User talk:The Fellowship of the Troll
|
|
Of course there's a cabal! (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal) Trolls (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll) are our last best hope to save Wikipedia! Join the 'Legion of Trolls' and help rescue Wikipedia. (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Trolls)
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~
Dori | Talk 19:47, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Pages about wikipedia go in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Please stop moving the page back. Maximus Rex 20:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
VfD
Please see the archives of the VfD talk page. The headers idea has already been decided against. If you want to implement it, please get agreement on the talk page first. Thanks. Angela. 21:51, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Internet trolling phenomena
This would not be an appropriate article as it is based on primary research. Wikipedia is a secondary source, so until someone else publishes details of the internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia, we can not report on this. Perhaps a page at Meta might be best. Angela. 22:15, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh come on, there are plenty of articles that comment on things that are not reporting of other people's publication - List of fictional cats for example, is primary research. We would gut half of the articles if we really did this. The Fellowship of the Troll 22:17, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but it isn't ABOUT WIKIPEDIA, it's about internet trolling. The Fellowship of the Troll 00:46, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- So wikipedia needs to be there too?The Fellowship of the Troll 23:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Did you actually intend to place content at Joy Division? If not, why move the page for the band to Joy Division (band)? Seems pretty pointless to me.—Morven 23:10, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hi - yes, I wanted to make it a disambig for Joy division - take a look and tell me if you still hate it ;) The Fellowship of the Troll 23:12, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, looks like I jumped the gun there. —Morven 23:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could also take the time to fix all the links that refer to joy Division (band) (and that are obviously relevant to the band) that currently point to the disambig page- thanks. quercus robur 00:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Will take a crack at it. 207.189.98.44 00:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ok, then fix the wording, I'm sorry. Pakaran 02:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Leave it, I can't be bothered. There is such a 'jump down someone's throat and assume the worst intentions' attitude here, it's hardly worth it. I was disambiguating 'Joy Division' the other day, and half way through someone wrote to complain that I might be doing something heinous, Angela just deletes things wholesale, it's pointless. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am neither the first nor the last person in WP history to remove a VfD header without a vote. For that matter, I have deleted several hundred pages without a vote (but following guidelines). Pakaran 22:38, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ban warning
If you continue adding Wikipedia to VfD, and adding the VfD notice to the header of the article, you will be banned from editing Wikipedia for violations of Wikiquette (trolling) and Revert policy.—Eloquence 22:50, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
I edited your user page in order to make it easier to reach your contribs. If you want it deleted, say so, or just blank it. If you had a user page, no, I wouldn't edit it without your permission. Pakaran 23:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
VfD
Moved from User talk:Tim Starling
Hi - I'd agree with you, but felt the need to point out that there had been some flagrant abuse of process by some people trying to remove items from VfD before they had been there for 5 days. Thanks - The Fellowship of the Troll 07:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Well you were wrong, it wasn't a flagrant abuse of process. That's alright, I'll forgive you. After all, you've only been here a week, it took me many months to get the hang of Wikipedia policy. I admire your progress. -- Tim Starling 10:24, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why removing an item for which there is current debate from VfD is not an abuse of process? Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 23:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Can you explain why provoking disagreements with, so far, 4 sysops including 2 developers in a single hour isn't trolling? Pakaran 23:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Was that question directed to Tim, or myself? The Fellowship of the Troll 23:48, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It was directed at you, tFotT, thanks for asking. Pakaran 23:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for moving every question that I posted for El. off his page, I wonder if you could explain why you would take it upon yourself to do that, especially as it was he who initiated the discussion? The Fellowship of the Troll 00:09, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
</font>
Ban warning
Moved from User talk:Eloquence
