User talk:John1838

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Trolls

Trolling is deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It is necessarily a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution.(WP:DNFT)

The Trolls discussed on this page are a federation of devout, ecumenical, western Christians (DEWCs). Their favourite technique is to give genuine contributers the run around, pretending to be objective and striving to be NPOV, while making a series of increasingly unsustainable demands (eg asking for citations, then more citations, better citations, later citations, and so on). Their objectives seem to be to keep the text sympathetic to their own common POV. Their contributions often descend into edit wars - which is why for example the article on Christianity is disfigured a number of NPOV warning banners. Some of the more accomplished trolls can be identified only by reviewing their activities over a long time, as they take great care to conform to the letter of the rules and to be extremely polite to theit victims.

Not all edit war trolls will choose subject matter that is obviously controversial. The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise.(WP:DNFT)

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 troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others.(WP:DNFT)

Administrators are not empowered to block usernames for "trolling".WP:DNFT

Advice to people mistaken for Trolls: "If people are saying you're a troll because you do X, don't do X.".(WP:DNFT)


[edit] Trolls' characteristicae

1) They have a lot of free time, they are mostly lonely people. 2) They often ingratiate themselves to a person or two on the group and use them to stay in the group. They may protest with these "friends" that their right to free speech is being curtailed. 3) They sometimes use "socketpuppets", i.e. fake identities that may be used to sustain, or to inflame the troll's position or theory or attack. At times the socket puppets' names are anagrams or similar to the troll name. Thus a troll may engage in artificial conversations with himself. However impersonating multiple people is frowned upon by the more able trolls and is considered the lowest of the possible troll tactics. [[1] More information about Trolls]


[edit] DEWC Trolls - Modus Operandi

to follow - any suggestions ?

[edit] DEWC Trolls - How to spot one

to follow - any suggestions ?

[edit] DEWC Trolls - Some Examples

to follow - any particularly good ones ?

[edit] DEWC Trolls - Objectives

The objectives are not immediate obvious, but appear to be to maintain text which accords with their common POV. Presumably they believe that such text will encourage innocent readers to adopt the same POV. Some common themes are efforts to

  • minimise factual information that devout Western believers are known not to like (eg mention of supposedly characteristicly Christian ideas and practices which are known to predate Christianity)
  • maximise the role of Christians as innocent victims (eg as subjects of rather than insigators of persecution)
  • support ecumenical ideas (for example playing down schisms)
  • minimise any consideration other denominations(Early sects, Gnostics, Orthodox Churches, Coptic Church, etc)

[edit] DEWC Trolls - Contributors accused of being DEWC Trolls

to follow - can't see how we can avoid mentioning them by name? Might be a good idea to name only the worst offenders.

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, John1838, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Christianity

Please review WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Thanks...KHM03 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Draft Contribution: Modus Operandi

A oaradody was posted a few months ago setting out how the troll work on the Christianity page, but it seems to have been mysteriously removed.

Here's a straight version giving an outline of what it said

If an edit does not accord with the troll's PoV they will find numerous ways of subverting it. Depending on the circumstances they will use different techniques and it is noticeable that different trolls have their own personal favorites. Of course none of these indivudual actions is in itself illegal or even suspicious. The give away is finding a series of increasingly implausible reasons for refusing to accept a change using the following techniques:

- ask for a citation, however little it is needed (for example readily verifiable elsewhere - on the internet or in Wikipedia itself)

- if a citation is provided then question it on any vaguely plausible grounds (eg the source is too obscure, known to be partisan, not an expert in this particular field, now discredited, and so on)

- if several points are made or several citations are provided, they will generally concentrate on the one they think the most vulnerable. By purporting to refuting that one they will take the opportunity to ignore all of the others. Even if only one small point is disputed, whole paragraphs will be reverted.

- they will generally apply a double standard - requiring impeccable citations for edits that do not accord with their views, but consistently declining to provide comparable citations themselves

- they have been known to ask for evidence of something, then find a way to remove the evidence they have asked for, then start asking for evidence again.

