1898:"Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Knowledge (XXG) for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Knowledge (XXG). Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgement 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent."
611:
consensus rule is that votes don't really count - decisions are accepted by acclamation or not at all. How it originally worked on
Knowledge (XXG) was that if a proposal gets supermajority it becomes policy until it is changed. If not, it's pronounced failed and moot and the results are used to prepare a new proposal that might hope to pass. If the problem is that not enough policy was passed, then it's probably the proposals that weren't good enough. If the problem is that consensus rule doesn't work, then hold a poll on abolishing it.
773:
VfD-lite. Law says no. Desseutude says yes.) Thus, no one can make a policy proposal, have it fail, and then claim that it's "semi-policy" because folks are obeying it. Instead, we have to leave frustrated those people who insist that everything be written down and that everything that is not forbidden is allowed. The point of
Knowledge (XXG) is to be community based in editing and laws, and we
51:
378:. This page is not semy-policy (meaning half-policy), it failed to reach consensus support, so according to the way wikipedia works, it's 0% policy. If you want to describe practice that's already in place, write guidelines or articles on meta, don't go around masquerading completely failed policy proposals (it's a yes-no thing, no grey areas), as a weaker kind of policy.
21:
1060:"Note that some behavior listed here has been taken as disruption of Knowledge (XXG) in Arbitration Committee decisions. In the Knowledge (XXG):Trolling poll to make this proposal policy, it received between 57% and 61% support, depending on how one counts." Last time I checked there was only one way to count. 1,2,3,4,5,6, and so on.
1856:
when the editing gets hot and do not hesitate to appeal to the
Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution process. Remember the three revert rule. If someone is trolling an article you will get support from others in restoring the article. Eventually, the troll may give up or a consensus may form for dealing with him or her more firmly.
1143:
religeon,People, other wikipediansm etc. If the vandal wants to be forgiven, then they must either write a email to an admin, or other important wikipedians. This will reduce the number of trolls and vandalised articles. If however, they delete on accident, which would be unusual, then they need a good reason for doing so.
1102:
more severely than someone placing innocuous near-nonsense "graffiti" on a talk page. Anything up to and including a permanent block is possible. As far as I know, we've never sent the thugs around to beat anyone up. (That's a joke. I'm sure we haven't. And when we did, the thugs couldn't find him, anyway.) -
1925:
be reworded to "Trolling is a deliberate attempt, in bad faith, to disrupt the editing of
Knowledge (XXG)." Minor revision, but it seems like better English to word it this way. Anyone agree/disagree? I didn't want to change it without approval from someone first, as this is, after all, a WP page. --
2278:
How about "Labeling someone a troll is easy as it allows you to avoid having to actually come up with an answer. If you really can't or won't come up with one, I won't force you. I'll just wait until someone else can." I don't know if this is proper to add to this essay but it's what I would say were
1901:
I've seen a lot of trolls in a lot of internet forums and projects of all sorts and I got to say that I'm not sure if even one of them gave the tiniest thought to whether their actions had an effect on the usability of the projects or forums they were trolling. In fact it's quite hard to imagine any
1746:
The term "trolling" has been abused by a few editors to discredit people they dislike or disagree with. Consider the possible responses by a person accused of trolling. If they are not a troll, they will say "I am not a troll." If they are a troll, they will say "I am not a troll." Of course, if they
767:
There is a form of law that is not codified. When a community acts as if a thing were a law for a long time, then this common practice begins to have the force of law. This concept of desseutude came about because of trade disputes. However, I think it applies to the things that WP:POINT is trying
2354:
I was looking here to find the answer whether a "patent troll" is always bad faith. Or is it just a synonym for a "non-producing entity", either good faith or bad faith? (Bad faith includes (among other things?) entities that harrass companies with dubious claims, yet propose a settelement that is a
2006:
This is a really good essay. I commend all editors who put this essay together. Unfortunately I noticed that the page did not get enough support to become a policy, I wonder why? However, the best thing to do is to try to improve the article further so it can become a policy, and the next best thing
1924:
At the beginning of the section, it says "Trolling is a deliberate, is an attempt, in bad faith, to disrupt the editing of
Knowledge (XXG)." This almost seems like bad grammar or otherwise improper English. I figured I should check here first before editing, but I think this first statement should
1905:
Rather it has always seemed that what the troll craved most of all was to provoke as strong and as many responses to their actions/messages as possible. In fact I would dare say that essentially every last troll if given the option to totally destroy the groups they torment would certainly refuse.
