You may be right, but it seems that a lot of the
'troll username' stuff is not users who have made any
undesirable article changes, it is just about pulling
people's chains on obscure process issues. I guess
where I'm going with this is that trolls have tied up
masses of time and attention of serious users who are
responding to their flaimbait on meta pages or talk
pages, without any real impact on actual content
(damaging content is different, Paul Vogel has
violated NPOV and other principles). These trolls have
managed to annoy a lot of people, waste a lot of time,
raise people's blood pressure, without doing much
damage to articles.
I guess I just feel that if you respond to these
(assuming there is no actual article damage) then you
have been trolled, and you have lost.
I wish there was a friendly 'D'oh, you've been
trolled' dope slap that I could award well meaning
people who get sucked into responding to someone who
is just dying for a user to do something like set up
an arbitration committee about them.
You're right though, there may not be many other
alternatives. Ah well,
Mark
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
If the troll vandalises, ban him immediately. If
not,
don't feed him.
But how to "not feed" him? Let him have his way
with an article?
Shall we allow Paul Vogel to have his way and post
articles advocating
for Cosmotheism and White Separatism?
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover