping. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new '''Spade''']] 00:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls/detail policy proposal|An alternative proposal]]== |
|||
Well, i've had a stab at putting together something with more checks and balances and some attempt to define what this is about. It needs editing... but pleae come and give it an edit or start a debate on the talk page. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 06:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:17, 5 July 2004
After a four-month deadlock in the arbitration committee, it seems appropriate that this question should be decided by the user community at large.
Is it acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls? (29/15/2)
Support
- Ambivalenthysteria 07:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Youbetcha. RickK 07:31, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- No duh. --Merovingian✍Talk 07:35, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- 172 07:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Dysprosia 08:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) if and only if they have not been contributing productively also
- Danny 08:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support but i do think we will need a strict definintion of what obvious trolling is. There are going to be arguments otherwise. theresa knott 08:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Everyking 08:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Tannin 09:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) If it isn't, then there really isn't much point in having sysops at all.
- Support, so long as the final policy is specific and clear. -JCarriker 09:57, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Dysprosia. Also, I think that we need to have a page set up where sysops explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans (forgive me if we already do). blankfaze | •• | •• 10:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely. Where to draw the line for 'obvious' is another debate entirely. Morwen - Talk 11:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Obvious should mean flouting the system (e.g. troll-reference in user-name plus provocative or revenant behaviour). Charles Matthews 11:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, Jimbo said so as well I believe. Dori | Talk 12:36, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, and let's not water down this resolution by trying to define "troll" and "obvious" in detail - I trust the judgement of 98% of admins on this matter. --H. CHENEY 15:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support JoJan 15:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Timwi 16:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- older≠wiser 16:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's important to assume good faith, but not to the point of being naive and allowing good contributors to be driven off. Isomorphic 16:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Particularly when they go out of their way to make it clear that trolling is their aim eg. users with "troll" in their username, or variations on previously banned names. -- The Anome 16:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Tarquin Admins are people whose judgement we broadly trust. So provided they ban obvious "u r gay", "the holocaust never happened", "relativity is false" etc trolls, and will take being overturned with good grace, yes.
- Infrogmation 17:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yes, with the stipulation that I think we are talking about a "block" rather than a "ban" here (ban seems to me to be a more formal procedure). This can be a useful tool to minimize damage. And remember that if some admin makes a bad judgement call, any other admin can unblock.
- EddEdmondson 17:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Sysops will at times make horrible and inecusable errors. So allow appeals. But get the trolling and obvious anti-encyclopedic behavior out of here. jallan 19:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. People who come to the project to incite conflict should be asked to leave. UninvitedCompany 00:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- gadfium 02:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- SkArcher 19:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) Concur with Dysprosia - meaningful contribution to Wikipedia should be a rule that prevents an Admin from taking this course. Also agree that we must maintain good faith in case of naive new users. A procedure for reversal is also a given. But with these proper safeguards in place - yes, an Admin should take this course in order to safeguard the project.
- Alteripse 02:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) People, it isn't that hard. You look at whether someone spends more time editing or arguing, how they respond to a disagreement, how much they perseverate over minutiae, how much time of real contributers they waste, how much they complain about those who do the work here, and how quickly they support the few others whose purpose here seems to be other than writing. Nobody "accidentally" does all those things and they will keep right on doing them until we don't let them. We need spend more effort giving positive reinforcement to those who do the work here and less attention and agonizing over those who can't or won't.
