Grants talk:IdeaLab/Stop feeding the trolls
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by ThePlatypusofDoom in topic Seriously?
Considering that when I criticized this editor's ideas on WP:AN (in this thread), he or she called me a "glorified troll"; and considering that I've been editing en.wiki for 11 years, and have over 190,000 (manual) edits to over 35,000 unique pages [1], and that almost 75% of those edits are to articles, I have no faith whatsoever in the analytical abilities of this editor. I would be adamantly opposed to any WMF funds going into this bizarre proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the proposal is for. If it's a proposal to perhaps deleted some decade old categories and template usages or revise long-term abuse information in English, that's fine but it was and should have been closed at AN because that's not what AN is for. This however is vague and wishy-washy enough to make me think that the editor here is proposing some odd idea that we shouldn't basically write down any information about trolls and just keep that hidden away for some odd reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW I completely agree with Stemoc, both here and on that page. If we stop giving trolls the audience they are looking for then that will significantly cut down the amount of time we spend dealing with them, because it gets quickly less fun if you are just reverted and ignored. But that's something for enwiki to figure out; most other projects that I'm involved on handle this pretty well. And also FWIW, this isn't a grant proposal so your excessive bolding and usual indignant and ridiculous comments aren't really necessary. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Similarly, if we just stop talking about murderers and rapists and kidnappers and extortionists and embezzlers, and charging them and putting them on trial and writing about them in newspapers, there would be no more murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion or embezzlement. Uh-huh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic straw man, glad to see you out with your usual A game. Of course, wiki trolls are as bad as murderers, and it's our job to punish them severely by banning them from our sites. After all, they exist in the exact same circumstances and have the exact same motivation. Thanks for coming out.I think that a common motivation for many, but not all, trolls is the satisfaction of seeing their trolling generate a reaction. In this way, I think we should focus on not giving them that reaction, rather than treating their behaviour like a crime. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)- Ah, so very good to see that Wikipedia Stewards are able to be sarcastic and insulting to hard-working rank-and-file editors. Good job, man. Just to help you in your future real life endeavors, the argument is not a "straw man" (a term you seem not to properly understand). That the real life crimes I mentioned are more serious than Wikipedia "crimes" goes without saying, but the argument advanced is that ignoring the Wikipedia violations will make them go away, so the analogy with the real life crimes is exact, and therefore not a straw man at all, because thousands and thousands of years of civilization have taught us that ignoring crime (or "crime") will not stop it, it will only increase it. That you cannot see this is sad, especially for a person in your position of Wiki-authority.
Perhaps you can tell me, how, exactly, does one go about recalling a Wikimedia Steward for gross ignorance? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- You have a history of being unable to interact well with anyone around you. You use sarcastic, rude and dismissive answers to anyone who disagrees with you. You seem unwilling or unable to refute the core argument of any point made, instead bringing up random and useless other points or ideas rather than actually engaging in a conversation with another human being. My comment was attempting parody of your usual and typical style of communication, and I have no desire to engage with your particularly brand of abusive comments any further. I do apologise for breaking my usual style of civil and issue-oriented communication, and have re-phrased my above comment to be less like what you write. And before you ask for proof of your poor behaviour, just look at literally any of your comments here. Rude, dismissive, condescending. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you have a specific problem with me, Ajraddatz, you, as a Steward, presumably know precisely where you should go to report it, and here is not the place. But you know that, you are a fucking Steward (only the gods know how), and yet you feel free to let go with your personal invective - not very encouraging. I guarantee you that speaks more about you than it does about me. Since you haven't seen fit to provide me with the information about how stewards can be recalled, I suppose I shall have to find out for myself - I certainly hope that the quality of other Stewards is better.
On the sole substantive part of your comment, in actuality my analysis goes right to the heart of Stemoc's proposal, and your inability to see that is, once again, telling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, RFH would probably be the best place if you have concerns with my comments. If you have concerns with my use of steward tools, you could always open an RFC. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Re: "Regards" Please, don't be a hypocrite, Ajraddatz, you have no "regards" for me, you've made that quite obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, RFH would probably be the best place if you have concerns with my comments. If you have concerns with my use of steward tools, you could always open an RFC. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you have a specific problem with me, Ajraddatz, you, as a Steward, presumably know precisely where you should go to report it, and here is not the place. But you know that, you are a fucking Steward (only the gods know how), and yet you feel free to let go with your personal invective - not very encouraging. I guarantee you that speaks more about you than it does about me. Since you haven't seen fit to provide me with the information about how stewards can be recalled, I suppose I shall have to find out for myself - I certainly hope that the quality of other Stewards is better.
