On Nov 7, 2007 6:46 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Nov 2007 09:38:35 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Once a person with sufficient wisdom and
authority has deemed that a person is a troll, THEY ARE A TROLL. No more time should be wasted on them.
That sounds a lot like the Orwellian "Unperson", or Scientology "Suppressive Person", concepts, and can be really unfair to people who are unjustly labeled this way. Didn't an early version of WP:NPA specifically say that labeling somebody a "troll" was an impermissible personal attack? The Wikipedia culture has changed since then, and not necessarily for the better.
-- == Dan ==
I think there's been a maturing acknowledgement by the community that, in truth, some people are not here to build an encyclopedia, or even talk about building an encyclopedia or talk to people who are building an encyclopedia.
Some people really are here just to cause trouble and annoy others.
Some people just get off on that.
A zero-tolerance policy for such people is a common feature of online communities, though some put up with them.
The problem is, telling the difference between someone who IS here to build an encyclopedia or talk about building an encyclopedia, who is merely abrasive or unusually persistent or moderately clueless or on the wrong side of a very aggrivated community discussion.
I have no worries that any bans of actual trolls are a problem for the encyclopedia. I do worry about false positives in the ID process. I do worry about those who are for some reason or another very frustrated and wish to expand the definition of troll in subtle ways.
There are also those who end up being not trolls, but disruptive enough that sanctions need to be taken. Labeling these people trolls happens, but is unfortunate, as these are people who have good faith in the project and who may be able to work with the community successfully in the future.