Oppose
- This is another false problem designed by the community as a way to spend the weekend. For me, obvious trolling = vandalism, and that is already discussed to nausea. If obvious trolling not equal to vandalism, then i oppose. Muriel G 15:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, mainly for the reason that a significant minority of people use the term "troll" to mean "user who annoys me." I trust the judgement of 95% of sysops 95% of the time, and I don't believe that we need to endorse banning of "obvious trolls" in order to strengthen the position of sysops within the present system. Poorly defined "rules" tend to cause more problems than they solve. -- Seth Ilys 16:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I reluctantly have to agree with Seth, based on some of the people that some sysops have seen fit to categorise as trolls - people who, in my opinion, did not warrant a lifetime ban. I continue to support blocking of obvious reincarnations of banned users. Perhaps it would be worth writing a page on wikipedia:dealing with trolls? Martin 17:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Ragnärok that this poll is in violation of the quickpolls policy. Also, I am worried that, for example, my nomination of Plato would have been reason enough under this policy for someone like RickK to block me. Of course, I would be able to unblock myself, but most would not, so this would give 250-some people too much power over the community. Guanaco 17:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I never said I would block you because of your nomination of Plato. That is nothing but a straw man argument. What I said was that I was considering asking to have you desysopped for your continuous practice of unbanning hard-banned users without discussion or consensus. RickK 22:20, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a strawman, there are a couple of sysops who are obvious trolls as far as I can see. If I were into banning, I would ban them first. The problem is that we don't agree on what an obvious troll is. Mark Richards 02:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I never said I would block you because of your nomination of Plato. That is nothing but a straw man argument. What I said was that I was considering asking to have you desysopped for your continuous practice of unbanning hard-banned users without discussion or consensus. RickK 22:20, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Jimbo has ruled that sysops can only ban in cases of clear vandalism. The term here, "obvious trolling" is simply being used to broaded the previous category -- now they want to ban everyone who has a minority viewpoint, which they don't feel is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I'm reinstating this vote because I don't believe being blocked by Hcheney is sufficient grounds for removal of vote. Martin 19:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly dispute this vote because Lir was blocked for using sockpuppets to manipulate another election on Wikipedia. The attitude of letting trolls vote and generally being weak on trolling and vandalism (like the arbitration committee with it's neverending inaction), will be the undoing of Wikipedia. --H. CHENEY 19:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There is no evidence to support such claims. There never has been, there never will be. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- That people have been accused and/or blocked in the past is not grounds for blocking their ability to vote on matters. Am reinstating. James F. (talk) 19:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I strongly dispute this vote because Lir was blocked for using sockpuppets to manipulate another election on Wikipedia. The attitude of letting trolls vote and generally being weak on trolling and vandalism (like the arbitration committee with it's neverending inaction), will be the undoing of Wikipedia. --H. CHENEY 19:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am sure that people will take into account Lir's prior actions when deciding how much faith to place in his opinion. Martin 19:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- If this was a valid quickpoll, that might be important. Martin 19:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'm reinstating this vote because I don't believe being blocked by Hcheney is sufficient grounds for removal of vote. Martin 19:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Seth and Martin; Lir's phrasing is particularly accurate. James F. (talk) 19:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Troll is not a useful label. Punish people for specific misdeeds, not this bizarre pejorative jargon. Sam [] 19:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Acegikmo1 19:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC). I agree with Seth and Sam.
- There is no definition of troll - people should be banned for actions not a subjective reading of their intentions. Secretlondon 19:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- While I might support short blocks in certain extremely limited situations (which should be defined before a poll takes place), I oppose bans which take place without involvement of the community at large and/or the arbitration committee. anthony (see warning)
- "Obvious trolling" is hopelessly vague. I'm open to saying that certain specific practices can lead to bans, but this is just an invitation to banning people someone finds annoying. Several users with extreme views, but enormous knowledge have been accused of trolling. They are a valuable part of strengthening the Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 22:12, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. No one has defined it. The Arbitration Committee rejected this idea already. Ban vandals, people who attack other users, people who refuse to discuss edits. 'Troll' is just a word for someone who annoys us, and that's not a good reason to ban someone. Don't feed trolls is better advice. -- Mark Richards
