[WikiEN-l] Re: Known Trolls

[Peter Jaros]

On Feb 10, 2004, at 1:53 AM, Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> Peter Jaros wrote:
>
>> One problem with bringing up a person's pre-Wikipedia history is that 
>> a
>> reformed troll is likely to be, shall we say, tact-impaired.  Such a
>> person is *more* likely to be falsely accused of trolling (remembering
>> that trolling includes intent).  On the other hand, this history can
>> greatly help arbitrators to decide how to deal with a user.  Many
>> people are simply bad at garnering sympathy for their point; it's a
>> skill not everyone has.  Simply accusing such people of trolling is
>> likely to make matters worse and make the arbitrators' job harder.
>
> The difference between being a troll or "tact-impaired" is minor 
> enough that for most practical purposes it isn't worth considering.

There is a major difference which I failed to bring up explicitly if 
the first post.  Obviously inflammatory content is inflammatory, 
intended or not.  But the second half of arbitration is resolution.  
Arbitrators are granted a certain amount of authority by Jimbo for the 
purposes of resolution.  If a person really is a troll, they should be 
treated differently than someone who has suffered from a lapse in tact. 
  It should (may) be possible to reason with the latter; reasoning with 
the former is a complete waste of time.

In short, I think that off-Wikipedia evidence can be very useful to 
arbitrators in deciding how to work with a disputant.

Peter

                                  -- ---<>--- --
                        A house without walls cannot fall.
           Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
                                  -- ---<>--- --