Guild Wars Wiki talk:No trolling

What we need
A policy or guidelines regarding the notice and removal of material that is of a trolling nature and/or is disruptive to the users and purpose of this wiki. - elviondale  (tahlk) 18:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. Disruptive content is already handled and removed when it undeniably exists -- for example, vandalism or link spam. I don't consider anything that has ever existed on Raptors user page to be disruptive, since you have to go out of your way to view that page in order to see the content. As far as trolling, the easiest way to deal with a troll is to starve them. Extreme cases can be brought before ArbComm, as is currently happening with User:Skuld. &mdash;Tanaric 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd expect the policy to only deal with "extreme cases". If there is any doubt, then nothing should be done. Basic juridical principle that applies here too.


 * But I do think a policy is needed, as I don't want the ArbComm to have unrestricted power. Backsword 11:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with "define trolling" section below) I agree that we need something, specifically because I disagree with Tanaric's post above. I think the flashing images on Raptors' user page should not have been allowed, and the debate over the whole thing is a bit ridiculous (in fact, it's inspired me to start getting more involved over here). People do not have to go out of their way to view user pages - simply taking an interest in who edits a page is enough to stumble upon dodgy ones. Anyway, back on topic: I don't think people are actually offended by stuff like that, but it's not the kind of thing you expect to see on an official wiki, or an unofficial one for that matter. I think trolling, in the sense of posting controversial material purely to get a reaction from people should not be allowed. Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Tanaric's opinion above, but I don't think this policy could work. The problem is that it's too subjective - for example, say a troll is someone who has disruptive behavior. What, exactly, defines that kind of behavior? Was Raptor's behavior disruptive? I think so, Tanaric thinks otherwise, and who is right among the two of us? Likewise, is this section disruptive? I think so, but I'm sure someone somewhere is going to say that no, it isn't. In the end, I think the wiki becomes too passive against this kind of thing out of pure bureaucracy, but this policy would be a problem unless there is a very clear and objective definition of what a troll is. Erasculio 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My general preferences are: --Rezyk 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) For many of the blatant, common, and realistically undebatable cases of disruptive content (I'll call these "simply categorizable"), stick with policy that targets them specifically, and leave it to any user to remove. This includes blatant vandalism and patently offensive user page content (although I'd disagree with the recent case being taken as "patently offensive" -- maybe due to a difference in my interpretation).
 * 2) For disruptive content that is not simply categorizable (or unforeseen) and is really problematic, rely on ArbComm judgment when necessary. Something like that suggested in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft-2007-9-16, but with measures to minimize the amount of ArbComm discretion involved.
 * 3) For disruptive content that is not simply categorizable (or unforeseen) and is not really problematic, leave it be. Trying to enforce selective removal will generally cause worse problems and difficult decisions. Repetitious disruptions are a matter of user conduct can addressed by ArbComm if ultimately necessary.
 * 4) Trolling content that is not really disruptive should generally be dealt with through social means (like the culture of starve-the-trolls that was mentioned), not wiki-legal means. It would cause even more problems to try enforcing no-trolling-content as policy violations...and I can't see it being effective against determined trolls. Also, users labeling each other as trolls is ugly and not something I want to set us up for.

Define Trolling
I think you need to define trolling, and then define why it's not covered already by existing policies. --Karlos 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * w:WP:TROLL - elviondale  (tahlk) 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In both this and Guild Wars Wiki talk:No profanity it would help alot to actually have a written policy proposal, so people know what they are discussing about. --Xeeron 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this is a slippery slope proposal, I've provided an alternative policy that sends us right to the bottom. Please see Guild Wars Wiki:Block anybody the IRC channel suggests. &mdash;Tanaric 06:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page needs...
Some trolling. &mdash; Skakid9090 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of that for us, now on with discussion. - elviondale  (tahlk) 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A completely irrelevant pic, that I thought necessary to post. Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't blank the page.  Secondly, please find somewhere else to post your pictures and humor, as it does not contribute constructively to this page and only adds support to what I'm suggesting. - elviondale  (tahlk) 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Most think your full of BS tbh, including myself. Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  01:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Readem stop. They're gonna keep telling on us since we have different opinions then them (god forbid). &mdash; Skakid9090 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In after-school in first grade, I took fruit punch and threw the half-empty bottle at a girl and hit her in the head and she ran off crying and told on me. —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this needed?
Surely the linked definition of trolling is already covered by some other policy in some way. Is there any incidents of which I am not aware that create a need for this? --Edru viransu 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not necessary. This is more than enough: Guild Wars Wiki:Do not feed the trolls. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 09:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we redirect to Wikipedia like that? Or try to port over a much shorter version here to make it more context-relevant? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a rather bad wikipedia article. Compromise by vagueness taken far enough to be directly wrong. So I'd prefer if you wrote a proposal instead. Backsword 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind it being ported over, but keep it marked as an essay or something that doesn't have to represent general opinion. --Rezyk 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's going to have any impact if it doesn't represent general opinion. I think something is needed thanks to the results, regardless of what the policies say - we get plenty of disruptive behavior (not vandalism, but rather minor things) as things are right now, and it would be good to lessen it a bit. But I doubt a specific policy could do that. Erasculio 12:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perspective Trolling
What is a person uses abbreviations or random eclectic words which are intended as trolling attempts, but when brought up for discussion or penalty, they are safe enough to argue they mean something else and thus they can't be pinned as trolling or anything else? I see several users on the wiki who do this, many of them users which have been warned etc and now instead of doing things directly, go round about the rules to do the same thing they were always doing. I would use examples but by nature of the example it wouldn't mean much and they would essentially be accusations which can't be proven. I'm not saying "ban him I THINK he insulted me" but I am asking should we ignore these things? Dancing Gnome 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)