- You have a history of being unable to interact well with anyone around you. You use sarcastic, rude and dismissive answers to anyone who disagrees with you. You seem unwilling or unable to refute the core argument of any point made, instead bringing up random and useless other points or ideas rather than actually engaging in a conversation with another human being. My comment was attempting parody of your usual and typical style of communication, and I have no desire to engage with your particularly brand of abusive comments any further. I do apologise for breaking my usual style of civil and issue-oriented communication, and have re-phrased my above comment to be less like what you write. And before you ask for proof of your poor behaviour, just look at literally any of your comments here. Rude, dismissive, condescending. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, so very good to see that Wikipedia Stewards are able to be sarcastic and insulting to hard-working rank-and-file editors. Good job, man. Just to help you in your future real life endeavors, the argument is not a "straw man" (a term you seem not to properly understand). That the real life crimes I mentioned are more serious than Wikipedia "crimes" goes without saying, but the argument advanced is that ignoring the Wikipedia violations will make them go away, so the analogy with the real life crimes is exact, and therefore not a straw man at all, because thousands and thousands of years of civilization have taught us that ignoring crime (or "crime") will not stop it, it will only increase it. That you cannot see this is sad, especially for a person in your position of Wiki-authority.
- Similarly, if we just stop talking about murderers and rapists and kidnappers and extortionists and embezzlers, and charging them and putting them on trial and writing about them in newspapers, there would be no more murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion or embezzlement. Uh-huh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks ajr, and @Ricky81682:, as mentioned both on enwiki and on the proposal, we need to systematically start deleting categories and socktags of some of these trolls, giving them a "badge of honour" everytime they attack another user is as mentioned, basically enabling them to continue doing it, they are not here to contribute positively and we know that but everytime they are given a nice little medal on their userpage, it just boosts their ego even further and they won't stop, you are basically 'feeding the troll'..we need to come up with a different method of dealing with them now, we cannot just keep giving them 'medal's everytime they decide to make a mockery out of our own policies..I'm not requesting funding here lol, people don't understand the idea for this project being run by I Jethrobot.. There are atleast 30 proposals here already where people are complaining about Harassment, allowing trolls like these to continue their 'harassment' by basically allowing them to stay, whose fault do you think it is?...I condemn it all the time but I have no power on enwiki to do something about it, thus why I brought in on the w:WP:AN noticeboard where a few users decided to make a mockery out of the idea without even understanding it...as ajr mentioned, this is dealt with better by other small wikis, they only keep a list of 'known' aliases and IP's, they avoid over-tagging because they know it will only feed their ego which is bad for the project..the sad part, this should have been enforced a long time ago, a large percentage of people who get harassed on enwiki are by these trolls and instead of hanging them, we decide to let them go with just a 'slap on the wrist' (username and IP block) as well as a nice good-bye gift (socktag)..First we need to find a better method of dealing with them, that is why I proposed it on WP:AN as admins there may be able to come up with a better solution but alas, it got 'derailed' so if a solution to fix a major issue on enwiki cannot be started there, then meta is undoubtedly the best place to do it..--Stemoc 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, I closed it as there's nothing at AN to do. AN is not for just musings about policy. There was literally nothing you specifically wanted done other than just generic conversation. At best, en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) is a better place to go but you need to articular something specific. If you actually wanted to propose the deletion of a particular category or page, fine, but if you want to propose that all reporting and identification of trolls and cranks and long-term abuse be removed under a bizarre belief that we are better off worrying about whether the trolls actually care about their reputations than actually solving the problem, I suggest you start with a small incremental example. Otherwise, you sound like the type of person who would rather complain about the name of a serial killer while the rest of us worry about how to stop them. Stop acting like you've suddenly made some grand insight that's been missed in the debates over the last 11 years now. Each time we deal with a problem like these, there's always someone who thinks it's a bad way to go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks ajr, and @Ricky81682:, as mentioned both on enwiki and on the proposal, we need to systematically start deleting categories and socktags of some of these trolls, giving them a "badge of honour" everytime they attack another user is as mentioned, basically enabling them to continue doing it, they are not here to contribute positively and we know that but everytime they are given a nice little medal on their userpage, it just boosts their ego even further and they won't stop, you are basically 'feeding the troll'..we need to come up with a different method of dealing with them now, we cannot just keep giving them 'medal's everytime they decide to make a mockery out of our own policies..I'm not requesting funding here lol, people don't understand the idea for this project being run by I Jethrobot.. There are atleast 30 proposals here already where people are complaining about Harassment, allowing trolls like these to continue their 'harassment' by basically allowing them to stay, whose fault do you think it is?...I condemn it all the time but I have no power on enwiki to do something about it, thus why I brought in on the w:WP:AN noticeboard where a few users decided to make a mockery out of the idea without even understanding it...as ajr mentioned, this is dealt with better by other small wikis, they only keep a list of 'known' aliases and IP's, they avoid over-tagging because they know it will only feed their ego which is bad for the project..the sad part, this should have been enforced a long time ago, a large percentage of people who get harassed on enwiki are by these trolls and instead of hanging them, we decide to let them go with just a 'slap on the wrist' (username and IP block) as well as a nice good-bye gift (socktag)..First we need to find a better method of dealing with them, that is why I proposed it on WP:AN as admins there may be able to come up with a better solution but alas, it got 'derailed' so if a solution to fix a major issue on enwiki cannot be started there, then meta is undoubtedly the best place to do it..