User talk:Leo Trollstoy

Poll on blocking Leo Trollstoy
UninvitedCompany has blocked this user for the reasons stated at User:Leo Trollstoy.

As this block seems to be controversial, we are conducting a poll about it. If you wish to discuss or show your support or opposition to this block, you may do so below. Note: Mark Richards objects to the validity of the poll based on the guidelines at Current surveys.

Support blocking this user

 * 1) User:Hephaestos (initial block)
 * 2) User:Hcheney (reinstated block)
 * 3) UninvitedCompany
 * 4) Ambivalenthysteria 02:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Martin 00:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) (as obvious reincarnation)

Oppose blocking this user

 * 1) User:Mark Richards (removed block on two occasions)
 * 2)  Erich 01:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC), personly I need more evidence than, although more evidence may justify a block

Neutral

 * 1) Guanaco 19:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments
This "poll" has no validity. Please see Current surveys for how to organise a poll.

If you don't like policy, campaign to have it changed (see all the 'troll polls'). There is no reason to block this user.


 * this user is in violation of Jimbo Wales' prohibition on obvious trolls that include the word "troll" in their username
 * this user may be a reincarnation of banned User:24.

Erm? First, where did Jimbo ever say "obvious trolls that include the word "troll" in their username" were prohbited?

Secondly, what evidence is there that this is a reincarnation of User:24?

This is just more vigilanteism in flagrant disregard for policy on these matters. Mark Richards 15:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Polls or surveys are not "valid" or "invalid". They are just polls - better or worse organised. It may have been organised in a way that the Survey guidelines recommend against, and that will affect how much of an impact it makes, no doubt. Martin 00:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you at least try to agree on the charges?
No one seems to be very clear on 'who' this is a reincarnation of. It's very convenient to be able to call a user a reincarnated banned user, claim you don't need to provide evidence because its obvious that they are, but not, unfortunately, something that our policies support us doing. Mark Richards 16:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Words in Jimbo's mouth?
Can anyone substantiate this (mis)quote of jimbo? I have seen him say that having 'troll' in a username is 'not' grounds for banning, never that it is. Mark Richards 17:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I assume that's based on his block log entry cited at User:The Fellowship of the Troll. I would have thought you knew about that already, since you actually re-blocked that account after Guanaco unblocked it. You might observe the semantic difference being made above between  obvious trolls that include the word "troll" in their username and his more general statements about users with the word "troll" in their username. This may be a strained interpretation to try and make Jimbo's various statements consistent with each other, but it appears to be the basis for the argument. --Michael Snow 18:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know about that, he banned TFoTT for vandalism, and commented on the name, but did not specify that this was a general statement about usernames or behavior.

The actual entry was: 21:21, 5 Feb 2004 User:Jimbo Wales blocked "The Fellowship of the Troll" (vandalism of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, username alone is sufficient to justify immediate banning)

Jimbo was later questioned on this and said:

''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.''

This seemed pretty clear, and was asked recently on IRC again - his answer was very similar - it was not a blanket permission to ban or block anyone. Mark Richards 18:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

His answer on IRC was "I see zero reason to think that permitting people to advocate for trolling is in any way helpful to neutrality." I don't see how that's at all similar. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That is not all he said, and even so, it is a far cry from authorising blanket bans. Mark Richards 02:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration committee
Of course, a very similar case about whether sysops could 'ban obvious trolls' was put before the arbitration committee recently. Their ruling did not support this. Mark Richards 19:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What ruling? There hasn't been any ruling in that case. You're free to argue that the lack of a ruling means something, but in general the arbitration committee seems to have concluded that it's not their role to decide policy issues like this. --Michael Snow 21:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, they took the case, and voted on it, voting that there was no such right. You are correct that they declined formally to rule on it, but I do interpret that their voting was an indicator of intent. It certainly is not supportive of the position that such a right exists. Mark Richards 22:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you examine the votes at Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien, all I see that they voted is that JRR Trollkien was not an offensive username, and that blocking him for an offensive username was unjustified. They didn't vote on the original question of whether sysops could ban obvious trolls, either for or against. --Michael Snow 22:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose you could argue that they did not express a clear opinion, but it seems very hard to read this as being an endorsement of banning users for have 'troll' in their names. Mark Richards 22:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, that's a straw man; nobody was saying that the arbitration committee endorsed such a statement. --Michael Snow 23:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Source of authority
So the question is, what reason or authority is being evoked here to justify this action? Mark Richards 23:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * banning policy, reincarnations subsection, I presume. Possibly also username. Martin 00:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)