Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Acceptance of case

This case is accepted solely "for the purpose of determining whether under existing Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls." (Fred Bauder)

Voting to accept: Camembert, Fred Bauder, the Epopt, James F., mav

Recusing self: Martin

Evidence to the evidence sub-page.

[edit] Comments from JRR Trollkien

This case is accepted solely "for the purpose of determining whether under existing Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls." (Fred Bauder)
There seems to be no consensus on this. MyRedDice has "Formally recuse[d himself] from the policy question, obviously", while Camembert has "Accept[ed the case] solely to look into the perceived problem of User:JRR Trollkien. [The arbcom is] not here to set policy--that is for the community at large (who sysops can block and the blocking of reincarnated users is covered in Wikipedia:Blocking policy, by the way - if you want that policy changing or clarifying, that would be the place to discuss it)--, and if people have a problem with what Martin has done, the first step is to talk to him about it." See [1]. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 18:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just voted to accept. --mav 03:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Troll" is a word that is so subjective as not really to have much meaning outside a slang insult which people start throwing around when they dislike a particular user. Any ruling based on such slang semantics without complete and unambiguous definition of this descriptor is liable to abuse for political reasons, makes witch-hunts very easy to start, and gives far too much unwarranted prerogative to a small clique or ilk of censorous power-grabbing vigilantes. You may as well simply tell sysops they can ban whomever they please, whenever they feel like it - it boils down to the same thing if such subjective criteria are used as a base.

Indeed, what seems to be at issue here is dissent, and deviation from the "community point of view". Every group need people who will provide alternative views to the group consensus, and, as long as they do it within the rules, and are not abusive, that is helpful to all but the most insecure community. I feel that it's time, to reclaim this word in an affirmative way - not in the negative sense of revertion wars, personal attacks and other clear policy violations, but as people who will point out inconsistancies, inane policies that are accepted because 'that's the way we've always done it' and other dangerous habits. We all feel threatened by being asked to challenge our assumptions, but, as long as the rules are observed, that's healthy. Banning dissent is frightful.

I would be far more inclined to support specific, unambiguous and objective policies, to not only set down exactly what is and is not permitted, so that users cannot be picked on and witch-hunted by an ilk of grudge-bearing sysops, but also that genuine reasons for action can be recorded in an objective fashion, building a far better system based on sound references, unambiguously clarifying the best course of action dependent on the case in question.

I will not, however, support any form of 'divine prerogative' for sysop cliques to indulge whatever petty prejudices they may have with impunity under the guise of 'striking out trolls'. You may catch a few witches, but you'll end up burning a lot more innocent old women. -- JRR Trollkien

Well, clearly a person might innocently and with no harmful intentions have a username which happens to contain the word 'troll', which is after all a perfectly normal word which has been hijacked by contemporary Internet slang. So clearly, a policy which says that people should be quickbanned just for that would be misguided at best. - Jimbo Wales

[edit] Statement by Martin

I've recused myself as an arbitrator from the question of policy. However, as someone named in Angela's request, I believe it's appropriate for me to make a brief statement.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am happy to concede that Trollkien is trolling and/or disruptive. However, I believe that under current policy, it is not the perogative of individual sysops to block users who they believe are trolling and/or disruptive. I interpret Jimbo's comments as offering forgiveness to those who have blocked "obvious trolls" in the past, rather than authorisation to go forth and repeat such blocks in the future. Policy can also come from the community, but I am not aware of any discussion which has reached a rough consensus in favour of allowing sysops to block "obvious trolls". Rather, it appears to me that some sysops have decided amongst themselves to act as "vigilantees".

I should make clear that I have a lot of respect for the various sysops who have blocked JRR Trollkien, as well as for Angela, and I fully accept that they were acting in what they considered the best interests of Wikipedia. Martin 23:39, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This case was supposed to be "solely" accepted for the purpose of determining what existing policy on blocking trolls might be. Findings and decrees regards username policy are off topic. Martin 23:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The facts of this case nevertheless involve a series of "troll" characters which were banned as "obvious trolls" until you reverted the bans saying that the username policy had not been followed. There is some question as to whether that policy is valid or whether support for it is weak but the case does revolve around it. Fred Bauder 00:31, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Slight correction: some were blocked as "obvious trolls" or "disruptive", while others were blocked for "inappropriate usernames". On some of the former occasions I unblocked as "troll" is not (in my view) sufficient reason to unilaterally ban. On some of the latter I unblocked as policy on usernames had not been followed. The block log will show this. Martin 00:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see the arbitrators vote on one (or both) of two findings of fact, to reflect what this case was solely accepted for, or else abandon the case.

