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 -- ---<>--- --