Thanks for the 'ban warning' Eloquence, I have a couple of questions about the links you mentioned. I notice nothing about 'trolling' on the Wikiquete link, and would appreciate knowing what I have done that constitutes this. I reverted the Wikipedia VfD three times today, not more than three, which is what the page you linked to suggests is too often. Pakaran, also did this (in order to shortcut debate on the page). His behaviour was obviously, considering the history of the page, intended as a trolling attempt. I notice no corresponding warning - have I missed something? The Fellowship of the Troll 23:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- You reverted the article 3 times this EST day only for values of 3 equal to four. I reverted it 3 times - and then stopped. As for the history of the page - what is the history, besides that you think it should be deleted and everybody else disagrees? As for why I wasn't warned, I don't know. Anyone can warn anyone, or suggest banning - but my actions were with, rather than against, the consensus. -- Pakaran 23:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not sure I follow your logic. The concensus, I thought, was that things of VfD should be left there for 5 days while people had a chance to vote. You seem to think they should not have that chance, and are intent on removing it, against the established policy. You seem intent on dragging up a debate that was settled before you started deleting it from the VfD page again, without discussion. y actions supported the established system, yours were in contempt of it. If you leave it, for people to vote as they choose, I imagine there will be no more acrimony about it than any other VfD listing. That, however, seems not to suit your purpose. The Fellowship of the Troll 23:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I did not state that I listed it to make a point, I said that I listed it in order to uphold the logic of earlier listings. I do not want to see the article deleted, but do want to see internal consistancy. There is a difference, and there is not 100% agreement on the votes. The Fellowship of the Troll 23:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Adding a page that will clearly not be deleted repeatedly to VfD = trolling. Trolling = waste of everyone's time. Waste of everyone's time = not nice. Not nice = violation of Wikiquette. Understood?—Eloquence
Why are you so convinced that you know everyone elses thoughts before they even put them down - let people vote, let the process run. Trust the community, don't shortcut the system with your opinion of what everyone else will do. I don't understand why you are so opposed to letting the established system run its course. BTW 'Not nice' = 'POV'?.The Fellowship of the Troll 23:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
</font>In response to moving the text here
Thanks Tim, this was an unanswered question for El.
Why are you so convinced that you know everyone elses thoughts before they even put them down - let people vote, let the process run. Trust the community, don't shortcut the system with your opinion of what everyone else will do. I don't understand why you are so opposed to letting the established system run its course. BTW 'Not nice' = 'POV'?.The Fellowship of the Troll 23:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removal of items from Votes for Deletion prematurely
Moved from WP:VP
Is there anything (save entering an edit war) that can be done if a user unilaterally removes a discussion from VfD without it going through the 5 day process? How should that be dealt with? Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 02:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Frivolous entries such as listing Wikipedia can be removed immediately. -- Tim Starling 03:40, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - pehaps you can explain - the article Wikipedia (not the main page or anything like that) is subject to all of the same criticisms as the other article for debate - I can't see how this is frivolous, or any more frivolous than listing other articles about wikipedia for deletion. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Fellowship, you're trolling. Trolling is a violation of Wikiquette. Violations of Wikiquette are a bannable offense. Please desist.—Eloquence
That may be your point of view, but there was active discussion on the article. accusing someone of trolling is not a good excuse of bypassing process with impunity. You can sling abuse, but it doesn't justify unilaterally deleting things without discussion or justification. For the record, I am not trolling, nor is there any mention, let alone definition, of trolling on the page you reference. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:13, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Well I think he has a (weak) point. Listing Wikipedia on VfD is pretty stupid and just wasting everybody's time. But technically he is right. Removing it was the right thing to do as no rules can cover everything and might need to be disregarded when common-sense prevails. Arguing about it is a further trolling. SpellBott 08:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Was the urgent necessity of removing the VfD listing and votes (without even noting that it was removed) while debate was in progress really greater than the possibility of letting the process take its course? The purpose of VfD is so that the whole Wikipedia, not just one person's judgement, is brought to bear. The person in question undermined the process by shortcutting it and then refusing to discuss why while making accusations of misbehaviour against me. You might think it obviously that it should have been removed, but the right thing to do would have been to let VfD run its course, and the community decide.The Fellowship of the Troll 08:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- One might ask why a new user thinks they can lecture the rest of us on our own process. —Morven 11:42, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Or