--Stemoc 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- So you want to make it harder for volunteers to identify and deal with long term abusers?!? That makes no sense. In the Wikipedia you envision troll/Sock/vandal fighting would always be one on one and there would be no way to figure out if the perpetrator was a one off or someone who has been a long term problem. It would also make it more difficult for victims to a) document long term abuse and b) for new victims of a troll/harasser to know if they are the victim of a known long term abuser or some new actor. Wikipedia is a volunteer run, open project and the people who manage these problems are editors like everyone else so if you remove these public "medals" as you call them you remove the ways those who fight these individuals communicate with each other and document the problems. JbhTalk 03:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- How exactly would it be harder? btw, its not the job of 'volunteers' to track down socks and tag them, its the job of admins..If a user comes across an account which he/she feels may belong to a known troll, they can report it to an admin via messages or leave them a note on their talk page.. I never said to get rid of them completely, just move the important information, something similar to a case file to another location NOT on enwiki (such as mailing-lists)..again not everyone who trolls the wiki do it for fame, some are actual/legit users who keep getting blocked because admins (with NO CU RIGHTS) blocking them and tagging them as a sock thus nullifying their chances of defending themselves from the wrongful accusations (Thus what i meant by most trolls being created by certain admin's ignorance on the WP:AN board, which obviously a few people took out of context) and so they sock, generally trying to do good edits again, but then again getting tagged as some other vandal by those same admins...so guess what they will do next? I'm not saying to remove them all , but make a list, for those with say over 50 socks and counting, delete those sock tags completely, make a list of their previous accounts and IP information and list it somewhere else where another admins can find via a simple search..no need to have a 'shrine' for every troll that gets blocked especially when a wrong editor gets blocked because one admin thought they were the same..there was a time when CU's decided which users deserved to be blocked as socks, not anymore..now any admins with no real CU experience can do without any ounce of transparency which will create more trolls, which will lead to more socking and obviously more vandalism and harassment..Pick any major known troll, go back to their original account and then come tell me that they all started off as vandals...sure the idea may not be straight forward, but this is why i brought it up here, lets find a solution, we cannot continue to play this 'cat and mouse' game..its starting to feel more like a Tom and Jerry or The Roadrunner and Wile-coyote show and its mainly because we refuse to enforce something which should actually be a policy from the beginning...We have all been victims of trolls/sock attacks, each and everyone of us..but because we continue to feed them, they will never go away..take away a person's will and they will crumble..take away a troll's reason to trolls and they will leave..Let stop empowering trolls and start empowering the contributors instead..--Stemoc 03:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do you realize how egotistical you sound? They have literally been thousands of individuals who have been developing these pages and dealing with these characters for literally over a decade and suddenly you think you have the one key insight everyone else has missed? If you have a specific example, people are open to discussing this but this quite literally sounds like a joke. Have you read the thousands of lines of discussions at en:WP:LTA? These things didn't just happen by accident and you aren't the first person to propose throwing the whole thing out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky, there's very little purpose in trying to get Stemoc to see where his suggestion stands in regard to the complex hgistory of dealing with puppetmasters, socks, and trolls on Wikipedia. He clearly has discovered THE TRUTH, which is almost always a screen which prevents seeing and understanding why one's ideas are faulty. At this point, rather than ignoring socks and trolls, I'd rather ignore HIM, and let this idea die on the vine, which is all it deserves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, It was always there, but it has always been ignored for reasons unknown,,I don't understand why an admin such as you would be against an idea to get rid of the most notorious trolls for good?..I never said it will happen tomorrow, it make take a few months to a year but it will WORK. The stewards have been doing this for years and since the upgrade of global permission which allows accounts to not only be locked globally but suppressed (hidden), it has made the job much easier and faster..I didn't propose throwing it all out, I proposed targeting the ones with a few dozen accounts, the perennial trolls, those that seem to be around for a few years now with no hope of leaving..this has worked on the likes of WoW and Grawp, you don't hear of them anymore, they didn't get bored one day and left, but they left because we decided to 'deny' their existence...since I joined, I have dealt with 100's of different trolls and this is why I'm sure this idea will work...I know a troll when i see one..egotistical? is that what you call a person who is actually "trying" to fix this issue?..if you want to go that route, then OK, tell me Ricky, what have you done to try and curtail or stop this ongoing issue?..This problem has existed since 2004 (the socking and harassment of users), its not a new thing..I have gone through it more times than most so If I feel I know what the solution might be its because I can speak through experience, we never had something like this 'idealab' before or I would have done this a long time ago..@BMK, you are not helpful, you have never been helpful so please stop trying to help, you are starting to sound like a broken record playing the same song over and over again..we get it, you don't want the trolls to go, you want them to stay and harrass everyone from new users to admins to even staff, we get it..so if you don't want to help find a solution, stop being the problem...--Stemoc 07:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Stemoc, I am indeed the local steward for the Wikipedia Trolls Union, and that is why I objected to your proposal, because it is the one and only sure-fire way to get rid of trolls. Obviously, I don't want that to happen.
