Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] oppose
Oppose. The arbitration committee is not in the role of creating new policies -- see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Usernames. Also, I believe that "trolling" is too vague and subjective and is liable to be abused for political purposes. What exactly is to constitute "trolling"? If a user is obviously vandalizing, and only has been vandalizing, then the vandalizing component of this policy is already covered by the existing blocking policy See also my comments on Wikipedia:Three strikes you're out policy JRR Trollkien 19:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone objects to blocking users who are trolling. I am, however, opposed to blocking users who've done nothing wrong, based solely on their username—we have an established process for dealing with usernames deemed inappropriate and it doesn't call for blocking on sight. Mkweise 19:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- It is my understanding that any username with the word Troll in it can be immediately blocked indefinitely. Kingturtle 19:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- If that is the policy, we should make a note of it on the page new users see when choosing a username. I am very concerned about innocents who might otherwise become valuable contributors falling victim to such a policy. Trolls have a rich history outside of the internet meaning of the word, you know. Mkweise 19:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
If the arbitration committee can not deal with an issue it sees as a policy issue, perhaps it should deal just with the case of User:JRR Trollkien instead. However, I doubt the usefulness of this if he will just change name and continue trolling. Will the arbitration ruling apply to whatever his new user name is? If so, how are users supposed to prove it is the same person, and what procedure must they go through in order to reban him following an arbitration decision that he should be banned? Angela. 19:36, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
All the stuff about usernames is off-topic to Angela's request, as she wrote it. The rest has been summarised. Martin 00:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] protests
There being nowhere else to do it, I protest this here.
What is being proposed is that Admins be given the power to block anyone they diagree with, simply by calling them a troll. There is no definition of troll being proposed that is more than 'someone who I don't agree with'. This is a disgrace, and will lead to further disillusionment and resentment from those outside the ruling Cabal. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 20:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
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".
- Is this wrong? Considering Special:Contributions/Angela is a troll (vandalism of User:Angela), is there any doubt that this block should not have been executed, under the spirit of the general username and vandalism policies? Is it even a close call? Following this arbitration ruling, would sysops be disgouraged from blocking users of this type? I find this item ludicrous. -Fennec 04:28, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yes, certainly some of these accounts were used for straight vandalism, and such a block seems entirely natural under the vandalism policy - the only thing I might raise an eyebrow at is the length of the ban. Martin 13:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't see a problem at all with an indefinite ban on accounts in those situations. When an IP does that, the IP is banned for 24 hours. When someone bothers to take the 20 seconds or so to make an account first, if the account is then banned, the associated IP is banned for 24 hours. Why would anyone want a brand-new account back, when it's history is all vandalism? So that folks can say "ah yes, you're the one who started out here vandalising?" Better they take an additional 20 seconds or so and make a new one. - Hephaestos|§ 16:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Lengthy response. Executive summary: I don't see a problem. I do wonder about whether shorter account bans might have benefits. However, it's not a very important question.
-
- I guess there are a few reasons why I personally would tend towards 24hr blocks on vandalising accounts. The first is that, if a vandal comes back under their old account and vandalises again, then having the histories together means that we can easily block after just one instance of new vandalism. In a new account, we would typically give a warning first, right? It also allows people who recognise the name of the account to pay extra attention to its edits. This might allow for easier handling of vandals who are more interested in vandalising than vandalising "successfully".
-
- The second reason is cluttering the list of current blocks with simple vandals. Since we do need to review that list for (eg) AOL proxies that have been permenently blocked, that's a little awkward. Thirdly, I think knowing (more often) when existing vandals have returned will help us understand vandals a bit more. For example, I've often wondered whether the manner of blocking has an impact on return. I also wonder if encouraging reformed vandals to set up a new account weakens the sock puppets policy, because we're being a little self-inconsistent. Martin 12:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
"the name JRR Trollkien is considered offensive by a some Wikipedia users such as Angela"
- I have never claimed I find this name offensive. I find his behavior disruptive. I'm confused as to why the arbitrators are focusing on an issue that was never raised in the request for arbitration. The examples I gave on the evidence page were completely unrelated to name issues, and I did not mention the name issue when I made the request for arbitration. Angela. 06:01, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, me too. Hopefully they'll fix this. Martin 01:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- use of "troll" or some variation in the user name made the matter seem obvious
Made what seem obvious? That the user is a troll? That they have an "offensive user name"? That they needed to be blocked? Martin 23:22, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
This case, on its "sole premise", has been an utter failure. - Hephaestos|§ 04:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Fine, Jdforrester, thanks for moving my comment. Nobody reads either damn page anyway. (Did they ever?) - Hephaestos|§ 04:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree Heph. I'm increasingly glad I recused myself from this. Martin 16:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Angela's suggestion to close the case
Is this still open? It seems a little pointless since he's banned now. Could it be officially closed please? Angela. 22:40, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to second that suggestion (as an involved party, not as an arbitrator, as I'm recused). Martin 22:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[Moved.]
I agree; I move to close. Thoughts, my Arbitratorial brethren?
James F. (talk) 23:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In prior cases (eg mav vs 168) the motion to close has taken place on the page itself. *shrug* Martin 23:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
