I was looking for precedents for sanctioning creative disruption (as described in [[WP:TROLL]]). But didn't find any at: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents]].
What if an editor does the following for a couple of months: * removing all mesages from their talk page (and all the talk pages of his user pages) * creating user subpages about alleged misbehavior of his "enemies", giving them "hypcorisy awards", accusing them of being members of a cabal, etc. * [[WP:POINT]], marking pages, categories for deletion in retaliation * [[WP:TROLL]] (marking articles of his arch-enemy as stubs en masse, starting stupid votes on policy changes, being a pain in the neck at the village pump (but carefully)) * Adding provocative (but not necessarily very rude) comments in article discussions and edit summaries * Retaliative voting against anything the people on his hit list support * Rallying troops on internet forums for a "freedom fight" in Wikipedia to push a particular POV
So if a user learns to do all this without violating the "hard" policies like [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:3RR]] too much, can he go on forever?
Can anyone point me to the closest precedent to this behavior and what happened to such creative trolls?
Thanks, nyenyec
I'm pretty sure this is what RFAr is for. Plautus satire is a possible example of such a person, except his reason was chronic schizophrenia, not trolling. But the effect is the same.
- Ryan
Nyenyec N wrote:
So if a user learns to do all this without violating the "hard" policies like [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:3RR]] too much, can he go on forever?
Can anyone point me to the closest precedent to this behavior and what happened to such creative trolls?
Thanks, nyenyec
And exactly who are you suggesting is doing this?
On 8/31/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is what RFAr is for. Plautus satire is a possible example of such a person, except his reason was chronic schizophrenia, not trolling. But the effect is the same.
- Ryan
Nyenyec N wrote:
So if a user learns to do all this without violating the "hard" policies like [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:3RR]] too much, can he go on forever?
Can anyone point me to the closest precedent to this behavior and what happened to such creative trolls?
Thanks, nyenyec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. We have a longtime problem user in our still rather small Hungarian Wikipedia.
I wanted to see what procedures the EnWiki editors have for dealing with such behavior (what works and what doesn't).
I think the Plautus example is somewhat fitting.
Although this guy is a seasoned troll who made himself a reputation in the last 5 years on religion related internet forums, I think he doesn't speak English so you're absolutely safe. ;)
Thanks, nyenyec
On 8/31/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
And exactly who are you suggesting is doing this?
On 8/31/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is what RFAr is for. Plautus satire is a possible example of such a person, except his reason was chronic schizophrenia, not trolling. But the effect is the same.
- Ryan
Nyenyec N wrote:
So if a user learns to do all this without violating the "hard" policies like [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:3RR]] too much, can he go on forever?
Can anyone point me to the closest precedent to this behavior and what happened to such creative trolls?
Thanks, nyenyec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- signature _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi,
I don't know what's going on here - I followed policy to the letter here.
The page in question is -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion&curid=1003209&action=h istory
I was restoring comments blanked on the page by Kim Bruning, an admin, with the summary
"BIG RV. Some id10t tried to implement voting on the "let's make sure vfd is not voting" discussion. Um. Ok. Undoing the screwage"
(It wasn't my comment it was someone else's). Basically that dispute was they were renaming all "votes for deletion" pages to "articles for deletion", and assuming there was consesus to do so, but were not holding anything formal like a VfD process or whatever.
That's irrelevant though, because I wasn't trying to prove anything at all. I just wanted to have a VfD conversation over it, and this was on the talk page which seemed appropriate (and evidently several other people thought so too).
The summary before I reverted again was "Del the requested move vote again. I didn't look too hard who put it back, because if I did, I'd have to do really bad things to them"
To which I responded on the talk page that I thought it would be better for them to come up with something better, rather than simply wiping it from the talk page.
Anyway, there were NO warning on my talk page about the possiblity of violating WP:POINT or being blocked for 24 hours. This has a left a very bitter taste in mouth, and I don't know if I'll be coming back after this, as I have always thought I acted in a mature and responsible matter.
Ryan
Kim's been acting a little strangely with votes lately, i've noticed.
On 9/1/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
Hi,
I don't know what's going on here - I followed policy to the letter here.
The page in question is -
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion&curid=1003209&action=h istory
I was restoring comments blanked on the page by Kim Bruning, an admin, with the summary
"BIG RV. Some id10t tried to implement voting on the "let's make sure vfd is not voting" discussion. Um. Ok. Undoing the screwage"
(It wasn't my comment it was someone else's). Basically that dispute was they were renaming all "votes for deletion" pages to "articles for deletion", and assuming there was consesus to do so, but were not holding anything formal like a VfD process or whatever.
That's irrelevant though, because I wasn't trying to prove anything at all. I just wanted to have a VfD conversation over it, and this was on the talk page which seemed appropriate (and evidently several other people thought so too).
The summary before I reverted again was "Del the requested move vote again. I didn't look too hard who put it back, because if I did, I'd have to do really bad things to them"
To which I responded on the talk page that I thought it would be better for them to come up with something better, rather than simply wiping it from the talk page.
Anyway, there were NO warning on my talk page about the possiblity of violating WP:POINT or being blocked for 24 hours. This has a left a very bitter taste in mouth, and I don't know if I'll be coming back after this, as I have always thought I acted in a mature and responsible matter.
Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What happened was that I was unblocked by another admin (rather quickly). Afterwards me and Kim agreed on IRC that would move the Requested Moves/mock voting thing to the user's user space if the user wanted to, possibly leaving a link on the VfD talk page to it (I think).
Thanks, RN