Do you actually read what you write, Stemoc? And if you do, do you really, honestly believe it? If so, there's something very, very wrong in your thinking. Of course, since you have THE TRUTH, anyone who doesn't accept your proposal must be a heretic. To that I say: guilty as charged.
It is true that I have an unavoidable urge to describe bullshit ideas as being bullshit ideas, and yours is one primo bullshit idea indeed. I don't actually know you from a hole in the ground, Stemoc (thank goodness), but you pretend, at least, to have intimate knowledge of me and my behavior. Maybe you do, I can't be responsible for that, but my reaction to your "proposal" is based entirely on the proposal itself and my 11 years of experience on en.Wiki, and not on any prior animosity towards you, who is essentially a cipher to me. You seem satisfied to encapsulate my Wiki-experience as "glorified trolling", but I'm confident enough in my contributions to the encyclopedia to recognize that as, again, total bullshit, the response of a disgruntled editor to the wholesale rejection of a stupid idea. So, to sum up ... I don't know you, and you think I'm a "troll", so be it. Let's just see what kind of response your furshluginer proposal gets - I'm betting that it essentially gets laughed out of town, but, who knows?, I could be wrong. Perhaps you'll be good enough to drop me a line when the WMF gives you a grant to pursue your "idea", so I'll know I was wrong in my estimation of it's (lack of) value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- nice to know that you have been around for nearly 11 years and somehow avoided being indeffed for harassment and trolling, congrats, thats quite a talent, anyways, if you think my idea is "bullshit", then ignore it..why run your nose in it and trying to smell it then? Maybe its because you have also been implicated for socking, quite a few times it seems so its obvious you would be against an idea which when enforced will ban you for good..saving your own behind i see..even though I was trying to only target perennial trolls with a massive sock farm/list, i would not mind a hatnote to include known sock puppeteers as well..Luckily for you, my idea was moreso targeted on users with over 50 sock accounts, you fall quite short but hey, keep holding on....also, there is no grant, please learn what IdeaLab is about, I'm not here asking for money, I'm throwing in an idea which i feel can work for enwiki as it has been working very well for smaller wikis and as such, why not make it a WMF Policy?..I don't really care if we get more trolls like you here trying to disparage the idea without even realizing how much good can come out of it..it would be English Wikipedia's loss, not mine..somewhere down the line, someone higher up with more pull/power will come up with a similar if not the same idea and he/she will be applauded for enforcing it as a WMF policy..I'm merely dropping a pebble in the ocean...--Stemoc 12:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Stemoc, it's quite amazing to me that you've been here for, what is it,
10 years?, and still understand almost nothing about the psychology of tolls, puppetmasters and sockpuppets. I will note, however, that you do seem to have mastered the art of misrepresenting information in order to get the upper hand in a discussion. In any venue which valued truth over civility - not politics, for instance - that would be called by its proper name. Here, though, the most I can say is that you are mistaken in your representation of the facts concerning my background, much as you are mistaken in the value of your "proposal". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)- I hate it when I get my facts wrong. You've actually been on en.wiki for 7 years, and you've accumulated 8,601 edits, which explains quite a bit. Frankly, you don't have the experience to know what you're talking about, and the majority of the editors here telling you that your proposal is valueless have much, much more experience editing - and dealing with trolls, puppetmasters and sockpuppets - than you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- aww cute, you think i have 8k edits and thus inexperienced, well it explains that you didn't even bother to read my proposal at all or you would have noticed who I really was ..anyways, my idea was for ENWIKI only because other wikis have a similar idea and guess what, its working..Ironically most of their 'trolls' come from enwiki...haha..anyways, I would not waste my time on you, you serve no purpose here, you are just a road hump and I hope, just hope that you don't get 'bullied' off the wiki by one of those many trolls you are trying to protect...--Stemoc 05:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hate it when I get my facts wrong. You've actually been on en.wiki for 7 years, and you've accumulated 8,601 edits, which explains quite a bit. Frankly, you don't have the experience to know what you're talking about, and the majority of the editors here telling you that your proposal is valueless have much, much more experience editing - and dealing with trolls, puppetmasters and sockpuppets - than you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Stemoc, it's quite amazing to me that you've been here for, what is it,