1) Under existing Wikipedia policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.

2) Under existing Wikipedia policy, it is not acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.

That is supposed to be the purpose of this case, right? Martin 15:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration on JRR Trollkien

(From my user talk page) Fred Bauder 03:27, May 18, 2004 (UTC) Hi. Please take a look, if you haven't recently, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien/Evidence. Also, please take a look at the discussion going on between Hephaestos, Mark Richards, and I on Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions, concerning the ban of Controlling Us. Heph and I are concerned that the Committee is currently taking the wrong approach and is missing an important opportunity to clarify current policy.

By focusing entirely on Trollkien's user name (which was never more than a peripheral issue) the Committee is missing the point, and ignoring the true nature of the complaint against him. He is not an "obvious troll" because of his name. That's merely a warning sign. He's an "obvious troll" because of edits like [2], in which he nominates a vandal account with only around 20 edits (Sayyed al afghani) for adminship. He even defended this action on the evidence page. Angela and I have put together an extensive documentation of such misbehavior there, but Heph and I worry that it is being ignored in favor of making a decision on a side issue.

I am not so much concerned about what happens to Trollkien (although I think he has earned a ban.) More importantly, we need clearer guidance on what is acceptable for admins. Controlling Us is an excellent example, having been blocked by Morwen for what I would call obvious trolling. I had thought the Quickpoll system was intended to solve these problem, but it was hijacked as an enforcement tool for the three revert rule, and has apparently been disconinued.

If the arbitration committee continues its glacial pace, and avoids the truly important questions before it, we risk a return of the vigilante justice that was occuring before the committee started.

Could you please share the concerns of Hephaestos and I with the Committee, and consider ruling 1) On whether JRR Trollkien is, in fact, a troll, and should be banned as such. and 2) on whether any of his actions constitute "obvious trolling" for which he could be blocked.

Thank you, Isomorphic 01:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion by arbitrators

[edit] Angela's proposition

On April 9, 2004 User:Angela made an edit on Wikipedia:Blocking policy which proposed, "Users who are only here to disrupt the functioning of Wikipedia may be banned at the judgment of any sysop" That is, "obvious trolls" may be banned on the exercise of the descretion of any sysop. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angela's request for arbitration

On the same day, April 9, 2004 User:Angela also made a request to the arbitration committee to address the questions raised by User:JRR Trollkien and the attempts of User:Angela and other users to ban User:JRR Trollkien. See Final version of Angela's request Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Martin's opposition

These attempts to block JRR Trollkien had been blocked by User:MyRedDice, a member of the arbitration committee who has recused himself from this action. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance of the matter

This case is accepted solely "for the purpose of determining whether under existing Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls." Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unsettled nature of existing policy

The first mention of banning disruptive users on the page Wikipedia:Blocking policy was made by User:Angela and, in fact, followed the attempts to block JRR Trollkien. The question arises of whether Angela's addition of banning disruptive users had a background in established Wikipedia practice. Some statements she made have that import. For example, she states in her complaint, "The arbitration committee should be aware of other users that have been blocked for similar behaviour, often referred to as "trolling" in the block log, citing a large number of example, most of which incorporate "troll" into their user name. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is an "obvious troll"?

[edit] Fragrant feces

This matter covers a wide range of "obvious trolls". For example User talk:Fragrant feces who had an outrageous name but made a few useful edits of Angelina Jolie. This user may have responded to a request to change their name referencing Inappropriate usernames. At any rate no further edits were made under this name. The conclusion I draw from this is that the first thing to do when such a name is encountered is to request a change of name. Additionally, checking user contributions gives a clue as to whether their actual behavior is a problem. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angela is a troll

User:Angela is a troll combined a obnoxious name with edits which extended only to User:Angela's pages. No request for name change had been made when 14:05, 26 Mar 2004 Francs2000 blocked "User:Angela is a troll" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal, personal attacks, offensive username) See Wikipedia:Block log. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other "troll" examples

There are a number of other blocks on this log which involve blocking of users which incorporated "troll" into their user names.