- Oppose. Basically I aggree with Mark. We do have a real problem, but this proposal is inadequately defined. There needs to be a clear code of conduct with specified procedures for giving fair warning and time limits on blocks. An immediate 48 hour block, without warning, is only appropriate for users whose major "contribution" has been to repeat the behavior of a previously banned user. An explanation of the reason for the block should be left on the blocked users talk page. Each time a new user appearred repeating the previous behavior then the duration of the blocking interval would be doubled. Erich 03:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, abuse of sysop power is possible. Comrade Nick @)---^--- -
- Oppose, Webopedia defines "Troll", the verb, like this: "To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding". And the noun, as "one who performs...the above".Well, if that is all, what has happened to the good sense of the Wikipedians? The thing is not to rise to the challenge, isn't it? Block a vandal, yes, for vandalizing, but not a so-called troll for the above misdemeanour, please. We should have enough perspicacity to be able to ignore such a contribution. I agree with Mark Richards. Dieter Simon 00:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) -
- I suggest looking at Internet troll for a better discussion. And exactly how long do you ignore garbage in an article that is not quite obvious vandalism? To ignore and walk away is a good suggestion, from the article and from Wikipedia. People are doing it because of frustration. Fighting with trolls or trying to convert trolls isn't what they were here for. If an article is changed for the worse here, someone is supposed to respond. This isn't usrnet where trolls can be theoretically be ignored with less harm. But in fact damage done by trolling and fuggheadedness on usrnet is incaluable. Bad does drive out good when there are many other places that good can go to. jallan 01:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose another layer of bureaucratic rules
- Oppose the poll, not the question
with explanation: Essentially agree with Seth Ilys above. It is better to trust sysops' judgment and move to correct them if necessary than to add another layer of rules that won't be read until there is a crisis and then the arguments start all over again. I'm not opposed to the plain language of the question above, I'm opposed to the process involved in trying to codify judgment. If we don't trust sysops, than we're not careful enough in choosing them. Cecropia | Talk 16:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)- I'm confused by this comment. Currently, when an admin bans someone we fear being pilloried not for using poor judgement, but for not "following the rules." We don't have the authority to ban anyone but pure vandals without going through the arbitration committee. Your opposition to this vote indicates a lack of trust in admins, by perpetuating the current situation. The whole point of this vote, as far as I can see, is to assure admins that it's OK to use their judgment as opposed to following some strict and explicit rule. Isomorphic 17:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Little Tin God Sysop 21:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yes. And don't waste our time by trying to define what "obvious trolling" is supposed to refer to. We have God's Eye View and we never violate policies. Wikipedia is in a crisis right now: we are firefighters, not "cops" or "judges". We don't need accountability or due process.
Comments
- Sigh. Language again: the issue needs to be better defined - what is obvious and what is not obvious? Clear and definite guidelines need to be stated before one can make an informed decision. It's not easy to answer and have a discussion on a rather broad statement, by means of a simple, binaristic poll. Dysprosia 07:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I would argue that if it's not obvious, it's not trolling. - Hephaestos|§ 07:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Then what exactly could be constituted as trolling? Dysprosia 07:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think the language is clear enough, as Heph said. If someone is clearly not contributing to the community, and is here only to harrass legitimate users, then for the sake of the project, they must go. Otherwise we risk legitimate users being driven away, for no useful purpose. Ambivalenthysteria 07:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Is this about the issue of including "troll" in a user name, and whether that alone is grounds for banning? I don't support that, but only because I don't think that's sufficiently obvious. But name + behavior is, of course. Everyking 07:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, name + behavior. Or, simply blatant behavior. This isn't a name thing per se. - Hephaestos|§ 07:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I too worry that "obvious troll" is rather poorly defined, and if this policy is implemented, that that term will start being tossed around an awful lot by sysops with a grudge. Are said trolls really such a huge problem that a quickpoll would not be quick enough? VV[[]] 08:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Quickpolls are a pain. It seems pretty clear that this is only going to be used to ban those which are obvious - those who are not contributing anything, and just harrassing users. This saves the rest of us having to put up with them for a month or three while the arbitration committee gets its act together.
