You may be right, but it seems that a lot of the 'troll username' stuff is not users who have made any undesirable article changes, it is just about pulling people's chains on obscure process issues. I guess where I'm going with this is that trolls have tied up masses of time and attention of serious users who are responding to their flaimbait on meta pages or talk pages, without any real impact on actual content (damaging content is different, Paul Vogel has violated NPOV and other principles). These trolls have managed to annoy a lot of people, waste a lot of time, raise people's blood pressure, without doing much damage to articles. I guess I just feel that if you respond to these (assuming there is no actual article damage) then you have been trolled, and you have lost. I wish there was a friendly 'D'oh, you've been trolled' dope slap that I could award well meaning people who get sucked into responding to someone who is just dying for a user to do something like set up an arbitration committee about them. You're right though, there may not be many other alternatives. Ah well, Mark
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Mark Richards wrote:
If the troll vandalises, ban him immediately. If
not,
don't feed him.
But how to "not feed" him? Let him have his way with an article? Shall we allow Paul Vogel to have his way and post articles advocating for Cosmotheism and White Separatism?
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover