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.
There are several stopped clocks here.
The word "troll" dehumanizes the subject and stops the conversation dead in its tracks.
Flameviper, for example, seems to be many baneful things that are not beneficial to Wikipedia, and I've had no second thoughts about having blocked him indefinitely; but labeling him a "troll" is just laziness. Efficiency of expression is not a good reason to use jargon that is harmful to community. It's clearer to spell out that someone is too disruptive, immature, and self-centered to waste any more time with, if any expanation other than "disruptive" is necessary.
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 == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.
On 11/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
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
Well of course it should be possible to be unlabelled. But there are some
advantages to this model:
- There's a very strong incentive not to be mistaken for a troll, in case there was any doubt. - It saves everyone a lot of time if you actually are a troll. - If you're a troll, and have been labelled, you're going to have to really try hard to get unlabelled. And you'll think twice about being trollish next time.
My definition of troll is basically someone who enjoys conversations about themselves, and particularly their behaviour, at the expense of getting work done. The good ones usually have both supporters and detractors, because they are nice to some people and mean to others. The exceptionally good ones are nice to those with genuine authority (ie, the power to block them), but torture people with symbolic authority or rarely-used powers ("don't make me block you, I haven't blocked anyone in years"). They relish the challenge of making people second guess their character judgments.
And in any given discussion of their behaviour half the people will be going "look at all these great things he's done" and the other half will be going "look what a prat he is". And everyone's time is wasted.
Far better solution: when it's obvious there is trollish behaviour, label and ban, and leave open just one small avenue for redemption which will require hard work and will waste the time of only a couple of people who genuinely care.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
My definition of troll is basically someone who enjoys conversations about themselves, and particularly their behaviour, at the expense of getting work done.
That's a novel definition, appropriate to the troll-hunter of Wonderland.
The good ones usually have both supporters and detractors, because they are nice to some people and mean to others. The exceptionally good ones are nice to those with genuine authority (ie, the power to block them), but torture people with symbolic authority or rarely-used powers ("don't make me block you, I haven't blocked anyone in years"). They relish the challenge of making people second guess their character judgments.
And in any given discussion of their behaviour half the people will be going "look at all these great things he's done" and the other half will be going "look what a prat he is". And everyone's time is wasted.
That is more characteristic of ass-kissers and brown-nosers who savour the odour so much that they can't bear to flush the toilet.
Far better solution: when it's obvious there is trollish behaviour, label and ban, and leave open just one small avenue for redemption which will require hard work and will waste the time of only a couple of people who genuinely care.
"Obvious" is obviously a trollish word, especially when used in the context of an eccentric definition. Another way of putting this idea is that the law is exactly what the cop[ on the beat defines it to be.
Ec
On 08/11/2007, 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.
If you don't acknowledge that they exist then for all intents and purposes they don't exist. However, its not nice in my opinion to shun people who aren't abusive or vandals. This is possibly why I have been told off too many times on this list for keeping discussions about trolls going for longer than they possibly should.
That version of NPA is the one I remember... Has it really disappeared recently, I hadn't noticed.
Peter