- nice to know that you have been around for nearly 11 years and somehow avoided being indeffed for harassment and trolling, congrats, thats quite a talent, anyways, if you think my idea is "bullshit", then ignore it..why run your nose in it and trying to smell it then? Maybe its because you have also been implicated for socking, quite a few times it seems so its obvious you would be against an idea which when enforced will ban you for good..saving your own behind i see..even though I was trying to only target perennial trolls with a massive sock farm/list, i would not mind a hatnote to include known sock puppeteers as well..Luckily for you, my idea was moreso targeted on users with over 50 sock accounts, you fall quite short but hey, keep holding on....also, there is no grant, please learn what IdeaLab is about, I'm not here asking for money, I'm throwing in an idea which i feel can work for enwiki as it has been working very well for smaller wikis and as such, why not make it a WMF Policy?..I don't really care if we get more trolls like you here trying to disparage the idea without even realizing how much good can come out of it..it would be English Wikipedia's loss, not mine..somewhere down the line, someone higher up with more pull/power will come up with a similar if not the same idea and he/she will be applauded for enforcing it as a WMF policy..I'm merely dropping a pebble in the ocean...--Stemoc 12:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Stemoc, I am indeed the local steward for the Wikipedia Trolls Union, and that is why I objected to your proposal, because it is the one and only sure-fire way to get rid of trolls. Obviously, I don't want that to happen.
- No, It was always there, but it has always been ignored for reasons unknown,,I don't understand why an admin such as you would be against an idea to get rid of the most notorious trolls for good?..I never said it will happen tomorrow, it make take a few months to a year but it will WORK. The stewards have been doing this for years and since the upgrade of global permission which allows accounts to not only be locked globally but suppressed (hidden), it has made the job much easier and faster..I didn't propose throwing it all out, I proposed targeting the ones with a few dozen accounts, the perennial trolls, those that seem to be around for a few years now with no hope of leaving..this has worked on the likes of WoW and Grawp, you don't hear of them anymore, they didn't get bored one day and left, but they left because we decided to 'deny' their existence...since I joined, I have dealt with 100's of different trolls and this is why I'm sure this idea will work...I know a troll when i see one..egotistical? is that what you call a person who is actually "trying" to fix this issue?..if you want to go that route, then OK, tell me Ricky, what have you done to try and curtail or stop this ongoing issue?..This problem has existed since 2004 (the socking and harassment of users), its not a new thing..I have gone through it more times than most so If I feel I know what the solution might be its because I can speak through experience, we never had something like this 'idealab' before or I would have done this a long time ago..@BMK, you are not helpful, you have never been helpful so please stop trying to help, you are starting to sound like a broken record playing the same song over and over again..we get it, you don't want the trolls to go, you want them to stay and harrass everyone from new users to admins to even staff, we get it..so if you don't want to help find a solution, stop being the problem...--Stemoc 07:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky, there's very little purpose in trying to get Stemoc to see where his suggestion stands in regard to the complex hgistory of dealing with puppetmasters, socks, and trolls on Wikipedia. He clearly has discovered THE TRUTH, which is almost always a screen which prevents seeing and understanding why one's ideas are faulty. At this point, rather than ignoring socks and trolls, I'd rather ignore HIM, and let this idea die on the vine, which is all it deserves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do you realize how egotistical you sound? They have literally been thousands of individuals who have been developing these pages and dealing with these characters for literally over a decade and suddenly you think you have the one key insight everyone else has missed? If you have a specific example, people are open to discussing this but this quite literally sounds like a joke. Have you read the thousands of lines of discussions at en:WP:LTA? These things didn't just happen by accident and you aren't the first person to propose throwing the whole thing out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- How exactly would it be harder? btw, its not the job of 'volunteers' to track down socks and tag them, its the job of admins..If a user comes across an account which he/she feels may belong to a known troll, they can report it to an admin via messages or leave them a note on their talk page.. I never said to get rid of them completely, just move the important information, something similar to a case file to another location NOT on enwiki (such as mailing-lists)..again not everyone who trolls the wiki do it for fame, some are actual/legit users who keep getting blocked because admins (with NO CU RIGHTS) blocking them and tagging them as a sock thus nullifying their chances of defending themselves from the wrongful accusations (Thus what i meant by most trolls being created by certain admin's ignorance on the WP:AN board, which obviously a few people took out of context) and so they sock, generally trying to do good edits again, but then again getting tagged as some other vandal by those same admins...so guess what they will do next? I'm not saying to remove them all , but make a list, for those with say over 50 socks and counting, delete those sock tags completely, make a list of their previous accounts and IP information and list it somewhere else where another admins can find via a simple search..no need to have a 'shrine' for every troll that gets blocked especially when a wrong editor gets blocked because one admin thought they were the same..there was a time when CU's decided which users deserved to be blocked as socks, not anymore..now any admins with no real CU experience can do without any ounce of transparency which will create more trolls, which will lead to more socking and obviously more vandalism and harassment..Pick any major known troll, go back to their original account and then come tell me that they all started off as vandals...sure the idea may not be straight forward, but this is why i brought it up here, lets find a solution, we cannot continue to play this 'cat and mouse' game..its starting to feel more like a Tom and Jerry or The Roadrunner and Wile-coyote show and its mainly because we refuse to enforce something which should actually be a policy from the beginning...We have all been victims of trolls/sock attacks, each and everyone of us..but because we continue to feed them, they will never go away..take away a person's will and they will crumble..take away a troll's reason to trolls and they will leave..Let stop empowering trolls and start empowering the contributors instead..