76:, and so this page doesn't really serve a purpose on wikipedia. People are not trolls, and calling such people that is insulting, and harsh; and doing such puts people down to their level. Those other guidelines feel in the need that annoying disruptive people should be ignored, and denied; and the main purpose of this nomination. As that with those two essays, this one isn't needed, and I believe that calling people trolls provokes a response to cause even more problems, which is what they may be looking for.
289:; it's a good essay, and quite to the point. I encounter people all the time in "real life" (remember that?) who look at me blankly when I use the word "troll"; not everyone knows the lingo of internet culture. Some of these people will happen upon Knowledge (XXG) and try editing. Basic explanatory pages like this are essential.
149:. Agree with all of the above. The purpose of this essay is to describe what a troll is, not to accuse particular people of being trolls. This essay is not redundant, since trolls are distinct from spammers and vandals. If there are specific problems with this essay, the solution is to address them, not delete the entire page.
180:
troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem." ---
213:
Clearly not redundant to the other essays listed by the nominator. I agree with
Jehochman, it's useful to have this page. During my first weeks here, I also read it, found it informative, and have re-read it occasionally when frustrated by what I saw as trolling. Re-reading it usually calmed me down
235:
by looking for alternative explanations of troll-like behavior. I recently found the section "Pestering" (asking "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers") almost spookily appropriate to a case I was involved in. In the acute state of irritation I was in, it was a good thing the
179:
The second paragraph of the first subsection ("Bad faith") already says: "When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a
266:. The reason for this made no sense. There are 3 essays who think something, and one essay who contradicted them, so the one should be deleted? This is exactly what an essay is supposed to be:In the project space, and explaining opinions of some authors.
117:
this page dating back to 2004 and describing behavior that has been commonly encountered then and since. If the nominator believes the listed page does not do its job well enough, he is free to edit it rather than seeking to delete it. —
253:
Trolls are a significant part on any internet forum. Whenever there is a place for discussion, there is a troll. Therefore, it's important to have this essay to remind others about such behaviour, to prevent aggrevating matters
236:
section was hedged with cautions about other reasons for repetitively asking dumb-seeming or confused questions. It would be a real waste to delete this useful piece.
65:
276:
17:
105:
defines spam and tells you how not to be a spammer and how to respond to spam; I don't see how trolling is fundamentally different.
201:
If somebody is trolling, they are a troll. This page helps to explain the terminology. Keep as a useful tool for education.
337:
325:
308:
296:
281:
258:
244:
223:
205:
189:
174:
165:
153:
141:
125:
109:
93:
80:
52:
58:
161:
Many people abuse the word "troll", throwing it at anyone they dislike. This page needs to discourage such behavior. --
352:
36:
133:
I don't see how it's redundant to other essays. Also, (and I hate to use this even as part of a keep rationale) but
351:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
134:
122:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below.
77:
267:
334:
293:
272:
218:
184:
137:. This essay describes different types of trolling. The page may need improving, but not deleting.
241:
106:
49:
102:
69:
171:
150:
119:
73:
321:
290:
215:
202:
181:
138:
305:
255:
237:
162:
90:
214:
and helped me lose the need to throw the T-word in the perpetrator's face. ---
317:
170:
True, perhaps a section titled "What isn't trolling?" might be helpful.
48:. I think we can see by the discussion, where this is going. (nonadmin)
231:, the essay is mature and humane in its insistence that we need to
345:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
89:. Created in response to "I not a troll" claims from trolls.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
101:I don't think it's redundant to any other essay.
355:). No further edits should be made to this page.
316:per nom, this is about trolling, not vandalism.
8:
66:Knowledge (XXG):Do not insult the vandals
64:Let's get this straight, we already have,
304:- well, I have found it very useful :)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
7:
24:
59:Knowledge (XXG):What is a troll?
44:The result of the debate was
1:
338:14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
326:09:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
309:09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
297:01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
282:01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
259:00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
53:14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
372:
333:, obviously. Very useful.
245:23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
224:23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
206:21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
190:23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
175:20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
166:20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
154:20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
142:19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
126:14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
110:13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
94:13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
81:12:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
348:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
280:
221:
187:
363:
350:
270:
219:
185:
34:
371:
370:
366:
365:
364:
362:
361:
360:
359:
353:deletion review
346:
78:The sunder king
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
369:
367:
358:
357:
341:
340:
335:Raymond Arritt
328:
311:
299:
284:
261:
248:
226:
208:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
156:
144:
128:
112:
96:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
368:
356:
354:
349:
343:
342:
339:
336:
332:
329:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
310:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
292:
288:
285:
283:
278:
274:
269:
265:
262:
260:
257:
252:
249:
246:
243:
239:
234:
230:
227:
225:
222:
217:
212:
209:
207:
204:
200:
197:
191:
188:
183:
178:
177:
176:
173:
169:
168:
167:
164:
160:
157:
155:
152:
148:
145:
143:
140:
136:
132:
129:
127:
124:
121:
116:
113:
111:
108:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
88:
85:
84:
83:
82:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
347:
344:
330:
313:
301:
286:
263:
250:
232:
228:
210:
198:
158:
146:
130:
114:
98:
86:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
199:Strong Keep
135:it's useful
120:Gavia immer
291:Antandrus
268:GrooveDog
216:Sluzzelin
203:Jehochman
182:Sluzzelin
139:Acalamari
306:Moreschi
256:Alasdair
238:Bishonen
163:Ideogram
254:more.--
159:Comment
103:WP:SPAM
91:Raul654
70:WP:DENY
294:(talk)
277:Review
123:(talk)
107:Shalom
74:WP:RBI
72:, and
318:Kusma
233:start
50:Navou
16:<
331:Keep
322:talk
314:Keep
302:Keep
287:Keep
273:talk
264:Keep
251:Keep
242:talk
229:Keep
220:talk
211:Keep
186:talk
172:Chaz
151:Chaz
147:Keep
131:Keep
115:Keep
99:Keep
87:Keep
46:Keep
275:) (
324:)
240:|
68:,
320:(
279:)
271:(
247:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.