Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll2

Dealing with trolls

Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll2 received 75% votes in favor, however it is unclear how to deal with the dissent. Where do we go from here? anthony (see warning) 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that, if there were a clear method of desysopping, we'd get ortho's vote to change, maybe even one more. The problem is, until we have a clear policy for dealing with disruptive editors, there's a lot of guesswork for sysops concerning how they're supposed to behave, which makes most of them resist a clear desysopping policy, IMO. So we may be at an impasse. Can we somehow roll them both together and try and pass a double barreled policy? Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My objection was mainly based on the fact that we were been asked to give people powers to deal with a problem without any real idea of how big the problem is. Answer that question and then a sensible debate on what needs to be done can begin. Meanwhile, how can anyone judge what the best course of action might be? Filiocht 07:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you want 'real' facts, look no further than user:Raul654/Plautus to see the timeline of the most disruptive user ever. →Raul654 07:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is one kind of fact, but what I really mean is how many users like this are there as a % of the total community. I suspect it is a tiny number, but have no way of knowing just now. If we legislate on the basis of hard cases, we'll make bad laws. Filiocht 08:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I had to guess, at any given time, there are probably no more than 4-6 users who are so disruptive that they are ban-worthy. The problem is, new ones appear as fast as we get rid of the older ones. →Raul654 08:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

There are many more who are disruptive in a small way, often restricting their activities to particular small parts of Wikipedia which they hold on to viciously. I've encountered users who have wasted days of my time. Their only interest in Wikipedia may be to sustain a particular point of view in one or two articles. Eventually, I walked away. They won. There's so many other articles in Wikipedia that need work that one might as well let them have their say when their are worse articles around. Current dispute resolution process seems almost purposely clumsy, designed only for those who like nagivating legal procedures and are good at it. Meanwhile, the supposed Wikipedia policies are lies. They aren't enforced, and if you look closely at may of them, they seem to disappear. No personal attacks? They happen all the time. No POV supposedly. Supposedly a rule of only three reverts in 24 hours, but that's now vanished, maybe, sort of. Try to to cite supposed Wikipedia policy to stop someone who is stubborn and where it is in a minor article of little interest to most, but of great interest to two users to whose only regard for Wikipedia is as a platform for a particular, unnotable, fringe theory in one article. Filiocht's concern with numbers seems to me moot. If only a few people are being raped, then rape doesn't matter? What harm does anyone but a troll find in this proposed quick-alarm system that at least gives some substance to supposed policies that increasingly don't guide Wikipedia. No. I can't measure this. But either can Filiocht. With a two month trial we could perhaps measure it. What other way? Jallan 18:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think comparing this to rape is a little hysterical. You seem to be making the case that anyone who holds an opinion that is different to yours and whom you are unable to persuade is automatically 'disruptive'. Perhaps the cases that you are thinking of are, but you can perhaps see why some people are worried about where this kind of logic leads. However, I do totally agree that we need to strengthen sanctions against personal attacks, they are perhaps the single most damaging type of anti-social behavior we have, along with witch-hunting. Mark Richards 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comparison to rape hysterical? No. I am pointing out that numbers should not be an issue. We supposedly have a policy of personal attacks being totally forbidden. It is not enforced. You know this. Currently, the de facto practice is that personal attacks are quite acceptable here, as long as someone doesn't make too many personal attacks, and doen't make them against the wrong people, or both. The case I "seem to be making" is your strawman argument not mine. I am talking about obvious breaking of supposed rules. Yes, in some cases, I or someone else might be in error, the person in the wrong, or there may be no wrong. Fine. Under the proposed policy I would be quickly disabused. Case closed! I can't see why "some people are worried about where this kind of logic leads". Jallan 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The comparison to rape is frankly insulting to rape victims. I still say that hard cases make bad laws and Jallan's intervention has reinforced my opinion. And yes, Mark Richards, there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow. Filiocht 11:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The comparison was intended to be overstrong to indicate how bogus it is to be concerned only with numbers. Can you quantify your contention that "there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow"? The policy as proposed would seem to me to be equally effective against fuggheadedness of a witch-hunter type where that exists. Do you not want witch-hunting to be cut down if you believe it is a problem? Jallan 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I voted against the proposal. Let's just imagine its Chriatmas and very few people are working here. Just me and three admins, in fact. They're all working on an article together and I stumble in. I find their version horribly POV and try to edit it, they label me disruptive and ultimately ban me before the holiday is over. Overstated, too, I admit, but if you can overstate, so can I. This is part of why this person is "worried about where this kind of logic leads". My concern with numbers is because they bring some objectivity and reduce the likelyhood of a bad knee-jerk reaction or the pushing through of something that serves the interests of a minority only. We have quite a good article on Internet trolls. It contains this sentence, which I think is worth pondering: However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict not emerge at all. My view is simple; don't feed them. Maybe there is no quick-hit solution. Filiocht 14:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You provided no numbers for your somewhat weasel-worded claim that "there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow". A concern with objectivity isn't apparent.

As to the horrid case you postulate, it is impossible. Even three rogue sysops at a time when no-one else is around would not be able to ban you. Please read the proposal that you have voted against. The most rogue admins could do would be a short term block of 24-hours, no worse than many users suffer now though no wrong-doing when a range-block is in effect or through the occasional wrongful blocking that occurs now for claimed vandalism which is later determined to be unjustified. But the reasons for this block would appear openly on the appropriate page, providing documentation for you or anyone to use to show that the sysops were acting against policy. You don't have such full protection now if a single sysop now blocks you for sneaky vandalism.

Not feeding trolls has some success on open web forums, but the usenet is a now a shadow of what it once was. On managed forums trolls are more often simply banned. If not feeding trolls is good, starving trolls is better. But if ignoring disruptors and pushers of crank POV is an option in web forum, it is not an option in Wikipedia where we are trying to build an encyclopedia and trying to maintain and improve the information here. Ignoring the content placed in articles by people intent only on pushing their own POV is not a valid long-term option. Ignoring those interested in sneaky vandalism for the fun of it is not an option. Making it easier to oppose such activities should better Wikipedia.

Jallan 18:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is a classic case of the ground shifting under you in a discussion like this. We go from the ill defined 'troll', to 'pushers of crank POVs', to people 'intent on pushing their own POV' to 'sneaky vandals', as if these were the same thing. Not feeding the trolls does not mean not reverting vandalism. To try to characterise it in this way is just muddying the waters and making discussion more difficult. Mark Richards 23:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read the policy suggestions. Wrong-doing is not ill-defined there. And I don't particularly care whether someone is acting against supposed Wikipedia policy because they enjoy being disruptive (a troll) or because they strongly believe in a particular POV and don't care what policy they have to break to get into Wikipedia. You muddy the waters by caring about motivation, something often difficult to determine. The policy has nothing to do with open vandalism, which is already covered. You muddy the waters a second time. Perhaps you have not read the policy you oppose, just as you wished to be able to autovote on VfD without actually looking at what you were voting for. Jallan 20:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again rhetoric wins out over facts. As I think you know, it was my objection to deletion of pages (not to removal of content) in almost all cases that I wanted to be registered. The few cases that I believe deletion is really appropriate for could be handled in other forums. Mark Richards 23:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's just imagine its Chriatmas and very few people are working here. Just me and three admins, in fact. They're all working on an article together and I stumble in. I find their version horribly POV and try to edit it, they label me disruptive and ultimately ban me before the holiday is over. You don't seem to have read the policy. Under this policy you'd get formally warned first. When you get the formal warning, then you simply leave those pages in their "horribly POV" state for a day or two while you get support for your position. Under current policy those 3 admins could get together and protect the pages on their horribly POV version anyway, and that'd likely last more than just a day or two. anthony (see warning) 20:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)