why an established users feels they can display such blatant contempt for it. The Fellowship of the Troll 16:17, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As dirty as this makes me feel, I have to agree with Fellowship's logic on this one. Wikipedia (wikipedia's article on itself) is an article like any other, and subject to the same rules. I agree that the whole thing is frivilous - the article is obviously well written, on topic, etc. If Fellowship didn't like the article, he should have edited it, not listed it on the VFD. With that said, (as far as I can tell) there's no rule against frivilous posting to the VFD. He listing should have stayed, or a new rule against frivilous listing be made. →Raul654 16:38, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Just reread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#What_to_list_on_VfD and I'm trying to work out which reason listed there would justify listing Wikipedia? Bmills 17:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Upon further reading, reasons 2 (Don't list articles that just need heavy editing) and 6 (Don't list POV articles) both apply in this case. I retract my previous statement - Tim was correct to delete the VFD listing, and Fellowship (officially) is trolling. →Raul654 17:10, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- There are two possibilities here, either 1. Wikipedia should have been removed from VfD, in which case Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia should also be removed from VfD, for the same reasons as Wikipedia OR 2. Wikipedia should not have been removed, in which case both articles should stay on VfD, and, if there is consistancy of logic, either both be kept or both deleted. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 18:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fellowship, I think it is perfectly acceptable to challenge people to explain the inconsistency in the treatment of these two articles, under the deletion nomination for ITPOW. My understanding is that neither you nor anyone else actually wants the Wikipedia article deleted; and that's the reason why, in my opinion, removing the listing is not a violation of our process. -- Cyan 18:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- You're right, I don't want to delete either article, but I believe that the Wikipedia procedures should be applied fairly. This happens regular (for example discussion about recipies of numbers) where, because on article is listed for deletion, the larger issues of similar articles comes to the fore. The Fellowship of the Troll 18:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
</font>
Text from Pakaran's talk page in somewhat-bright red below:
Re your comment, I was not concerned that women were concerned about the size of THEIR penises, but rather the size of their partners. I don't think this is an outrageous comment. Perhaps it was ambiguously worded. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Leave it, I can't be bothered. There is such a 'jump down someone's throat and assume the worst intentions' attitude here, it's hardly worth it. I was disambiguating 'Joy Division' the other day, and half way through someone wrote to complain that I might be doing something heinous, Angela just deletes things wholesale, it's pointless. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:30, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pakran, Angela, just to clarify, I said that Angela 'deletes things wholesale', refering to her deletion of the VfD entry that was in process. I'm not sure what 'problems' you're talking about having over the word choice issue, I said forget it, I don't think I was problematic or failed to 'play nicely with others', if there was an edge, it was because, without raising the issue directly, you commented to another user that you thought perhaps I should be 'warned' over a misunderstood edit. I'm pretty upset about Angela's completely bypassing the VfD process, and feel I have played very nicely considering. The Fellowship of the Troll 02:38, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pakran, perhaps you can explain why Angela a) thinks what I wrote is offensive, b) thinks she does not have to justify removing the deletion debate from VfD? I have been nothing but polite, and and have recieved no justification. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 02:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry about it too much. It's best just to ignore trolls. That link on my talk page is a rollback button if you want an easy way to revert any edits he makes there. Angela. 02:49, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
Chill out, follow the established processes, and let the community decide. There's no need to cause more problems by bypassing systems that everyone except you agrees to abide by. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 22:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry Pakaran, your behaviour was never funny, it is getting beyond a joke. Must you edit my user page without invitation? If you want to discuss something, use the talk page, rather than posting insults on my user page. The Fellowship of the Troll 23:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please at least sign your vandalism, if you must do it.The Fellowship of the Troll 23:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi Pakaran. In the interests of troll containment and evidence-collating and all that, would you mind if I moved some of the above text to User talk:The Fellowship of the Troll? -- Tim Starling 01:14, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
No problem -- Tim Starling 01:24, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
Since you ask, I will reply - see below.