  • 01:24, 26 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Troll" with an expiry time of indefinite (the reason should be obvious)
  • 01:46, 26 Mar 2004 Francs2000 blocked "Troll2" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll)
  • 02:58, 26 Mar 2004 RickK blocked "Troll3" with an expiry time of indefinite (I think it's obvious)
  • 02:31, Mar 26, 2004 Ugen64 blocked "Troll5" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandal reincarnation of User:Troll)
  • 02:14, Mar 26, 2004 Angela blocked "Troll3" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Reincarnation of the already-banned user:troll and troll2)
  • 01:47, 26 Mar 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Troll2" with an expiry time of indefinite (recurrence of User:Troll)
  • 01:46, 26 Mar 2004 Francs2000 blocked "Troll2" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll)
  • 03:49, Mar 26, 2004 Raul654 blocked "Love2troll" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll reincarnate)
  • 02:12, Apr 2, 2004 Silsor blocked "Troller" with an expiry time of 48 hours (We don't tolerate trolling.)
  • 04:50, 2 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Filibuster" with an expiry time of indefinite (trolling)
  • 02:18, Apr 3, 2004 Eloquence blocked "User2" with an expiry time of 24 hours (trolling)
  • 02:18, Apr 3, 2004 Eloquence blocked "User1" with an expiry time of 24 hours (trolling)
  • 19:26, 6 Apr 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "Burrowing Troll" with an expiry time of indefinite (sorry, wikipedia is not a "troll-friendly" wiki)

[edit] MyRedDice begins to unblock

  • 22:06, 6 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "I am sexy" (witch hunts are deprecated)
  • 22:01, 6 Apr 2004 Finlay McWalter blocked "I am sexy" with an expiry time of infinite (account created only for trolling, conduct clearly indicates a reincarnation of an old, bad wikipedian)
  • 20:31, 7 Apr 2004 Secretlondon unblocked "User:I am sexy" ("Witchhunts are depreciated")
  • 18:24, 7 Apr 2004 Ed Poor blocked "User:I am sexy" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Running virtual-sex website at Wikipedia)
  • 23:41, 7 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "JRR Trollkien" ("disruptive behavior" insufficient for unilateral blocking - use a quickpoll)
  • 23:23, 7 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "JRR Trollkien" with an expiry time of indefinite
  • 02:37, 8 Apr 2004 Kingturtle blocked "I am sexy" with an expiry time of 24 hours (13/2 vote in Quickpoll)
  • 00:48, Apr 8, 2004 Dori blocked "JRR Trollkien" with an expiry time of 24 hours
  • 15:14, 8 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Fine Handcrafted Troll" with an expiry time of indefinite ("experimenter" has returned. See mailing list.)
  • 23:22, 9 Apr 2004 Tannin blocked "JRR Trollkien" with an expiry time of 24 hours (troll)
  • 18:00, 9 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (as before)
  • 18:00, 9 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "The Trolls of Navarone" (as before)
  • 17:20, Apr 9, 2004 Silsor blocked "JRR Trollkien" with an expiry time of indefinite (trolling - go figure)
  • 17:08, Apr 9, 2004 Bcorr blocked "The Trolls of Navarone" with an expiry time of indefinite (username alone is sufficient to justify immediate banning, plus apparently making false claims of being blocked already)
  • 16:18, 9 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "The Trolls of Navarone" (Alleged inappropriate username not blocked in accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Usernames. Change the policy, or follow the process.)
  • 16:09, 9 Apr 2004 MyRedDice unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (no vandalism since last block)
  • 16:01, 9 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "JRR Trollkien" with an expiry time of indefinite (this account has had as much "process" as it is "due")
  • 16:01, 9 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "The Trolls of Navarone" with an expiry time of indefinite (needlessly antagonizing user name. Pick something else.)
  • 17:26, Apr 12, 2004 Dori blocked "Trolling Angela" with an expiry time of indefinite (account created for trolling)
  • 00:32, 15 Apr 2004 Maximus Rex blocked "Angela is a virus" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism)
  • 22:18, 14 Apr 2004 Hephaestos blocked "Angela is fused" with an expiry time of indefinite
  • 14:06, Apr 18, 2004 Exploding Boy blocked "User:Angela is a bitch" with an expiry time of indefinite (Account appears to have been created for the express purpose of harassing User:Angela)
  • 21:20, Apr 21, 2004 Dori blocked "Angela is anti-wiki" with an expiry time of indefinite (account created for vandalisms)
  • 21:35, 21 Apr 2004 Decumanus blocked "Angels" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal and troll account to harrass User:Angela)
  • 21:32, Apr 21, 2004 Ugen64 blocked "Angely" with an expiry time of indefinite (impersonation, vandalism)
  • 02:39, 26 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "Angela1000000" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal)
  • 19:19, Apr 28, 2004 Dante Alighieri unblocked "JRR Trollkien" (awaiting definitive evidence linking Trollkein to banned user)
  • 19:05, 28 Apr 2004 UninvitedCompany blocked "JRR Trollkien" with an expiry time of 120 days (Reincarnation of banned user "Entmoots of Trolls")
  • 15:22, May 1, 2004 Eloquence blocked "Enforcer" with an expiry time of infinite (trolling / libel against Wikimedia foundation) Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question by Mav