1855:
Dealing with edit war trolls Of course, sometimes trolls cannot be ignored without compromising the integrity of an article—particularly in the case of edit war trolling. In these cases, "err" on the side of improving
Knowledge (XXG), but always remember the principle of Knowledge (XXG):Staying cool
1757:
This seems unnecessary and oddly specific to a situation you are currently dealing with. I might be willing to consider this, but it seems like an emotional edit that is coming out of anger because a few people have called you a troll. Instead of unnecessarily changing this essay, perhaps you should
1752:
The solution is simple. Don't use the term. Especially if you are emotionally involved. Because the term is subjective, it should only be applied by community agreement among neutral third parties. Ultimately this means the
Arbitration Committee. If you want to call someone a troll, think carefully:
1142:
You know how trolls vandalise anything, well i say if they vandalise the same article/page twice or more, there banned from editing. Why, its no mistake, because they delete an entire page on purpose.I suggest they get banned from editing permentaly, especially depending on the vandals targets like:
1101:
No idea what you mean by "a paid", but, yes, it depends on whether the account is used only for vandalism, on the nature of the vandalism, on what is vandalised, on the number of occurrences, etc. For example, a tirade of hate speech in an article about an ethnic group is likely to be dealt with far
777:
find that inconvenient. We all wish there were a judge and a court that could interpret the wise words of our founding fathers and establish precedent. We'd know what to do, then. A lot of what
Snowspinner and others do in the name of "semi-policy" doesn't bother me, as I think it's really a case
242:
The 12 "Troll is unhelpful" votes duplicated other votes - I would consider the more accurate vote 43/28, with some people quibbling over the use of "troll" but not opposing the policy, which, at 60%, seems widespread. In general, I consider things with majority support in reasonably well-publicized
1246:
Does anybody know, whether making the article systematically too long is trolling? Real example from
Lithuanian Knowledge (XXG): user Pleckaitis makes a lot of articles for small villages in Lithuania without any regard concerning common shape of those articles, he doubles information of templates,
1187:
I know contributors who must rewrite edits ten, twenty or more times before they last more than a week due to the fact that the idea behind a Wiki is based on consensus. If System
Administrators were allowed to shove a rag into someone’s mouth for making a contribution they simple disagreed with or
179:
The term "Trolling" first came into appearance on the Internet in the 90's, in newsgroups. To "Troll" means to systematically visit groups looking for topics, or comments, to which you can reply or add in a negative and antagonistic manner. Typically, a "troller" makes comments on subjects, about
1601:
In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast
1167:
Accidents do and can happen given the personal time constraints most working people are under. The “Save page” and “Show preview” buttons are not that far apart and without an “Are you sure?" question its not that hard to submit comments to an article page rather than to the article talk page that
946:
The idea is useless flourish because the intent is unknowable. Since mind reading is impossible in personal conversation, let alone on the Internet, the search for intentions leads everyone down fruitless rabbitholes speculating what the intent could be when everyone knows that we cannot establish
788:
At the beginning of each arbitration case decision page, you'll see a list of principles applied in the case. Some of these quote policy, some attempt to put common sensible practice into words - the idea being to come up with something that wouldn't make people go "wtf?!" Note that if you look at
164:
Don't feed the trolls A phrase often used on webforums and LiveJournal communities by moderators and those who think they're moderators. This is generally in response to someone "trolling" their community, which usually means "having a different opinion to one or more of the established members".
748:
Are they treated as such because they appear on this page? I suspect not. Some of them are violations of rules on other pages, some are violations of ArbCom precedents. If ArbCom precedents are based on "semi-policy" pages, i.e. failed proposals which are likely to be changed, that's probably not
453:
Hmmm... I do see your point in the whole thing, but I seriously believe that this approach is misguided. There are plenty of ways to have both rule of law and flexible rules. In fact, that's how most real legal systems work. There are alway rules that are open to interpretation, like "No personal
125:
That's really all there is to it. It's a pretty normal part of politics to acuse people who disgree with you of being communist/liberal/unamerican/troll (choose your insult) to devalue their opinion. Of course anyone who thinks that there are rogue admins is a troll, and can be banned for holding
2147:
There is a user on this called Gurch who creates edit wars. He kept on deleting my APPROPRIATE thing and i kept on having to put it back again. He carried on until i got mad and insulted him. I then got banned temporallily because of it and he got to go free. Stay away from this Gurch if you
1983:
I would say that trolling is a subset of vandalism. Vandalism includes all manner of acts, whereas at least traditionally trolling refers to a certain kind of being inflammatory or pestering, such as in discussions, in order to evoke an over-active response. Page blanking in itself, for example,
1817:
I think it's fine as it is, per Alex. I also think it's a bad idea in general to rewrite policies and/or essays that people follow as guidelines when a major debate is going on. It could easily be perceived as POV, and the nature of language is such that adding words or changing the context even
1173:
Perhaps it would help if you understood what happened to the Dialectic. The Dialectic is the concept of opposite positions: Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position). In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue. For example, if my
772:
a "semi-law" in desseutude. It has to be recognized as simply having been that way. (E.g. policy states that VfU is for undeleting and that nothing can be undeleted or recreated until the vote takes place. However, many folks will undelete or recreate and then wait for the vote, as if it were
515:
It's the word used for something that needs a name. "A guideline that's strongly supported community practice", then? "A proposed policy that failed to make 2/3 but people seem to follow it anyway"? Bit wordy. If you don't like the actual words "semi-policy", come up with something else. If it's
1651:
From my perspective it is also very simple. If you want to discuss whether my activity is trolling or not, you take it to a neutral third party, such as the ArbCom. Otherwise you are engaged in character assassination. Instead of self-reflecting on whether you and the other editors are truly
1909:
Trolls are indeed the enemy. Like any enemy to battle them you are well advised to try to understand them. I have to say that as written the current essay is currently quite misleading about what makes trolls tick and that could conceivably hinder our efforts to deal with them. Trolls crave
1278:
Usually, the English Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to discuss other Wikipedias. Describing the location of London relative to Chelsea is clearly inappropriate (the City of London is of far more historical importance than the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Greater London emcompasses
2264:, they may easily trump it with any variety of replies forking off of, e.g., "Yo mama's so fat..." "Yo mama's so dumb..." etc. Yes, I can see this section is going to take a lot of work, perhaps it should be split off into its own article in order to avoid running into page size limitations.
610:
Again, this is a poor argument. You can't argue somebody who says "A is wrong" by saying "A exists". It's largely not how it works because you changed the way it worked before. What's astonishing in the whole thing is the misunderstanding of consensus rule that this shows. The whole point of
336:
No. That was kind of the point. An official policy endorsing semi-policy would be comical. They were introduced to describe practice tthat was clearly already in place. That they have endured is probably a testament to the fact that there is not actually a coherent and internally consistant
656:
What he's saying is more like "that's a nice theory but it doesn't accord with practice." Or that's what I'm saying, anyway. Hence the current version of the note showing it may not have made ratified policy, but bits are in fact treated as violations of policy or acceptable practice -
1188:
did not like instead of using their brains to explain why their position is better then all they would end up doing is converting the Knowledge (XXG) into a System Administrator-pedia and that would defeat the purpose and philosophy behind the Knowledge (XXG) and not be any good.