- It's plainly clear to every sysop that misusing their blocking privileges has consequences. I think that's reflected already by the votes of certain users here, who while they might be called "trolls" by some people, know what this obviously isn't going to be used against them. Ambivalenthysteria 08:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do not like the caveat which suggests that a person is not trolling simply because they also make "productive contributions". Anyone can go through making typo fixes, adding categories etc. and find a loophole that way. On the other hand, the suggestion that sysops be required to explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans is excellent. - Hephaestos|§ 14:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think "sysops be required to explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans" is too broad, since it covers anything from stopping a long-term user being deemed a troll to blocking an anon vandal on a rampage of defacing articles or user pages. I think sysops need to be able to make honest decisions in a fast moving situations and feel they are trusted. I think it is obvious that where a decision is controversial, the sysop should explain it appropriately, and, of course a sysop should always be prepared to explain a decision in as much detail as necessary if anyone asks. Remember, a ban can be reversed as easily as its placed. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- To explain my condition as stated above, I mean to say that not just a minor glut of just minor fixes, categories, or whatever is to be considered as productive, but also a large number of solid, substantial edits, sustained over a fair amount of time - this means that a potential troll cannot just make a few edits here and there to look "good", in order to avoid being blocked. This requirement is merely to underscore the line between "obvious" troll or not. Dysprosia 15:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly support both points above. As for the definition of "obvious", it is the much-maligned "I know it when I see it" principle, except that in the Wiki community it is not a Bad Thing. Architeuthis 15:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In response to Muriel, there are "obvious trolling" behaviors which are not vandalism. Nominating a vandal for adminship would qualify. Spurious listings on Requests for Comment and Vandalism in Progress can also qualify, as does a blatant attempt to bait other users into a fight. Also, I'm not really worried about blocking power being abused. After all, it can be easilly reversed. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that an admin with poor judgement wouldn't be able to make many bad bans before losing their status. Isomorphic 16:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The trouble is to distinguish between trolls, fuckheads (we so need a more PG-rated name for them) - the two are QUITE different, and the second are IMO a bigger problem - and the obsessive hybrid creature that 142 has clearly become - David Gerard 18:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- While I do see the difference between the two, the damage both cause is essentially the same, therefore administrative handling of the two should be essentially the same. It is overly difficult and ultimately unnecessary to attempt to discern motives. - Hephaestos|§ 18:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Ban. But ban with access to an open page to lodge complaints about the ban. Ban with right to easy and quick appeal and any sysop whose bans to bans-overruled are over a set percentage amount gets de-sysopped for a year. Something like that. And agreed that "fuckheads" are the bigger problem, or rather fuckheadedness. jallan 19:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You say that "nominating a vandal for adminiship" qualfies as obvious trolling. Perhaps so, but I would hope that we would be a bit more forgiving than to ban someone for something so innocent. Should we have banned the person who nominated Jimbo for adminship, since that was obviously trolling? Or do we have open trolling season every April 1? If someone is nominating a large number of people in a short period of time, I could see a temporary block. But anything less severe needs to be handled by the arbitration committee. The arbitration committee could instruct the user to stop nominating vandals, perhaps even give a short ban on nominating anyone for adminship. Banning is just the wrong solution to such a problem. The arbitration committee has its problems, but I don't think they can be accused of not dealing with obvious trolling. anthony (see warning)
There is no way that people are going to agree on what is 'obvious trolling'. Nominating someone you don't like for adminship, expressing an opinion you don't like on their userpage, honestly, get over yourself and ignore it, article vandalism, refusing to constructively discuss edits - there is a problem, and one that can be dealt with. This is just looking for trouble, and is not effective in any event, it just creates more trouble. If you play this game, you have already lost. Mark Richards 22:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whether a user is here mainly to disrupt is a judgement call, and so judgement and a level head are called for. Trying to define "trolling" is pointless and at best likely to result in trolls that game the system, and disrupt as much as they can while remaining in compliance with policy's mechanical provisions. As with many issues, the outcome on borderline issues is relatively unimportant -- if someone is making a few valuable contributions but is also a pain in the ass, the project will succeed whether they are banned or not. One thing is clear, though, and that is that trolls are at present doing far more damage than a handful of bans would do, because they are driving away good contributors. UninvitedCompany 00:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- First of all, I agree with you that whether a user is here mainly to disrupt is a judgement call. That's why I think it should be handled by the arbitration committee, not the sysops. Sysops are more of an executive branch of wikipedia, and the arb committee is more of a judicial branch. I think this is important to keep in mind, because the arbitration committee has to explain its actions in detail. This gives them much more credibility to make judgement calls, in my view.
- As for whether or not the outcome is important, I believe it is quite important. Yes, the project will succeed whether or not any individual contributor stays or goes, but the project will not succeed, at least will not reach its potential, if a small subset of users is able to arbitrarily control who stays or goes. Individual bans are not what is important. It's the cumulative effect of the bans combined with the power that this group of people has merely in setting rules which cannot be challenged without fear of bans. According to Wikipedia:administrators, "sysops are not imbued with any special authority". It seems to me that sysops have been working quite hard to subvert this, without even admitting that that is what they are doing.