--Stemoc 03:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- OP seems to think lulz and recognition is the primary motivation of LTA trolls rather than harassment and intimidation. Wikipedia is not 4chan and the disconnect between the OP's view of the problem and the actual problem seems a chasm to great to bridge. The statement "admins fight trolls not volunteers" pretty much sums up the disconnect from reality for me. The OP seems uninterested in feedback that does not comport with their view of THE TRUTH tm. At the very least evidence needs to be presented that attention seeking trolling is a significant problem and that denying recognition in the ways suggested will do more to discourage trolls than the harm it would do by completely screwing up information sharing between those volunteers who fight LTA and the complete loss of institutional knowledge this would result in.
Seems more like a trolls charter than and anti-troll solution to me. JbhTalk 12:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- PS CU is pretty much a piece of crap and catches only those people who are clueless. By the time someone becomes an LTA they should have pretty much figured out the two or three pieces of free software that makes it useless. Behavioral evidence is still the best way to go and it must be recorded and accessible to be useful. JbhTalk 12:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Behavioral evidence is byfar the best way, but how many times was someone blocked for similar behavior? we are talking about perennial trolls, trolls who intentionally let themselves be known, they don't hide their identity, they make sure people know its them, its them that the policy/idea was supposed to target but alas, instead of denying them that, we feed their ego..remember everything on wikipedia is google cached so their fame will live on even after they stop trolling and leave for good..we started of as Encylopedia, now it looks more like a "register for bad internet trolls"..and yes Lulz is all the motivation they need, we allow them to harrass or intimidate us because we allow them free reign, we allow them to prosper and thus when you allow a weed to grow on a land by feeding it manure, it will take full control of that land, instead of using pesticide and killing them by their roots, we allow them to grow all over and disrupt the land..this solution is a pesticide, why not use it?..Why do we vote for admins? we want someone to defend the project from vandalism and other forms of attack so if you think that an average contributor is to do that then you are highly mistaken...Its not their job, they do not come to an online encyclopedia to fight trolls and vandals, they come to "contribute", to grow the wiki, its an encyclopedia, not a forum..we vote for highly specialized users to do that job, thus why we have more active vandal fighters than vandal fighting admins..A need was created due to the influx of attacks, so it created a whole bunch of editors who may not posses the tools necessary to deal with those vandals, but they have the will to fight them off..again it goes back to the original post, we can never get rid of all trolls, but we can get rid of a large percentage of those that come to enwiki seeking fame..isn't that what we really want? There isn't a single hour when someone does not report such a 'troll' to the ANI or AIV..while i type this out, there might one be in action on the english wikipedia, trolls who would make edits like this knowing fully well that that editor will retaliate by doing exactly what they want..If you don't see this as a problem, then you have not been on the wiki for very long..--Stemoc 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your reality and mine seem to have no point of congruence. I know of several non-admins who hunt SOCKS and trolls. The LTA logs are the institutional memory or Wikipedia - it's immune system if you will. Troll fighting is not what we elect admins for - sure they are the ones with the block button but they have other things to do as well. You propose removing the institutional memory and creating a special class of admins and only admins who are "troll fighters" and who are the only people who have the data to identify and deal with the trolls/socks/whatever.
Bluntly this is a very bad idea and there is nothing you can say that will make me think it is a good idea. I am sure you honestly believe this would improve Wikipedia - it will not. JbhTalk 16:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not like this is a new idea. en:WP:LTA has been subject to deletion three times with the last discussion being resolved less than two years ago. I mean there are subpages there, categories and a million other parts to this but if the only solution is a wholesale fire to all the whole idea of keeping track at all of trolls, well that's just plain ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your reality and mine seem to have no point of congruence. I know of several non-admins who hunt SOCKS and trolls. The LTA logs are the institutional memory or Wikipedia - it's immune system if you will. Troll fighting is not what we elect admins for - sure they are the ones with the block button but they have other things to do as well. You propose removing the institutional memory and creating a special class of admins and only admins who are "troll fighters" and who are the only people who have the data to identify and deal with the trolls/socks/whatever.