407:"Semi-policy" is the name used for something that needs a name. There are a lot of simplistic people who can't stand ambiguity and demand that either all rules be firm ratified policy or not exist, but that doesn't match the existence of community practice and so forth. See also
1041:
A "slow revert" may be a psychologically effective way of dealing with a troll, but it has the slight negative side effect of leaving dubious material standing for the average reader (note, not the average Wikipedian) to come across it... this seems like a bad idea.
1637:). You were unhappy about that which is understandable. Instead of self-reflecting on the feedback given to you by many editors, you decided to rewrite the essay about trolling itself to make it say that all those who call trolling as such should not do it. This is
1622:
I hope all parties concerned realize that we cannot have a rational discussion if one of the parties is engaged in baseless accusations of policy violations. We are either going to discuss this edit as a good faith edit or we will not have any discussion at all.
887:
This sentence should be changed. Since deliberate intent cannot be demonstrated, it is useless to put it in here. It would be like defining dangerous driving in terms of the engine revs, only the driver has access to that information. Removing it, the sentence
226:
224:
which was supposed to ratify this. Out of 85 answers, 43 supported it. That's barely more than 50% and the proposed text clearly failed to get consensus. If that is "widespread support" which in enough to call something "semi-policy", I could easily write
182:
The term, originally, comes from the fishing terminology, "To Troll", meaning to drop a line into the water and move the boat around until a fish grabs the bait...This is what Internet Trollers do as well. They drop the bait and wait for you to react to
209:
The semi-policy template says that semi-policies are things that are not official but have "widespread support". As no widespread support for this text has been demonstrated (only two people commented positively on it), I guess this is not semi-policy.
1523:
should be removed as a mod/sysop. Why? Because he trolled all the wrestling move pages, giving them delete tags because he doesn't like wrestling, and nothing more. I am surprised that no disciplinary action was taken, and there should be.
907:
Except that we don't define disruption, or usability. This definition covers anything which makes Knowledge (XXG) more difficult to use, including requiring accounts, making policy and adding features like categories. Hmmm... Problematic?
188:
Yes, I came to this talk page to see if my understanding that the term's origins were in the fishing practice. If one has trolled for fish, one has expectations of internet trolls different from those who have the monsters in mind.
804:
It seems a more appropriate and useful title (e.g. for first-time users seeing it in a list) would be something more active, like "No trolling" or "Don't be a troll". Does anyone have any opinion about that kind of name change? --
2122:
If the first example of trolling, is actually trolling, that's not setting a good example. From how I read it, it sounds like "Anyone who sincerely believes a minority and controversial opinion , would be considered a troll"
1182:. There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere. Instead, “truth” is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis. This is the heart and soul of the Knowledge (XXG) and the consensus process.
1237:
I cant make a new section so Im just gonna say It here (even though Its the wrong place anyway, but Im a troll) I loved the pictures they were pretty good, though Im also offended because Im a troll, please reply to this.
283:
No. A) I don't think that people who didn't put their votes under oppose can be counted as opposing, and B) Perhaps you should look into who made the changes to the description of semi-policy and bring it up with them.
749:
good practice. In fact, if ArbCom decides that it will use a principle which has not been ratified as policy for deciding cases, than ArbCom should state so in its own right, not base its decisions on failed proposals.
1786:
that essentially covers the proposed info. The proposed text in my opinion does not add anything useful besides vagues threats. Besides it is probably incorrect, the last time I check the Arbcom was the last step of
937:
I've no idea how you propose to get to the idea that deliberate intent is a useless flourish. Your dangerous driving analogy is strange, to say the least - perhaps the better metaphor would be "malice aforethought."
1534:
That user is not an admin. Please note that this is not the place to report such issues. Please try resolving your issue with this user on your respective talk pages. If that is not possible, you may open a
882:
Trolling is deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Knowledge (XXG) for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Knowledge
145:
I should have been clearer, it's usually not just someone who you disagree with about article content, more usually someone who threatens the current power structure. Of course, the term won't be applied to
1003:
these statements seem to contradict each other. if someone was actually a raceist you couldn't acuse them of being a troll. it would only be trolling if they were only acting raceist to stir things up.
32:
1736:
I am proposing that the following text be added to this essay. Irpen keeps reverting me, but he refuses to discuss his reasons with me. I hope that other editors can weigh in with their opinions. --
1502:
Corollary: An earnest editor will not be put off the Knowledge (XXG) project by a lack of response. In fact, if their edits go unchanged and unchallenged, they will probably regard this is a good sign.
1558:
In and out of spanish internet, there are "Verso" performers. A "Verso" is a Story or Swindle that a verso-group performe against someone in internet or everyday life. Verso origin in Buenos Aires.
752:
This makes the whole concept of semi-policy redundant. When proposals fail to be ratified, any useful info should be salvaged, NPOVed and recycled as guidelines, the rest should be simply archived.
2164:
and I think that someone might have vandalized this line, but I am not sure. If I made a mistake, just revert it... I really don't know much of the formatting here... I'm used to other wiki sites.
258:
Not all of them. Without bothering to check all of them, I'd say that it's about half, which makes it about 43:35, i.e. 55%. Even if it's 60%, that's still opposed by 40% of people, which makes it
1747:
are really a troll, they will be lying. But if they are not a troll, there is nothing they can possibly say in their defense, because by calling them a troll, you implicitly assert they are lying.
1984:
would not be trolling, whereas an actual troll is purposefully trying to be disruptive. However, someone thought to be trolling may not actually be trolling, but may just be misunderstood. —
892:
Trolling is an attempt to disrupt the usability of Knowledge (XXG) for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Knowledge (XXG).
947:
intent. Your ideas annoy me intensely. I have no way of knowing whether you intend to annoy me, or are honestly proposing things that I find annoying because you believe they are correct.