- Can you explain why provoking disagreements with, so far, 4 sysops including 2 developers in a single hour isn't trolling? Pakaran 23:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Was that question directed to Tim, or myself? The Fellowship of the Troll 23:48, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- It was directed at you, tFotT, thanks for asking. Pakaran 23:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think you are confused in your definition of 'trolling'. Disagreement is not something that needs to be stamped out, whereas rudeness, not following policy, and making threats which one then refuses to explain probably are. As a community we need to tollerate people who disagree in ways which are within the rules, and not try to drive them away. The Fellowship of the Troll 01:31, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Re:Dirty
Out of interest, you've noted a couple of times that supporting things you think are right leaves you feeling dirty. No need. You have a clean conscience. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:27, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised anyone noticed :) Actually, I was just joking when I said that. I call'em like I see'em, and I try to give both sides equal consideration. If I'm wrong, I (hope I) am the first to admit it.
But I did appreciate your message. It made me laugh.
- →Raul654 05:02, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
TFOTT, you may think it funny to add silly comments to pages like Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, but I'd really appreciate it if you didn't. It just makes work for someone else to rollback your joke. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I for one happen to agree with tFotT. Silly comments are an intrinsic part of what makes Wikipedia worth visiting. When of coarse they don't detract or change the overall article's intention. Wikipedia doesn't need to be prude. Nor does it need to be lawyerish, stuck up or bookish. I can see that there have been alot of controversies here but that is what working with a large group is all about and EVERYONES opinion counts. I don't think the banning of this editor is agreeable. 12.45.48.87
From Conflicts between users/archive1
Trolling. Surprisingly enough. Continually trying to list Wikipedia on VfD and complaining on various talk pages and the village pump when it is removed. I suggest this user be banned for trolling. Angela. 03:01, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
actually, I found the VfD thing to be pretty funny, and within the guidelines. On the other hand, I would be pretty shocked if it was ment seriously, and even more shocked if this user doesn't turn out to be a troll (maybe a sock puppet or incarnation?) but lets hold off until something more serious happens. I don't think I was the only one who was heartilly amused by the VfD thing, and I didn't see any outright abuse or policy violations.... yet... Fortunately, I think we can count on you (angela) and maybe not a few others keeping an eye on this user. Jack 03:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should have a policy against trolling. -- Tim Starling 03:38, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is that the definition of a Internet Troll is necessarilly subjective. Some people are naturally provacative, others have poor social skills. There are people like me who gravitate to POV articles, and are thus far more likely to be viewed in an emotional fashion. Detecting when someone is intentionally trying to cause trouble or create a scene isn't something we should do, IMO. Rather, any trolling policy created should be focused on hard facts, like flaming and vandalism and observable, quantifiable phenomena such as that. Lets give these rascally newbies the benifit of the doubt, and a safeguard against being theoretically illegitamately blackballed. I think preventing false charges and the banning of inocuous (if irritating) users takes priority over hunting down those perverse nerd-baiters we all know so well. Jack 03:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree and think this attitude is bad for the long-term goals of Wikipedia. Or bad for all the goals except experimenting with libertarianism. When enough discussions with a user go nowhere, and when a user campaigns for enough causes that are intelligible to no one else, the user will earn a reputation. Whether or not they are banned, other users know not to trust them--and those that do, do so only as a rationalized act of obeissance to the Wikipedia dictum "assume good faith." At least that's true for me, and as a result I repeatedly get burned by people who indeed do sometimes act in bad faith. A person does not have to be a jerk all the time to disentitle herself or hisself to your trust. I don't see why Wikipedians should endure people who aren't trustworthy. Even the the Young Spartacists will kick you out of their club for starting fires in the club house.168... 07:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- actually I agree w you on everything except the 2nd to last sentance. I think we should endure them until they are able to be proven guilty. Of course you can have any opinion of them you like until then, but if you are bitter enough eventually you may become the troll. ;) Really, what I'm all about is having a clear, fair decision based on solid evidence, and then hopefully be able to enforce it! Jack 07:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The question is just: Guilty of what and proven how well? 168... 17:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thankfully, as Tim Starling suggests above, others are interested in creating such a policy. In fact, this discussion should really be taking place on a page devoted to that purpose. I don't know where such a page would be, but my statements (or most of them anyway) arn't really specific to FoT, so if anyone could point out the location of said page (or create it?) I'd be glad to continue this there. Jack 18:58, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I would urge caution on creating policy on such subjective issues, there are already policies about vandalism, rudeness, revertion and edit wars and other antisocial behaviour, what seems to be at issue here is dissent, and deviation from groupthink. Every group need people who will provide alternative views to the group concensus, and, as long as they do it within the rules, and are not abuseive, that is helpful to all but the most insecure community. Read the groupthink page, and let me know what you think - I feel there is a role for trolls (not in the negative sense of revertion wars, abuse, etc) but as people who will point out inconsistancies, inane policies that are accepted because 'that's the way we've always done it' and other dangerous habits. We feel threatened by being asked to challenge our assumptions, but, as long as the rules are observed, that's healthy. Banning dissent is frightful. The Fellowship of the Troll 19:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The pesky troll has hit my nail right on the head. He pretty accurately sums up valid concerns about bans w/o strict, quantifiable evidence to justify them Jack 02:25, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jack is quite right - trolling is a word that is so subjective as not really to have much meaning outside an insult. I wrote the article Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia, which was listed on VfD as being self referential, I let the process go, while debating it in the appropriate place. For consistancy, I listed the article Wikipedia for deletion, since it, too, is self referential (note, not the main page, as some have tried to make out). Instead of debating it and letting the process run as it should, some folks deleted the discussion from VfD, made unsubstantiated accusations about my being a banned user, constantly called me a troll, and constantly tried to stifle discussion of why one article is so obviously virtuous that it should be removed from discussion (without even a note that it was ever there) while the other is so obviously fit for deletion that it should also not be discussed. I'm sorry, but I really think that some folks need to re-examine their behavour. I hope you are able to come to the point of being able to tollerate people who, while not having the same view as you, stick to the established processes and behavioural norms. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 07:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Subjective judgments are necessary. It's subjective, of course, as to when someone is being a troll. Most reasonable people know them when they see them in action, but some don't. Some who don't will be authentically naive; others will disingenuously feign naïvité. Some people can detect when, for want of a better term, someone is "being an asshole" and others won't. Defense of trolls, and encouragement of assholes, is not a way to improve Wikipedia. Nor is being one. Disingenuousness often can't be proven, but often the aroma of shit accompanies an asshole. - Tweak 08:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Most other places abuse is considered no substitute for sound reasoning and coherent logic. The Fellowship of the Troll 08:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ironically enough, in writing this, I am about to contradict myself. Anyway, consider this from the Internet Troll article "Don't feed the trolls, that will only encourage them." That is, do not respond to them, that is the attention they desire. The sensible way to have dealt with this would have been that everyone ignored the VfD listings and got on with the real work rather than wasting user and server time here, on VfD and Village pump. Bmills 09:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed - if the aim was to stifle debate, simply letting a relatively unintersting debate run its course would have caused far less controversy than a sustained campaign of unwarented deletions, moves, abuse and accusations. In addition, process and the community would have been served. The Village Pump notice would not have been necessary if the rules had been followed. The Fellowship of the Troll 16:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This travesty of justice will have a chilling effect on those who don't share the same point of view as the cabal (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal). While, as an internet landlord, Jimbo has the right to do what he likes with his own server, his abuse of authority damages Wikipedia. See Troll (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll). You won't be able to see why The Fellowship of the Troll was banned, since the discussion was reverted, and the logs altered so that no evidence is left. That's convenient for people who don't feel they can hold their own in an open debate, and instead need to resort to technological bully tactics to win a debate. A moment of silence, as we mourn the demise of disent against groupthink. The Two Trolls 02:38, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- A minute of silence as we mourne the aniversary of the silencing of alternative viewpoints from Wikipedia. The cabal (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal) has the technological weaponry and the will to brutally supress alternative viewpoints. Some still fight democracy and respect of other's views in memory of The Fellowship of the Troll and all the other fallen brothers who have committed the crime of disagreeing with the cabal. The Return of the Troll. 23:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- A sorry state of affairs indeed. A great loss. The Trolls of Navarone 14:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Related articles
Of course there's a cabal! (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal) Trolls (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll) are our last best hope to save Wikipedia! Join the 'Legion of Trolls' and help rescue Wikipedia. (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Trolls)