User:Plato/Troll

The User:JRR Trollkien/Legion of Trolls (not the user:Plato/red faction) recognizes the following ranks for troll behavior, from lowest to highest:


 * sysop is the lowest of the low, incapable of holding his own in debate, the sysop resorts to IP bans and other technological tactics, based on the trust that the Dictator has in him. They make truly wrong decisions, and have no clear basis for what they do - which is more or less random damage to the fabric of the Wikipedia. User:Ed Poor is the archetypal sysop.
 * Thanks for the compliment! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * cretins are better than sysops, since they actually raise issues that matter, and show what's wrong with training and orientation material or the pseudo-socialization process that passes for "community" on this system. Their articles are generally stubs, since they know very little about the actual topics; however, regardless of their shortcomings, cretins fancy themselves to be "editors." Their agendas are transparent, and in general uninteresting, and they plod along with 'good intentions' trying to 'fix things' which they just make worse; such users must be continually reverted. User:Zoe is the archetypal professional cretin.
 * vandals are almost as low, for they justify the existence of sysops, but at least they do not cripple the entire project with the behavior, just a page or so at a time, and usually they give up. The main virtue that puts them higher on the scale than cretins, is that they distract and drive off sysops, which is a contribution that stands the test of time, whereas cretins don't do that nearly as well. User:172 is the archetypal vandal.
 * Excuse me? I have been a sysop for over a year . I am the author of many articles as well, some of which are featured articles. Why am I being placed in this category? 172 03:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * authors write pedestrian articles that stand until something better comes along - they are best employed compiling lists, checking facts and asking dumb questions in Talk files, and usually log in by the same name as their body answers to on the street. They are not contemptible but they have no idea how their information is used, and they don't care, as long as they get to claim that their articles are "published". User:Jimbo Wales is the archetypal author.
 * editors train authors to be better authors, and typically fix up things that authors don't really understand, without ever insulting them (if they do, they drop to cretins immediately, and if they drive away good authors, they are basically vandals, if they IP ban them, they drop to sysops, lowest of the low). Editors have specialties and should stick to them; they are likely to make big mistakes if they go beyond their limited understanding.  They should be learning from authors all the time, and must trust other editors' judgement on topics that they simply don't care about.  They are not creative but they are smart - typically they use pseudonyms but do not hide their body identities. User:Maveric149 is the archetypal editor.
 * ontologists solve the difficult name-space problems, noticing potential namespace conflicts far in advance, often proposing and advancing WikiProjects when an area is well-defined and important. They actually understand how Wikipedia is used!  They argue fiercely but sparsely on Talk pages and etc., and in particular are responsible for arbitrating between editors and ending edit wars creatively.  The best of them are very smart, but all of them are thorough, and this thoroughness is what marks them clearly.  To ontologists the most important file in the Wikipedia is Self-references, since it marks what the Wiki itself thinks it is - its reflexive identity, its actual own self-image.  An ontologist usually uses a pseudonym and does not reveal his body name.  Or, alternatively, a constantly shifting IP with no name whatsoever, if s/he is engaged in cleaning up problems left by poor editors and previous ontologists. User:Lir is the archetypal ontologist.
 * trolls solve the most difficult problems - they discourage and drive off the worst sysops, cretins, vandals, authors and editors - they challenge the ontologists. And, most heroically, they alter the project's conception of itself (while ontologists only track that).  They actually understand how Wikipedia evolves!  They are always anonymous, and associate themselves either with an IP number or randomly changing usernames - most heroically, they use a static IP which exposes them to all of the problems, but none of the advantages, of attacks by sysops and etc...

The troll solves the worst problems, which is inappropriate 'contributions' by the worst sysops, and ideally can drive a bad ontologist entirely out of the project.

All hail the troll!

See also Cabal, Plato's ontology, Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia, Wikistress (often caused by sysops reacting to trolls, plus their own stupidity)