1286:
Presumably the Lithuanian Knowledge (XXG) has some equivalent of RFCs, mediation, and arbitration. That is probably how you are going to have to pursue this if you want to confront it. -
64:
150:
with whom you disagree, but generally speaking, anyone who seriously criticises the admin system, or individual admins they consider to be 'rogue', gets labeled a troll and driven off.
778:
of community standards, but I agree enough with Zocky to say that claiming that there is a law or policy that's supported by the part of Knowledge (XXG) that counts is inappropriate.
1420:
We should add a comment on the psychology of trolling. For example: "Good trolls prey on the deepest insecurities of other readers and editors, exposing their inferiority complexes."
1613:, not even a policy, is a breaching experiment. Irpen always had the option of taking it to the discussion page, instead his first reaction was to revert the edit and accuse me of
2252:
Let's see, what is the best way to deal with accusations of trolling? Like chess openings, each option has its own set of counterattacks. For instance, if you counter with "No,
813:
Since the question of what is a troll is so debatable, I think that the current title is appropriate. Besides, giving it the title of "Don't be a troll" is just as insulting as
566:
The point is that if there was a substantial minority, there was no consensus, so it can't be accepted as a community standard. "Majority" doesn't mean much on Knowledge (XXG).
2334:"cf.", from Latin "confer" means ‘compare’ (from oed.com). It's very old and commonly used in traditional areas, and is of the ilk of i.e., id est (L.), that is (to say). --
1489:
The introduction to to this essay contains a lot of words. This is all well and good, but I believe there to be a single criteron that seperates the troll from the non-troll:
126:
that opinion. Anyone who advocates reform or change that threatens the current power structure must be acting in bad faith, so they should be banned. It's politics as usual.
789:
the original proposed decision pages, you'll often see disagreement and discussion between arbitrators in these things. "Desseutude" appears to be the concept in question -
68:
1868:
Consider "in a community of any substantial size" instead of "in a community of any size." A community of any size could be very small and virtually immune to trolling.
1679:
I will be happy to discuss any specific objections Irpen has to my edits here. So far, the only hint I have from him is his edit summary which accuses me of POINT. --
2222:
I disagree but if you want to include it, leave out "This is especially effective if there happens to be only one vocal opponent. This phenomenon is well-documented.
2038:
Throughout this article the term "newbie" is used repeatedly. Isn't there a better term? It seems like some people might take offense to it. Just my opinion, thanks!
1283:
for an example; I happen to live there, but I am not the one who wrote most of this). I have no way to judge in the abstract whether someone's subtitles are useless.
710:
bits are left to the imagination and interpretation of whoever needs to fuel a flame war... essentially making the entire page act as though it were actionable. --
1884:
user, not just established/experienced ones. I don't view this as a particularly controversial change, but see no harm in sharing it on the talk page. Cheers,
81:
177:
Thought I'd add a little history to the lesson here about the true origins of the word, with respect to its use on the Internet, since it seems to be missing:
1258:
337:
description of how Knowledge (XXG) is run. And I looked at the numbers - the absolute lowest support you can count is 57%, the absolute highest is 61%.
2203:, as I believe the preceding paragraph shown in that diff does not adequately warn against being taken in by people who use the epithet "troll" as an
2355:
little bit cheaper and/or considerably faster than a true court case - which takes a lot of time, and is very costly, in particular in the US).
371:
The only comical thing about it is that anybody would think that this sentence makes sense. It's an argument not worthy of a high-school debate club.
1329:, as those do not involve inventing new troll methods and technologies. These conflicts are especially disruptive as they ultimately result in new
243:
polls to be candidates for semi-policy, if certain other conditions (Like being reasonable descriptions of how things sometimes work) are also met.
516:
obviously and elegantly better that will cause an "aha, of course!" reaction in lots of people the moment they see it, that will be just fine -
1270:
1011:
for example, when confronted, a troll pretending to hold racesit opinion, might accuse Knowledge (XXG) of Marxism or political correctness.
1076:
2226:", as this is not beneficial to the page in any way. Replace it with some guidance how to deal with people who apply such invalid labels.
1230:
template because there already is another image of the same name at en.wikipedia.org, but I've contacted the uploader about this problem.
2133:
1028:
986:
1902:
of them let alone most of them having so sophisticated an aim as disrupting usability, whether for spite or some other obscure motive.
2180:
2165:
1940:
1178:, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept on its head by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis. All things are now
1341:
2059:
2018:
1652:
neutral parties in this case you continue to assert that your opinion speaks for the community as a whole. I am not engaged in
454:
attacks" or even "Use English", but still they are written rules, and that's why they get to be interpreted in individual cases.
2293:
2240:
929:
Actually the sentence works just fine, it's just that once you take out the useless flourishes, how stupid it is is apparent.
441:
180:
which he/she knows very little, if anything at all. The primary purpose of "trolling" is simply to wreak havoc on the system.
1392:
1878:
Criticism of the project, made constructively, is welcome from established contributors when shared in an appropriate place.
821:
if you used that article title in a discussion. I would suggest not even creating a redirect to this page using that title.
2065:
2024:
1280:
1175:
110:
2007:
to do is to band an anti-troll committee, if it's feasible. Again, great work, and I'd love to help whenever possible. –
850:
What is the process here? I think a radical re-work of this page to be more neutral might help - is this page editable?
1792:
1783:
1217:
27:
440:
That's completely beside the point, as I'm not arguing agains that. My point (at this point) is that semi-policy is a
1355:
as understood between warring nation-states, each of which has their own POV and is not inclined to compromise (see
151:
1345:
221:
1520:
1279:
Chelsea). Other than that, there is nothing wrong with a detailed article on a relatively unimportant place (see
1255:), makes useless subtitles and so on. There a hundreds of those articles, and nobody knows, how to deal with it.