- Behavioral evidence is byfar the best way, but how many times was someone blocked for similar behavior? we are talking about perennial trolls, trolls who intentionally let themselves be known, they don't hide their identity, they make sure people know its them, its them that the policy/idea was supposed to target but alas, instead of denying them that, we feed their ego..remember everything on wikipedia is google cached so their fame will live on even after they stop trolling and leave for good..we started of as Encylopedia, now it looks more like a "register for bad internet trolls"..and yes Lulz is all the motivation they need, we allow them to harrass or intimidate us because we allow them free reign, we allow them to prosper and thus when you allow a weed to grow on a land by feeding it manure, it will take full control of that land, instead of using pesticide and killing them by their roots, we allow them to grow all over and disrupt the land..this solution is a pesticide, why not use it?..Why do we vote for admins? we want someone to defend the project from vandalism and other forms of attack so if you think that an average contributor is to do that then you are highly mistaken...Its not their job, they do not come to an online encyclopedia to fight trolls and vandals, they come to "contribute", to grow the wiki, its an encyclopedia, not a forum..we vote for highly specialized users to do that job, thus why we have more active vandal fighters than vandal fighting admins..A need was created due to the influx of attacks, so it created a whole bunch of editors who may not posses the tools necessary to deal with those vandals, but they have the will to fight them off..again it goes back to the original post, we can never get rid of all trolls, but we can get rid of a large percentage of those that come to enwiki seeking fame..isn't that what we really want? There isn't a single hour when someone does not report such a 'troll' to the ANI or AIV..while i type this out, there might one be in action on the english wikipedia, trolls who would make edits like this knowing fully well that that editor will retaliate by doing exactly what they want..If you don't see this as a problem, then you have not been on the wiki for very long..--Stemoc 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Seriously?
[edit]Personally, I think that this is a terrible idea. I do agree that trolls get too much recognition, but not templating is never going to work. Although there may be a good thought, it just won't work. User:Beyond My Ken and User:Ajraddatz, calm down, please. Wikipedia has been templating trolls for 10 years, and it's still working. We need to be aware of the trolls. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I agree, this user has The Truth. Also, most vandals aren't long term abusers, just the average person who vandalizes, continues, gets blocked, and doesn't do anything else. Most vandals, after a warning or so, leave or are blocked. It's rather pointless to hide information about them. The only reason that we should hide info about a troll is if they are a LTA, and posting information about how they edit will just get them to change their editing style. What next? Get rid of AIV? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be understanding the idea behind it, there is currently over 7300 sock-puppet categories on enwiki, There are vandals you template, those that are here to POV or consistently create random pages or add random images or words to certain articles..and THEN there are trolls who only come to enwiki to intentionally and provocatively target a user who he/she is trolling and then target their pages, (i showed a link above) knowing that the user will react exactly as he/she would expect (or their page watchers) and they normally do, this is a game for them and guess what, they are winning and we all know, when you are #winning, why would you want to stop? It really can't be that hard for you to understand how trolling works and why its worse, some even go to the extent of intentionally targeting women editors or people of certain race or religion, I was targeted like that before but I never retorted to the same actions done by the current vandal fighters/admins..I completely ignored their edits, reverted them, reported them and moved along..if we start tagging every vandal as VOA (Vandalism-only account) instead of giving them their own personal 'wall of fame', they would lose interest and would go back to the bridges they came from..its really that simple..--Stemoc 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. @Stemoc: I don't think this is a good idea. Not putting information about trolls will make it far harder to combat them, and I doubt that the biggest trolls will stop. This isn't going to work. Wikipedia is doing fine in combating vandalism right now, we don't need a pointless, harmful new policy to combat this. It's not going to work. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- In a nutshell: It's a terrible idea, that will never work, and it is practically impossible to see how anyone would actually follow this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it's practically impossible to see how enwiki would follow this. Most other projects do, and it seems to work quite well for them, with a large portion of trolling coming from trolls from other projects moving over to them. Of course, enwiki represents 30% of the activity on Wikimedia, so it is always possible that solutions elsewhere don't apply there. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- In a nutshell: It's a terrible idea, that will never work, and it is practically impossible to see how anyone would actually follow this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. @Stemoc: I don't think this is a good idea. Not putting information about trolls will make it far harder to combat them, and I doubt that the biggest trolls will stop. This isn't going to work. Wikipedia is doing fine in combating vandalism right now, we don't need a pointless, harmful new policy to combat this. It's not going to work. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Stemoc, I'm putting my response here rather than start my own section, because I share some of the concerns that have already been expressed here; but I want to put it in somewhat different terms. We can't be sure how accurate the label of "troll" is, and therefore any one-size-fits-all response is going to rest on invalid assumptions in some cases. How do we know what someone's motivation is? Maybe they're bored or upset. Maybe they're very young. (Increasingly I suspect one of the big causes of problem editing is that fewer and fewer new users know what an encyclopedia is.) One of the two examples you cited at the en.wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard was very young - now he's globally banned, so we'll never know what kind of editor he would have developed into, but assuming he had the same motivation as all other banned editors is not a useful generalization—it may lose us new editors who were not vandals or could have been dissuaded from vandalism—and further assuming that attention "feeds" all banned editors is, as others have said above, potentially harmful because it shuts down the flow of information that we may need to spot and deal with harassers. It's too broad a brush to call all such editors "trolls". It also runs counter to AGF: I know things are done differently on other websites, but on Wikimedia sites (I assume that goes for meta too?) we only label it vandalism if we judge it deliberate damage, and even then we use escalating warnings in all but the most urgent cases. In fact admins often differ in their assessment of a user's motivation or dangerousness to the mission; because we can only ever make informed guesses based on what they do and say. We aren't mindreaders. Yes, the WMF sometimes locks someone out and throws away the key; yes, some people are trolls, purely motivated by lulz; but the vast majority of cases are a lot greyer than that. In fact at least one en.wiki admin started out as a vandal. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this has to be the most stupidest proposal I've read (and there's quite alot of deranged proposals at the moment!), The whole point of sock tags etc is so we can identify them and it makes life alot more easier who writing SPI evidence etc .... I disagree entirely that it's a badge, It fucking isn't to be frank - Trolls are going to come regardless of the fucking block notice or tag or whatever, I see there's an "endorsement" button but don't see an "Oppose" one ..., Would be nice if the proposal was CSD'd. –Davey2010Talk 02:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- And I thought we were an encylopedia, not a police station.....You'd rather we waste time with vandals everyday instead of building the encyclopedia? ..sock tags are good but all it does is give those trolls 'importance' and believe me, it does..we are making them relevant to the project, we are basically telling them, please continue or we won't have anything else to do, again, we are enabling them..I don't know why some people above think that I said that we should stop blocking trolls, that was never implied but apparently, they refuse to read the proposal through, I just want us to stop giving them importance, we do not need them, they need us, as long as we allow them to roam freely, they will not go away. There are two types of vandals, the ones i call 'trolls' whose sole purpose is to destabilize the project by being a menace, like spoiled 5 year old kids, they will keep shouting until you give them what they want, they will stop when you do but 10 mins later, they will do it again because they realise they can get what they want by being a menace, so why stop?..EnWiki has gone from being a tertiary level education centre to a pre-school in just a matter of years because thats apparently what we have reduced it too...If you think its not a badge, they you obviously do not know these trolls very well...As mentioned above, 2 types of vandals, the trolls and then there are those that actually contribute to the project generally in a positive way but with issues such as COI and agenda pushing, now these types of vandals actually 'contribute' to the project but the trolls above, they don't and never will...Maybe they may give up and then create a clean account (because after months of years of trolling, they figured how to stay under the radar) and then work towards doing clean positive edits and eventually becoming an admin, it has happened, and I know it but we can't all hope for them to find their way...I linked a troll above who did exactly as i said, he even pissed off an editor knowing he would tag him as a sock and he didn't even bother to continue editing and moved to his next account knowing fully well it would be blocked soon......I'm sorry if most of you here are happy to allow trolls to intentionally attack and Harrass other "real" contributors, piss them off, force them to leave, create a negative environment because you refuse to spank/slap them really hard, you'd rather just tell them NO and hope they won't do it again..If you all feel that the trolls are FAR MORE important than the contributors they harass, then go ahead, oppose it for all i care....I did my part..Yes, trolls would never leave but instead of trying to reduce the number, you guys would rather it become a epidemic..then so be it..--Stemoc 03:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stemoc: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_ideas_are_bad ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: Please, calm down. I just don't think that you are getting it. You don't seem to be able to understand that this will not work, and please stop putting up walls of text. Just stop trying to convince other editors. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
But the sky is falling! The sky is falling! How dare you propose such a thing? Do you WANT everybody to be crushed to death by the falling sky? Ralph Fremant (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: I don't want to help the trolls. This proposal sounds more like an invitation for trolls to go in and not be tracked rather then actually stopping trolls. Also, templating works. It scares away a good amount of them, and we can deal with the rest. Also, many admins would probably unblock socks by accident, because they were not tagged as such. What's next, inviting trolls to Wikimania? Giving them Adminship? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)