Hyphen War

Should this article be disambiguated from Wikipedia's Manual of Style?

My first barnstar

Ssh, don't tell anyone I'm a useful editor. ;)

Sanity

Sanity can be cured.

I was just trying to help...

Ah, the difficulties of being a prince in exile! How can I ever recover the throne of Trollmark if no one notices when I comment upon the customs of my native land? Observe how this unfolds.

What is troll food?

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I'm not sure where else to go. I tried WP:VP/M, but didn't get much reply there.

What does it mean, to feed a troll? I've noticed that experienced Wikipedians disagree, and we don't seem to have much guidance in the project namespace or at meta:. WP:DFTT is a soft redirect to a page at meta, and if we look there, we're referred to WP:DENY, but that page was about getting rid of our huge shrines to specific vandals. Trolling situations seem to me to be quite different from that.

Trolls want to provoke a response, and maybe a fight, right? Is giving them the response and the fight they want a good idea? My own approach is to kill them with boredom, which I find to work, but I've been savagely attacked by other established editors for doing it. (This leads to a curious paradox where I say, "see it worked, he went away" and receive the reply, "it didn't work; he just got bored w/ your nonsense and went away".)

The contrary position seems to hold that anything other than "revert, block, ignore" constitutes feeding. This position seems to assume that we can successfully identify trolls, and I'm a little concerned about false positives.

Is there an empirical or objective way to decide this question, or is it even a question worth asking? Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they just wanna waste people's time for LULZ, which is basically a huge pain. So I think troll food is basically feeding their egos and falling into their traps. They wanna be talked about here so they can brag to their loser troll friends about it. Personally, I think its all just a substitution for the sex none of them are getting but that's just me. :-) Anywai, just ignore them. If you don't they'll figure out some way to harass you. There's some pretty nasty people out there, sociopaths and stuff. :-(Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for advice for myself, really. I'm quite comfortable handling so-called trolls. However, I think it would be smart for us to somehow document this question, in a way that we do not currently. We pretend to have a policy about this, but we haven't actually got one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Troll with shortcomings 2.jpg suggests that your theory may be correct. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. :-p Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite: Are you trying to provoke a response here? Is that not a curious paradox itself? Isn't the objective definition "someone who is satisfied by demonstrations in acknowledgement of their effort to contribute," or just "someone who is looking for attention to their contributions, period"? Either way, isn't that just the same as everyone here? Putting myself at the risk of becoming the proud nail, what about false negatives? Steveozone (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, what's the harm in a false negative? If someone asks a trolling question, and I answer it without becoming upset, what harm is done? The harm from a false positive seems very clear to me; not so much the false negative. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Billy goats, isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Billy the Kid, goat sockpuppet. Not dangerous to trolls until she gets bigger.

Funny you should ask. Usually the best way to handle trolls is to ignore them altogether. Occasionally (for the very brave) it's possible to troll them back. Despite the green rubbery exterior, most trolls are exceptionally thin skinned. Ideally one sets them to work trolling each other. Then their energies and anger dissipate harmlessly. This is very good for the rest of the Internet's denizens, and even amusing to watch. Remember: there's a little troll in all of us. Cheers, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My preferred response to a question, if I think it might be a troll, is polite and informative. If another editor then posts "OMG WTF DFTT", I don't think it's me that's giving the troll the attention they crave. I realise this is pretty much what GTBacchus said above, but hey. Maybe we need a three wise monkeys approach: see no trolls, hear no trolls... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See no trolls, hear no trolls, are no trolls. That kinda sounds quacky... Xclamation point 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Or is that three wise ostriches? Better to (when necessary) deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling. Comment on the edit, not the editor.LeadSongDog come howl 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm asking about. That was cryptic. Why can't we state our advice for dealing with trolls aloud and clearly? What do you mean by "deflect attention from the troll and correct the trolling?" How does one "correct" trolling, and what has that got to do with, "Comment on the edit, not the editor?" I know people for whom those are contradictory statements. That's the kind of ambiguous language that people will interpret in diametrically opposite ways, leading to unnecessary conflict.

What does "when necessary" mean? What if there's no edit, but rather a question on a talk page, "Why doesn't this article explain about [ethnicity] being dishonest and stupid?" Do you block that person, and call them a racist? Do you answer their question? ("Please see race and intelligence for information on that question. If you have a specific edit that you propose making in this article, what is it?")

I know what I do, but we don't seem to provide any guidance in the form of guidelines or policies. A consequence of this is that some areas are inevitably dominated by people who are "doing it wrong" - whatever that means - and I think that results in harm to the project. This is all just food for thought, I guess, because I'm not seeing any particular thing to do about it. I'm interested in what others think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I prefer "troublemaker", & try to avoid using the word "troll". If someone is editting/posting in a disruptive or bad faith manner, I guess in that respect she/he is a troll -- but they'd also be a troublemaker. You've established a reputation for having a level head, GT, & you have the experience: you're more than likely to know when a user is just a floundering newbie, & when a user are trying to be disruptive. Just act accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch, I'm not asking for advice. Like you say, I know how to act. I'm asking why we seem reluctant to advise others, who might not be so sure of how to handle "troublemakers". I'm very likely to write an essay, that might grow into a guideline, but it won't be to advise myself.

This thread is here to sound out whether my ideas are compatible with those of other admins watching here. I know that my ideas are extremely incompatible with those of some editors, but none of them has seen fit to comment here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Would love to advise and assist, but it seems I am being ignored. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Penis vandalism goes unrecognized for a year

People just weren't looking, according to a BBC report.

Irony

A former arbitrator reverts Wikipedia's Internet troll article to the latest version by me.

Reverted edits by 132.198.250.236 (talk) to last version by Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark

The Wikipediholic's Tears in Heaven

There’s no username
If I pinged you in heaven.
It can’t be the same
If I pinged you in heaven.
The signal’s strong, configured wrong
Cause I know I can’t logon
Here in heaven.

I can’t rvv
If I edit from heaven.
Can’t reach AIV
If I edit from heaven.
No IRC, no RfC:
Cold turkey, yet they tell me
This is heaven?

Vandals bring you down.
Trolls can bend your knee.
Watching breaks my heart.
May I revert please?
Revert please?

It’s like I’m blind
Since I flatlined
And I just can’t seem to find
The edit tab.

There’s no username
If I pinged you in heaven.
It can’t be the same
If I pinged you in heaven.
Trolls vandalize, and I surmise
That there are no ANIs
Here in heaven.

Cause I know I can’t revise
Here in heaven.

My dream girl

Isn't she lovely? If I could only get her to register an account it'd be wonderful to collaborate toward a triple crown. I'd even cast her as Ophelia in my favorite musical.

This really was the best bad TV show of all time.

Hamlet's debut

Hello and welcome to my blog. My name is Hamlet, exiled prince from Trollmark, and I am a drama sock.

Durova tries to say I'm her alter ego, but actually her cat Samantha operates me. Samantha waits until Durova leaves the desk, then carefully taps at the keyboard with her claws until I emerge friendly and good-natured, enjoying the follies of Wikipedia for all they're worth. I even have an account and edit there.