- Trolls may drive away good contributors, but giving sysops the authority to arbitrarily ban users would drive away far more.
- If obvious trolls are destroying wikipedia, why not bring this to the arbitration committee? If it's obvious, then it should be no problem getting community consensus against the user, and with such consensus I find it hard to imagine the arbitration committee wouldn't act.
Trust and responsibility
Trying to formulate a precise defenition of "troll" is (a) probably impossible, and (b) counterproductive. It is precisely this type of legalism that trolls thrive on. The more carefull and more detailed a definition is, the more loopholes there are for trolls to exploit. For a troll, us trying to define "trolling" is the Holy Grail: from there on, the possibilities for disruption are virtually unlimited.
No. The answer is to trust our sysops to make calm, common-sense judgements.
If we can't trust a sysop to do this, then that person shouldn't be a sysop in the first place.
Everyone makes mistakes, and we need to allow our sysops a certain amount of slack, but in the end, if a sysop consistently goes too far, then they are not performing their duties properly and should go back to being a regular editor. A "three strikes" rule might be an appropriate starting point. After three significant blunders (defined, perhaps, as "bannings that were overturned by community consensus, and regarded as non-borderline matters") a sysop becomes an ordinary editor again, without admin powers. After a reasonable period (say three months) that former sysop may, if he or she desires, be nominated and approved for adminship in the normal way.
A problem with this approach is that it is one-sided. It "punishes" sysops who make one sort of mistake (going too far) but does not sanction sysops who go too far in the other direction (i.e., those who ignore or even support anti-social behaviour such as trolling). I am not sure what steps we can take to overcome this, bar simply being aware of it and reminding ourselves of it from time to time.
Tannin 01:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- As far as sysops who ignore the problem, I'm not sure anything should really be done, and don't really consider it a big deal. Many of our administrators hardly do any administrative work. And that's fine, they still have the ability to do so in an emergency.
- As far as sysops who support disruptive activity, I don't see why a similar three-strikes procedure couldn't be implemented (e.g., for an administrator who unblocks an account when such action is found to be contrary to community consensus). - Hephaestos|§ 02:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, Hephaestos. How about we define a "strike" as something like: "a blocking or unblocking action contrary to community consensus"? Nice and simple, seems to cover all the possibilities. Tannin
The definition of troll
I avoid using the word troll myself, and regret the few times I have used it. Through overuse we have reduced the word to near-meaninglessness, which explains the many comments saying it needs to be defined, but I also sympathize with the argument that it is undefinable. Personally, I have concluded that calling someone a troll is a personal attack like any other, and therefore prohibited under our policy against personal attacks, which is why I no longer use the word.
However, some of the people we call trolls are clearly causing serious problems, and we need an effective way to deal with them. Giving administrators the authority to block (not ban) such users seems appropriate to me. But we need some kind of policy to guide this and help admins exercise good judgment in imposing such blocks. As the initial JRR Trollkien arbitration case illustrated, simply saying someone is a troll is not good enough (even when the person "says" it themselves). The case for blocking or banning has to be made on the basis of behavior, so we must describe the behavior that constitutes "trolling".
Jimbo once defined trolling as "misrepresenting oneself in order to get a reaction from people." This might be a starting point, but I think it's just one example. We should have a broader definition that covers this, so that we can use good judgment and also recognize new forms of "trolling" that we might not have anticipated. I partially agree we shouldn't have a detailed definition, and partially disagree. I think the general principle should be broad, but should be illustrated with more precise examples.
Therefore, my proposed definition of trolling behavior is: Deliberately disrupting Wikipedia with no conceivable justification for doing so. We have a proposed policy of Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but it's unclear whether this has consensus support. But I think we can all agree that if you don't have a point to illustrate, then you have no excuse for intentionally causing disruption.
Specific examples would include:
- Deliberately imitating a banned user
- Repeatedly defacing or blanking legitimate articles (i.e. things covered by the limited definition many people use for vandalism)
- Using sockpuppet accounts to vote more than once
- Direct threats of death or bodily harm to other users
- Choosing a "troll" username + other disruptive behavior (the username alone isn't enough, but a lower tolerance for disruptive behavior is appropriate for such users)
In my opinion, it is not possible to provide a legitimate reason why someone would do any of these things.