Other:
  1. Why not just change the name for the same account? That way all of JRR's contribs are under the same account. --mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, if we make this decision and in other cases also there is no reason JRR Trollkien could not be asked to select a name and the account could be transferred to that new name. I don't think we should choose a name for him, nor hold back from blocking him if he does not choose a new name. I don't think we have any obligation to integrate the user contributions of all "troll" accounts he may have used into one new account. Fred Bauder 13:24, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Inappropriate user names

  • Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names. The user name is not a forum to be offensive or make a statement. See Wikipedia:Username.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 18:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) (though it's possibly irrelevant here)
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 03:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC) Whether Wikipedia allows inflammatory or offensive user names is moot -- I do not find "JRR Trollkien" to be inflammatory or offensive.
Other:
  1. Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I do agree with the principle in general, but don't think it applies here.
  2. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) Idem

[edit] Change of user name

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 18:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) (though again, it may be irrelevant in this case)
  5. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) idem Camembert
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 03:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC) I cannot support a policy that requires a user to change his name because someone doesn't like it. ("No one has a right to any particular user name. .... This might include legitimate names....") Furthermore, I do not find "JRR Trollkien" to be offensive.
Other:
  1. Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I'm confused what this is supposed to be. If it's just reaffirming the existing policy that some usernames *may* be forced to change, then yes, that's true. If it's implying that this particular one ought to be, then I disagree.

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Disruptive actions

JRR Trollkien has engaged in a number of disruptive actions of the sort commonly known as trolling. For example he has nominated or supported other known disruptive users such as User:Bird and User:Sayyed al afghani for administrator, see [3], [4], [5] and [6].

The user User:Sayyed al afghani, (take a look at his user page), made the following disruptive edits: [7], [8], [9] and [10]. User:Sayyed al afghani has an ip address of 65.41.13.156, see [11]. This is shown by the edits at [12] and [13].

  1. Support Fred Bauder 11:09, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support Delirium 05:49, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote, just a question - are there instances of disruptive behaviour other than on RfA? And what does Sayyed al afghani's IP address have to do with anything? --Camembert

[edit] Offensive user names

  • The bulk of the instances where users were banned as "obvious trolls" involved an offensive user name most of which included "troll" in addition to offensive behavior which might be termed trolling.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:39, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 03:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- I do not find those names offensive. If their behavior was offensive, charge them accordingly. Their name(s) alone are insufficient.
Other:
  1. Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I don't feel able to judge this as a blanket statement---individual cases have differed quite a bit.
  2. Camembert 18:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm not too sure what the point of this finding is, and it does seems a bit of a blanket statement, as Delirium says.
  3. The Cunctator 14:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) I don't like it. The use of the term of art "offensive user name" isn't appropriate.
  4. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) How would this judgement affect anything? I don't understand what this implies, so I prefer to abstain. Also, this is statistics, it's not ruling. It's like ruling on whether most American Presidents were aged over 50 when elected -- some maybe were, some maybe weren't, but that doesn't prove or regulate anything about future presidents.