1660:
which is applicable. And if you don't want to be "tied into another cycle of this" you can very well leave the
2156:
I have corrected what I see to be an error in the "Not feeding the trolls" section... phrasing was previously:
1880:
I have removed the word "established" as constructive criticism shared in an appropriate place is welcome from
1266:
851:
1356:
1072:
262:
controversial. Either ammend the template to reflect that or abandon the whole silly notion of "semy-policy".
2260:
and stalemate. On the other hand, if one replies with, "Yo mama's a troll," depending on their repertoire of
2137:
1645:
1584:
1024:
980:
963:
560:
proposal which failed to reach consensus and which majority or a substantial minority actively opposed -: -->
2324:
2269:
2212:
2184:
2169:
1089:
How long can you get banned for vandalising? is there a paid for that? Does it depend on how bad you do it?
2129:
1380:
1374:": using technological powers to try to force a solution in a troll war by favouring one side or another.
1224:
1064:
1016:
375:
1932:
1559:
1262:
994:
Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling.
2257:
1068:
2053:
2012:
1911:
1020:
976:
1421:
999:
Often, racist trolls, when confronted, will accuse Knowledge (XXG) of Marxism or political correctness.
919:
What a surprise - when you take out the words that make the sentence work, the sentence stops working.
1633:
Very simple, Ideogram. Your activity has been characterized as trolling by a multitude of users (more
1189:
956:
939:
920:
866:
604:
487:
338:
285:
244:
87:
20:
1819:
1371:
1199:
896:
Furthermore, since the audience of people listed includes everyone, it is redundent, leaving us with:
836:
955:
The intent remains the highly relevent thing, and is frankly, in many cases, fairly easy to divine.
457:
The point is, we don't need to have a flexible process for defining policy to have flexible policy.
127:
2339:
2286:
2256:
the troll," they can easily reply with, "Nuh uh!" which typically leads to "Uh huh!" followed by a
2233:
1688:
Let the record show that Irpen is not interested in discussing these edits as good faith edits. --
1384:
1360:
1213:
714:
195:
948:
930:
909:
859:
2320:
2265:
2208:
1876:
I have changed one sentence in the "Misplaced criticism" section. Previously, the sentence read:
1800:
1753:
Are you prepared to prove your case before the Arbitration Committee? If not, don't use the term.
1576:
the incongruent edit made to the page by Ideogram. It seems to have been written to merely prove
1388:
1120:
No, we don't have a "legal code". We have a loose set of policies, guidelines, and procedures. -
1796:
1770:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Proposed policy on removing alleged trolling on talk pages
1657:
1653:
1638:
1614:
1591:
1577:
1318:
1312:
408:
1174:
thesis is that "all reversions are vandalism" then all other positions (antithesis) are false.
2360:
1926:
1885:
1337:
1047:
790:
658:
517:
416:
2049:
2008:
1989:
1956:
1827:
I think I have made my point sufficiently elsewhere so I will not prolong this argument. --
1609:
Please explain to me how my actions were "disruptive". Please explain to me how editing an
1462:
1406:
1291:
1231:
1125:
1107:
139:
1540:
1536:
818:
486:
When there is no consistent body of policy, it's unsurprising that grey-area terms pop up.
2364:
2343:
2328:
2273:
2216:
2188:
2173:
2141:
2085:
2069:
2042:
2028:
1995:
1977:
1974:
1962:
1945:
1914:
1888:
1845:
1831:
1822:
1812:
1803:
1776:
1762:
1740:
1721:
1704:
1692:
1683:
1668:
1627:
1562:
1547:
1528:
1509:
1474:
1470:
1456:
1443:
1439:
1424:
1409:
1294:
1202:
1192:
1152:
1128:
1110:
1095:
1050:
966:
822:
814:
793:
782:
756:
661:
615:
570:
520:
461:
448:
419:
382:
311:
266:
233:
214:
199:
171:
1788:
1449:
1431:
1366:
A major problem in Knowledge (XXG) is abuse of administrative powers in over-reaction to
1401:
Nearly off topic, and not very useful, in my view. I would be against re-adding this. -
2335:
2281:
2228:
2082:
2039:
1525:
1453:
1330:
711:
191:
1791:
not the first one. The topic of Dispute Resolutions is already covered in the section
1842:
1828:
1773:
1737:
1718:
1701:
1689:
1680:
1665:
1624:
415:, but that doesn't actually constitute a reason to try to pretend it doesn't exist -
134:
Not at all. I have plenty of people I disagree with whom I don't consider trolls. --
2356:
2261:
2112:
who sincerely believe that this view is inadequately represented by Knowledge (XXG)
2102:
The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post —
1809:
1759:
1149:
1092:
1043:
114:
71:
to report complex issues that require administrative assistance. This talk page is
2160:
it is easy to deal with those things.therfore suck my dick.. because i am a shark
1116:
I ment to say, is there a page/article for the punishments, listy of punishments?
1985:
1952:
1506:
1402:
1287:
1121:
1103:
806:
779:
556:
no consensus to treat as policy, but useful info supported by most people -: -->
135:
2316:
2223:
743:...but bits are in fact treated as violations of policy or acceptable practice.
2204:
1642:
1581:
1544:
1466:
1435:
753:
612:
567:
458:
445:
379:
308:
263:
230:
211:
168:
63:
for discussing trolling or reporting problems to administrators. Please see
1352:
1322:
1326:
1306:
Just another view from history of a predecessor article. Worth a debate:
1452:
apply to essays? I'm pretty sure that's only mandatory for articles. --
2195:
Deliberately using the epithet "troll" in order to shut down discussion
1252:
2114:; trolls, however, will generally not seek consensus but will instead
374:
Those things are generally called "customs", or in case of wikipedia,
229:
and claim that it's a "semi-policy". I wonder how long it would last.
161:
It's true. Here's a definition I found by net searching on trolling:
1248:
2108:
usually come from users who have a minority or controversial opinion
1497:
to his or her edits, not the overall quality or veracity of a page.