The definition specifically would not include:
- Violations of the 3-revert limit, even if they involve 100+ reverts
- Other types of "wars", such as disputes over blocks or page moves
- Personal attacks
This is quite specifically not an objective definition; it depends on admins exercising judgment, and therefore is not subject to gaming by the "trolls". The examples are meant to illustrate, and if we encounter new examples in dealing with these people, we should be prepared to add them. If anybody wants to challenge or add to the examples I have listed, in either category, please do so. --Michael Snow 05:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Too many of these are subjective. How to we determine if I am "deliberately" imitating a banned user? I was accused of being a banned user early upon coming here, by more than one admin. I'm not, and my IP was different (lucky me I don't live in the wrong part of Canada, or I'd prob be banned now ;) but mistakes could have been made. I was nearly offended enough to depart. Vandalism is already vandalism, and needn't be a factor in determining trolling. My fear frankly is that based on a "gut feeling" or personal dislike/annoyance, certain admins will ban willy-nilly creating an unfriendly atmosphere. If more rules are needed, or more enforcement of existing rules, lets do that. Giving legitimacy to a very dubious label (I agree that its a personal attack) would do little good. Sam [] 06:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's inevitably subjective. Using an exact definition of trolling would be a mistake. Nothing makes trolls happy like a rule. They thrive on rules. Trolls are the sort who, if you say that doing something obnoxious X times will get them banned, will inevitably do it X-1 times. If you say that personal attacks are forbidden, they will instead try to provoke good editors into attacking them, and then call for those editors to be banned if they succeed. If you say that reverting more than 3 times is not allowed, they will make each edit just different enough not to be called a revert. I agree with Michael: trolling occurs when "it is not possible to provide a legitimate reason" for someone's actions. Isomorphic 06:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's one thing to accuse somebody of being a banned user just because they get involved in controversy early in their Wikipedia careers, and seem overly familiar with our policies and how things operate here. I think that's what happened with Sam when he first arrived. It's rather different when someone cultivates the impression that they are a banned user like Michael, or when a new user immediately goes to the same areas frequented by EntmootsOfTrolls to promote the same viewpoints and make the same or similar edits. Anyone who blocks a reincarnation/imitation of a banned user should be able to explain good reasons why they believed the account should be blocked. For an example, see my block of User:Trollhammer in the block log. --Michael Snow 18:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Enforcement
'The definition specifically would not include:
- Violations of the 3-revert limit, even if they involve 100+ reverts
- Other types of "wars", such as disputes over blocks or page moves
- Personal attacks '
What if we did enforce these rules? Wouldn't that solve pretty much everything? Sam [] 06:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No. See above. Trolls love rules. Isomorphic 06:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- So we'll refrain from enforcing rules, just to spite the trolls? And we'll invent new, poorly defined rules so that we can punish the real offenders (those who havn't broken any specific rule)? Hmmm... Sam [] 18:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My point is not that these other rules shouldn't be enforced, if we have a consensus for them. But they should be enforced through the normal dispute resolution process, because they're not part of the definition of trolling. --Michael Snow 18:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- My point is that if these rules were enforced, we'd be fresh out of the legitimate problems behind trolling. Sam [] 19:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Subjectivity
The unfortunate subjectivity of this all is strikingly reminiscent of the new ideas regarding "hate speech" (also being discussed on the mailing list). Sam [] 20:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My two cents: I'm with you Sam, of course it is possible to codify the rules that allow a sysop to take immediate action. In some cases this should be a 24 hour block only, and unless they appear to be a user previously banned by the AC then they should get 'fair warning' before being blocked. Sorry the argument that 'trolls love rules' maybe true, but if it limits there behaviour then the mission is accomplished. Goading someone into biting you should hardly be a banning offence. People have to live with themselves (without any friends) and sometimes that is punishment enough. If it is not the AC can sort them out. best wishes Erich 22:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Good points. Were it up to me sysops would have the option of a maximum 24hr ban (for flexable reasons), which if misused enough would result in desysoping. Sam [] 00:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, i've had a stab at putting together something with more checks and balances and some attempt to define what this is about. It needs editing... but pleae come and give it an edit or start a debate on the talk page. Erich 06:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)