[edit] JRR Trollkien is an offensive name

  • In the context of repeated attempts to create user accounts which play on some variation of "troll", the name JRR Trollkien is considered offensive by a some Wikipedia users such as Angela who have been impacted by that activity.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:39, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 03:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC) I do not agree that "JRR Trollkien" is an offensive name. His behavior may be actionable; his name is not.
  2. Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I don't think it's offensive. "User:Angela is a troll" (see below) is, but "JRR Trollkien" is not, imo. Just on the basis of the name, it could be either a legitimate contributor who found it amusing, or a troublemaker, and we should decide based on the actions.
  3. Camembert 18:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC) This is just silly. I know some people feel that users shouldn't be allowed to have the word "troll" in the username (not a view I share, but that's not important), and one could perhaps argue the name is needlessly provocative, but it surely isn't offensive. Angela doesn't find it offensive (see talk), I don't find it offensive, I'm at a loss to see how anybody could find it offensive.
  4. James F. (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. The Cunctator 17:27, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) A bit after the fact to be weighing in, but really.
  6. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Other:

[edit] Users have been blocked for name without a name-change request

  • In some cases, for example User:Angela is a troll, and perhaps JRR Trollkien where because of use of "troll" or some variation in the user name made the matter seem obvious, users were blocked without the usual polite request to select a new user name, being simply labeled, "troll".

(UPDATE The Cunctator 14:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)) A request should be made to select a new user name first.

Support:
  1. The Cunctator 14:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) I think it may be reasonable to block users with names such as "Angela is a troll" but a request to change the name should be made first.
  2. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) Idem
:(votes before update)
  1. Fred Bauder 16:39, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. the Epopt 03:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Other (votes before update):
  1. Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I agree with the "in some instances". I don't think "JRR Trollkien" should have been banned on sight, but I do think it was perfectly fine to ban "Angela is a troll" on site, so am not voting yes for that reason.
  2. Camembert 18:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) Can somebody who understands what this sentence is trying to say have a go at restructuring it? It makes my head hurt.

[edit] JRR Trolkein is a reincarnation of 24/142.177/EntmootsOfTrolls

  • JRR Trolkein is a reincarnation of the previously permanently-banned user known as 24, 142.177, EntmootsOfTrolls, and other names. As such, JRR Trolkein is, also, permanently-banned. See evidence at User talk:JRR Trollkien.
Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 04:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 04:34, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Delirium 07:48, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
Other:
  1. Camembert 18:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) (it may well be true, but I'd really like to see some evidence cited as part of this finding before I support it - I may try to dig some up myself later, but it would be really good if somebody else could do it, because I'm lazy busy)
  2. the Epopt 03:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any evidence. It would not be difficult to get my support, but some evidence must be presented.
  3. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) No evidence

[edit] Blocking trolls

  • It is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
Support:
Oppose:
Other:
  1. Camembert 12:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't see anything on current Wikipedia: policy pages to support this, but they, after all, only reflect community opinion. Still, I feel that if we affirmed this, we'd effectively be making a new policy, which isn't really what the arbitration committee is for. That's a matter for the community at large. --Camembert
  2. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with Camembert. Personally I would support this if the term "obvious trolls" is defined beyond common sense. We've seen all too many times how people interpret words to their liking when they get emotionally involved in a decision.

[edit] Proposed relief

As stated at top:

This case is accepted solely "for the purpose of determining whether under existing Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls."

There shouldn't be any proposed relief! Or am I wrong here? Ack! Fred is voting to block Trollkien, but he's the one who wrote the above text. My brain is melting from cognitive dissonance. --The Cunctator 03:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, you're right. I've added a finding of fact above ("It is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls"). I'm not sure we should have accepted the case solely to determine that, though (it isn't, in my opinion, something we should be determining at all), so maybe voting on other things is so unreasonable? -- Camembert 12:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of JRR Trollkien due to name

  • As JRR Trollkien is an offensive name which significantly offends Angela and other users it may be blocked indefinitely by any sysop provided they follow the procedure at Blocking Policy Usernames. This permits the person who created the account JRR Trollkien to either voluntarily choose another user name before the account is blocked or later after it is blocked.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:46, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. the Epopt 03:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC) I do not find his name alone to be a bannable offence. It is possible that his behavior is bannable, but that is not being discussed here.
  2. Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC) I don't find it bannable alone either. It's quite conceivable one of us jaded internet-denizens might pick such a name as an amusing joke, and still be a valuable contributor. If that's not the case here, then he/she should be banned for his/her actions instead. --Delirium 11:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Camembert 18:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. The Cunctator 14:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC) This case was not accepted to propose relief but to determine whether "it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls".
  6. Gutza 13:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't find it bannable alone either, and I also agree with The Cunctator.
Other:
  1. Why not just change the name for the same account? That way all of JRR's contribs are under the same account. --mav 06:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

I think this has lingered on long enough

Aye

  1. →Raul654 06:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:25, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Sadly, yes. James F. (talk) 18:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 02:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_JRR_Trollkien_7c8c.html"