900:
Trolling is an attempt to disrupt the usability of Knowledge (XXG).
865:
My main response was to notice the username and block the account.
1772:. Note especially the concrete example given near the bottom. --
1602:
majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the "proof".
86:
I've cleared this so that a whole new discussion may take place.
1717:
If he doesn't want to discuss it, he doesn't get to edit it. --
1641:. Please do not attempt to tie me into another cycle of this. --
1251:
is a city with distance approximately 10,6 km southwards from
307:
BTW, was consensus for having semi-policies ever established?
45:
15:
1700:
I think it probably best if this conversation is terminated.
1951:
I changed it to the old version; your version is fine too. —
1841:
Would it be worth adding this template to the "see also"? --
65:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrator intervention against vandalism
1461:
Whoops, you're right, I thought this was the talk page for
444:. These things are either guidelines or failed proposals.
411:- the inconsistency in Knowledge (XXG) drives some people
369:
An official policy endorsing semi-policy would be comical.
2207:
ploy to get people to stop listening to someone's ideas.
1894:
wikipedia trolling definition seems a bit unconventional
1808:
I've examined the discussion. My opinion isn't changed.
962:
Not really - this is the fundamental attribution error.
2200:
1769:
1634:
1573:
2116:
insist on a position without any regard for compromise
2106:
specifically to cause a flame war. Inflammatory edits
1818:
slightly can totally revise the meaning of something.
1344:. A set of tactics for this was once advanced as the
1336:
The only known long-term solution to such wars is the
1218:
Knowledge (XXG):What is a troll#Not feeding the trolls
227:
Knowledge (XXG):Never use styles in biography articles
75:
for discussing changes and improvements to this essay.
69:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
1793:
Knowledge (XXG):What_is_a_troll#Misidentified_trolls
1146:who aggres with me. Says either support or object?
603:The problem is that it just doesn't work that way.
1973:Is Trolling a subset of Vandalism, or vice versa?
1247:violates implicit importance of settlements (eg.
2081:Yes, it does seem much more appropriate, thanks!
1158:How do you think the Merriam-Webster became a
1359:) and is inclined also towards technological
8:
2319:. just says things like "cost and freight"
2317:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=c.f
2224:http://wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Trolls
1430:Something that interpretive would likely be
1135:A suggestion for banning trolls from editing
1864:A proposed edit to "Not feeding the trolls"
1317:is an escalating conflict between multiple
2179:Ahh, looks like someone already fixed it.
768:to cover. The problem is that no one can
2148:don't want to get involved in edit wars.
1860:i dont know what is supposed to be there
1784:Knowledge (XXG):What_is_a_troll#Bad_faith
1162:dictionary well over a hundred years ago?
1910:reactions not disruption or destruction.
1198:How about banning trolls from viewing?--
1872:Change to "Misplaced criticism" section
1493:A troll is primarily interested in the
1333:methods that spread to other services.
2315:What's "c.f." stand for? It's not in
30:on 9 August 2007 (UTC). The result of
1370:- often called by trolls themselves "
1351:It is not really that different from
1342:Knowledge (XXG):arbitration committee
98:This article is an ingenious troll.
7:
1656:, I defy you to find the section of
121:A troll is someone you disagree with
109:Feel free to merge in contents from
2126:That should really be fixed IMO.
1969:Is Trolling a Subset of Vandalism?
14:
1768:Please examine the discussion at
1216:. It's a pity we can't use it in
2048:Newcomer is more appropriate?. —
1567:
67:to report repeated vandalism or
49:
19:
1938:
837:
834:
828:
2142:00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
2104:saying something controversial
817:, and therefore would violate
1:
2279:someone to label me a troll.
1906:That would ruin their 'fun'.
1410:06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
1281:Wedgwood, Seattle, Washington
1212:There is a nice new image at
1176:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
1139:I have a suggestion to make:
1056:"depending on how one counts"
858:Is there a response to this?
823:
222:Knowledge (XXG):Trolling poll
111:User:Raul654/Trolling effects
2311:"(c.f. MeatBall:ForestFire)"
2282:
2229:
2189:01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
2174:01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
1832:01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1823:18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1813:06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1804:06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1777:06:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1763:06:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1741:06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
1722:20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1705:20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1693:20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1684:18:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1669:19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1646:19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1628:19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1585:18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1563:09:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
1548:05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
1529:06:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1475:20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1457:17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
1444:04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
1346:Knowledge (XXG):troll bridge
1295:20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1051:23:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
26:This page was nominated for
2086:00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1758:examine your own behavior.
1568:Ideogram's WP:POINT rewrite
1510:22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
1425:02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
1357:Knowledge (XXG):POV warrior
1321:. It is not the same as a
2380:
2365:11:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
2329:07:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2274:21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
2217:21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1963:02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
1946:17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
1915:10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
1846:10:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
1111:19:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1096:09:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
607:19:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
200:02:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
185:June 15, 2007 - Anonymous
142:07:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
117:01:05, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
90:22:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
2070:03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
1889:05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
1782:There it already section
1539:or request assistance on
1469:
1438:
1395:) 11:42, 13 November 2006
1203:17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1153:00:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
1129:05:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
959:July 6, 2005 16:54 (UTC)
490:19:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
341:18:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
288:18:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
247:18:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
172:21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
152:Spak Bomb (lost password)
130:07:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2344:01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
2300:22:04, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
2247:21:16, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
2043:20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
2029:18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1996:15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
1978:09:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
1214:commons:Image:Trolls.jpg
1193:07:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
967:21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
951:6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
942:July 6, 2005 16:25 (UTC)
933:6 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
923:July 6, 2005 01:16 (UTC)
869:July 6, 2005 16:28 (UTC)
862:6 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
854:5 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
809:18:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
794:16:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
783:04:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
757:20:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
717:20:07, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
662:20:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
616:19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
571:19:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
549:There was no grey area:
521:19:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
462:19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
449:19:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
420:19:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
383:19:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
312:18:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
267:18:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
234:18:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
215:09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
154:16:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
912:6 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
841:05:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2162:
2152:Not sure about wording
2120:
1580:. Opinions welcome. --
1319:Knowledge (XXG):trolls
2158:
2100:
1799:in the other places.