- they will stick rigidly to the letter of the rules but ignore the spirit. For example they will be consistently be polite and remind the victim of the need to put the best possible interpretation on their own actions. But at the same time they will for example take every opportunity to misinterpret what is said. They will adhere rigidly to the 3 revert rule, but find ways to keep reverting without technically breaching the rule.

- if one member of the trolll group sees a fellow troll running out of amunition, they will invariably step in to help using an entirely new technique, effectively putting the victim back to square one and having to closely argue the case again. This can happen several times until the victim gives up.

- throw in red herrings to distract from the central argument. On accasion this takes the form of an exaggeratetedly polite interchange between two trolls over a matter of no importance. Another favorite is to raise doubts about identities and sockpuppets (though, to be fair, this is sometimes justified)

- some experienced trolls appear to have trainees. If an argument has been comprehensively lost, then the trainee will suddeny pop up and revert the disputed text to what it was days, weeks or months before, and will keep doing so until the victim gives up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.22.236.111 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Interesting Aside

For casual browsers - take a look at the article on Buddhism - What a contrast ! John1838 10:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy

Please review this and this when you have an opportunity. Thanks...KHM03 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted your user page as there is a section devoted to attack User:SOPHIA and the above user. Do not attack any other user in any way or you will face blocks. Thanks you. Sasquatch t|c 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't ever recall seeing any attack on User:SOPHIA. Maybe I missed something. From what I read it was sympathetic with Sophia who protested the unfair treatment of anyone who did not toe the party line (i.e. not a mainstream Christian in their POV), over at the Christtianity article. Since John's purpose here seems to be to expose and complain about this reality, I find it hard to believe he would want to attack one of its alleged victims.Giovanni33 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I would appreciate it if you would remove the DEWC material. It really does more harm than good. There is no cabal, unless you want there to be. Tom Harrison Talk 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But maybe there is a cabal. How can you be so sure there is not one? By a very lose definition, "1. (n.) A group of people who share characteristics," there certainly is. That this group works together for a common end seems also true. This is not necessarily a bad thing if its sufficiently broad and inclusive, such as our own Wiki communities. However, if it exists within the community that does not further the larger goals, to the extend that there is an organized conspiracy, is another question. Its clear to me that those that do share the same POV do talk to each other for purposes of advancing their own POV and suppressing those of others. Thus, there is a reasonable basis for John to speculate about this phenomenon, which is a potential (if not real) problem here. I think he should avoid any personal attacks, such as naming individuals. He can talk about articles where this seems to be happening. I see that as constructive. Erasing his talk page, only furthers the suspicion of a conspiracy. Giovanni33 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Personal attacks" also encompasses disparaging people because of their religious affiliation, whether that affiliation is real or suspected. If there is a cabal that is actually violating wikipedia policy, there are dispute resolution mechanisms in place to deal with that. Pages like this only serve to foment and worsen such disputes and polarize the people involved; they are not a constructive way to resolve the dispute. Wesley 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that disparaaging people because of their relgious affiliation is a personal attack, but it'a a different thing to disprage the ideas themsleves, or to point out that an ideology can lead to an expected bias coloring an editors work, and may explain modes of thought, assumptions, and therefore behavior--as it might for any other group of adherents to an ideological world view. We all have an ideology. To the degree that we don't recognize this, it tends to be, in the main, the dominant one. This and the attacking a person for a particular affliliation might be a fine line, and its only relevant as a problem when you get several people who think alike, that form a dominant group. But all this is quite distinct from a personal attack.
If there is a cabel, it would be hard to prove given it operates in a manner that is largly hidden, by defintion. I agree there are formal mechanisms which serve to resolve disputes, and that their use is contructive, while other methods may not be. However, talking about this problem, or the perception of this problem (real or not in reality) need not be negative or distruptive as long as its done tactfully and with an aim to formulating an understanding of it that can then lead to the formal dispute mechanisms. Giovanni33 02:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/User_talk%7EJohn1838_97a7.html"