1795:, no need to promote
1313:Knowledge (XXG):troll
1261:comment was added by
1521:One Night In Hackney
852:Involved in trolling
2258:repetition of moves
1920:Edit to "Bad Faith"
1537:request for comment
1361:conflict escalation
819:No personal attacks
706:Of course, exactly
105:I noticed something
1273:) 26 October 2006.
964:For great justice.
800:Renaming this page
741:<unindent/: -->
59:This talk page is
2302:
2249:
2144:
2132:comment added by
2064:
2058:
2023:
2017:
1732:Proposed addition
1432:original research
1397:
1383:comment added by
1338:political virtues
1331:Internet trolling
1274:
1081:
1067:comment added by
1033:
1019:comment added by
815:m:Don't be a dick
101:
79:
78:
44:
43:
2371:
2284:
2280:
2231:
2227:
2199:I disagree with
2127:
2062:
2056:
2021:
2015:
1944:
1929:
1543:. Thank you. --
1473:
1463:troll (internet)
1442:
1396:
1377:
1340:applied via the
1256:
1229:
1223:
1080:
1061:
1032:
1013:
839:
835:
832:
827:
561:failed proposal.
552:consensus -: -->
99:
53:
52:
46:
23:
16:
2379:
2378:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2352:
2313:
2197:
2154:
2096:
2036:
2004:
1971:
1935:
1927:
1922:
1896:
1874:
1866:
1853:
1839:
1734:
1677:
1570:
1560:Anselmocisneros
1556:
1519:I believe that
1517:
1487:
1418:
1378:
1372:sysop vandalism
1303:
1263:193.219.163.219
1257:—The preceding
1244:
1227:
1221:
1210:
1137:
1087:
1062:
1058:
1039:
1014:
991:
878:
848:
802:
765:
207:
166:
123:
107:
100:— Alex Anderson
96:
50:
12:
11:
5:
2377:
2375:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2312:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2201:this reversion
2196:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2153:
2150:
2095:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2075:
2073:
2072:
2035:
2032:
2003:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1933:
1921:
1918:
1895:
1892:
1873:
1870:
1865:
1862:
1859:
1852:
1849:
1838:
1835:
1780:
1779:
1755:
1754:
1749:
1748:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1631:
1630:
1619:
1618:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1596:
1595:
1569:
1566:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1516:
1513:
1504:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1486:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1284:
1243:
1240:
1209:
1206:
1196:
1195:
1184:
1183:
1170:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1114:
1113:
1086:
1083:
1069:65.102.191.197
1057:
1054:
1038:
1035:
1007:sugested edit
990:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
944:
943:
927:
926:
925:
924:
914:
913:
905:
902:
897:
894:
889:
885:
877:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
847:
844:
843:
842:
801:
798:
797:
796:
764:
761:
760:
759:
750:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
455:
451:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
372:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
251:
250:
249:
248:
237:
236:
206:
203:
190:
184:
181:
178:
176:
163:
160:
158:
157:
156:
155:
122:
119:
106:
103:
95:
92:
77:
76:
54:
42:
41:
33:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2376:
2367:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2321:William Ortiz
2318:
2310:
2301:
2298:
2296:
2291:
2290:
2285:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2266:Obuibo Mbstpo
2263:
2262:yo mama jokes
2259:
2255:
2251:
2250:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2238:
2237:
2232:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2209:Obuibo Mbstpo
2206:
2202:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2161:
2157:
2151:
2149:
2145:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2134:66.69.114.148
2131:
2124:
2119:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2099:
2098:Edit warring
2093:
2087:
2084:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2071:
2067:
2061:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2041:
2033:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2020:
2014:
2010:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1959:
1954:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1937:
1936:
1930:
1919:
1917:
1916:
1913:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1893:
1891:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1871:
1869:
1863:
1861:
1857:
1850:
1848:
1847:
1844:
1836:
1834:
1833:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1821:
1815:
1814:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1801:Alex Bakharev
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1751:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1731:
1723:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1691:
1686:
1685:
1682:
1675:Irpen discuss
1674:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1629:
1626:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1565:
1564:
1561:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1527:
1522:
1514:
1512:
1511:
1508:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1484:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1423:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1314:
1308:
1307:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1254:
1250:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1233:
1226:
1219:
1215:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1194:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1168:was intended.
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:L mooringstar
1018:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1001:
1000:
996:
995:
988:
985:
982:
978:
977:L mooringstar
975:Comment from
974:
968:
965:
961:
960:
958:
954:
953:
952:
950:
941:
936:
935:
934:
932:
922:
918:
917:
916:
915:
911:
906:
903:
901:
898:
895:
893:
890:
886:
884:
880:
879:
875:
868:
864:
863:
861:
857:
856:
855:
853:
845:
840:
833:
831:
826:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
808:
799:
795:
792:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
771:
762:
758:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
716:
713:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
663:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
617:
614:
609:
608:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
572:
569:
565:
559:
555:
551:
550:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
522:
519:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
463:
460:
456:
452:
450:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
384:
381:
377:
373:
370:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
313:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
268:
265:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
246:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
232:
228:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
213:
205:"Semi-policy"
204:
202:
201:
197:
193:
186:
174:
173:
170:
162:
153:
149:
144:
143:
141:
137:
133:
132:
131:
129:
120:
118:
116:
112:
104:
102:
93:
91:
89:
84:
83:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
55:
48:
47:
39:
35:
34:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
2353:
2350:Patent troll
2314:
2299:
2294:
2288:
2253:
2246:
2241:
2235:
2198:
2181:72.73.113.55
2166:72.73.113.55
2163:
2159:
2155:
2146:
2125:
2121:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2101:
2097:
2094:Edit Warring
2074:
2037:
2005:
2002:Great essay!
1990:
1972:
1957:
1939:
1931:
1923:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1897:
1886:Black Falcon
1881:
1877:
1875:
1867:
1858:
1854:
1840:
1826:
1816:
1807:
1781:
1756:
1735:
1687:
1678:
1661:
1632:
1610:
1571:
1557:
1518:
1515:Mod As Troll
1505:
1494:
1488:
1422:24.218.25.60
1419:
1376:
1367:
1365:
1350:
1335:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1301:Another view
1245:
1236:
1225:TrollWarning
1211:
1197:
1179:
1159:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1138:
1115:
1091:
1088:
1079:) 2 Dec 2006
1059:
1040:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
993:
992:
983:
945:
928:
904:Much better?
899:
891:
881:
849:
829:
824:
803:
791:David Gerard
774:
769:
766:
742:
740:
707:
659:David Gerard
518:David Gerard
417:David Gerard
412:
368:
259:
220:I found the
208:
187:
175:
167:
159:
147:
124:
108:
97:
85:
80:
72:
60:
56:
37:
31:
2128:—Preceding
2050:Imdanumber1
2009:Imdanumber1
1594:, shall we?
1590:Let's read
1379:—Preceding
1234:2006-09-16
1232:Wikipeditor
1160:proprietary
1063:—Preceding
1037:Slow revert
1015:—Preceding
957:Snowspinner
940:Snowspinner
921:Snowspinner
867:Snowspinner
605:Snowspinner
488:Snowspinner
442:weasel term
339:Snowspinner
286:Snowspinner
245:Snowspinner
88:Snowspinner
2205:ad hominem
1975:Mathiastck
1820:TheQuandry
1664:alone. --
1416:Psychology
1348:strategy.
1242:New breed?
1200:Edtropolis
1085:Punishment
763:Desseutude
376:guidelines
82:/Archive 1
2336:SmokeyJoe
2283:Equazcion
2230:Equazcion
2083:WacoJacko
2040:WacoJacko
1526:ChrisP2K5
1454:Aervanath
1368:troll war
1353:diplomacy
1323:flame war
846:Proccess?
712:Netoholic
557:guideline
192:Jlittlenz
128:Spak Bomb
2130:unsigned
2060:contribs
2034:Newbie??
2019:contribs
1837:Template
1829:Ideogram
1797:WP:CREEP
1774:Ideogram
1738:Ideogram
1719:Ideogram
1690:Ideogram
1681:Ideogram
1666:Ideogram
1658:WP:POINT
1654:WP:POINT
1639:WP:POINT
1625:Ideogram
1615:WP:POINT
1592:WP:POINT
1578:WP:POINT
1574:reverted
1495:response
1485:Proposal
1393:contribs
1385:Crekshin
1381:unsigned
1327:edit war
1271:contribs
1259:unsigned
1180:relative
1077:contribs
1065:unsigned
1029:contribs
1017:unsigned
987:contribs
876:Revision
770:announce
409:WP:POINT
148:everyone
115:→Raul654
28:deletion
2357:Rbakels
1912:Zebulin
1810:AniMate
1760:AniMate
1253:Chelsea
1220:or the
1150:Dumoren
1093:Dumoren
1044:Palmiro
949:Norrath
931:Norrath
910:Norrath
860:Norrath
94:PROTIP:
2254:you're
1986:Centrx
1953:Centrx
1541:WP:ANI
1507:Vranak
1471:(Talk)
1440:(Talk)
1403:Jmabel
1288:Jmabel
1249:London
1190:-- PCE
1122:Jmabel
1104:Jmabel
888:reads:
883:(XXG).
807:Beland
780:Geogre
553:policy
136:Jmabel
2066:email
2025:email
1789:WP:DR
1702:Giano
1662:essay
1643:Irpen
1611:essay
1582:Irpen
1554:Verso
1545:BigDT
1467:Feezo
1450:WP:OR
1448:Does
1436:Feezo
1208:Image
830:Verse
825:Blank
754:Zocky
708:which
613:Zocky
568:Zocky
459:Zocky
446:Zocky
380:Zocky
309:Zocky
264:Zocky
231:Zocky
212:Zocky
183:them.
169:Anomo
57:NOTE:
2361:talk
2340:talk
2325:talk
2270:talk
2213:talk
2185:talk
2170:talk
2138:talk
2110:and
2054:talk
2013:talk
1991:talk
1958:talk
1843:Nate
1635:here
1407:Talk
1389:talk
1363:.
1292:Talk
1267:talk
1126:Talk
1108:Talk
1073:talk
1048:Talk
1025:talk
981:talk
413:wild
260:very
196:talk
140:Talk
73:only
38:Keep
36:was
1882:any
1851:err
1325:or
1315:war
775:all
61:not
2363:)
2342:)
2327:)
2272:)
2215:)
2187:)
2172:)
2140:)
2118:.
2068:)
2027:)
1994:•
1961:•
1623:--
1572:I
1524:--
1465:.
1434:.
1405:|
1391:•
1310:A
1290:|
1269:•
1228:}}
1222:{{
1124:|
1106:|
1075:•
1046:|
1031:)
1027:•
198:)
138:|
113:.
2359:(
2338:(
2323:(
2297:•
2295:C
2292:/
2289:✗
2287:•
2268:(
2244:•
2242:C
2239:/
2236:✗
2234:•
2211:(
2183:(
2168:(
2136:(
2063:•
2057:•
2052:(
2022:•
2016:•
2011:(
1988:→
1955:→
1941:B
1934:x
1928:6
1617:.
1387:(
1265:(
1071:(
1023:(
989:)
984:·
979:(
838:∅
715:@
194:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
