User talk:Troll Silent, Troll Deep

Hi, You may have inadvertently chosen an inappropriate user name, please see Username. Please follow the procedure outline there an pick a user name which does not contain or refer to "troll". I will check back in a day or two, but must block the name Troll Silent, Troll Deep whether you have created a new account or not. You will still be able to create an account under a different name even if I block Troll Silent, Troll Deep. Fred Bauder 16:44, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I don't see any reason to block this account simply for having the word 'Troll' in it - see comments by Jimbo on this topic: 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. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 18:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to quickban you. That would be only for one day in any event. I propose to ban your user name for an indefinite time based on its inappropriateness. You may not be aware of the history of this, but there have been a large number of user names which have been created which are plays on the word "troll". If you are an innocent person who somehow unknowingly stubbled into the hornet's nest that those folks have created, I'm sorry, but the name you have chosen is unacceptable and can be banned by any Wikipedia administrator provided proper procedure is followed. Part of that procedure is to politely ask you to choose a new name and point you to the Wikipedia policy on inappropriate user names. Please select a new name, happy editing. Fred Bauder 18:48, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I read the policy, and cannot see which category my username fits into - why could this possibly be offensive? Troll Silent, Troll Deep 18:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Because of the history of its use any user name which contains the word "troll" is inappropriate. Any user name which contains "troll" is offensive to a significant number of Wikipedia users. If you are a user who innocently chose the name it is a simple matter to chose another name. All the history of troll this and troll doesn't matter. Fred Bauder 20:11, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * So let me understand your point. Anyone with a word in their username which a 'significant number of wikipedia users' claim is offensive, can be asked to change their name by anyone else? Aren't you kind of opening a Pandora's Box there? BTW, how many is significant? Thanks! Troll Silent, Troll Deep 20:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have correctly restated the established Wikipedia policy, although only Wikipedia administrators may enforce it. As to opening Pandora's box, it was opened long ago by those who began using names with "troll" contained therein. How many is significant is a matter of judgement. In the case of "troll" quite a few have expressed their distaste. Fred Bauder 21:01, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree - there seems to be no concensus about this. 'Troll' is clearly not an offensive word, and there is dispute about this within the admin Cabal. You can't unilaterily decide that a normal word is offensive just to facilitate your witchhunt. Distastefull, or not, from your point of view a good username, is not the same thing as offensive. Stop trolling and let people get on with writing. Yours, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 21:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome to create a user name which is appropriate and disagree to your heart's content, but the user name you are now using is subject to blocking. Troll is not an ordinary word on Wikipedia due to the history of its use. Fred Bauder 23:08, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo thought differently, and it certainly is an ordinary word, having over 12 different meanings. The fact that you have chosen to conduct a witchhunt is entirely divisive and a waste of everyones time. Please find something more productive to do - you have no mandate to decide these things, unless the Cabal has officially taken over. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 23:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sir, your references to witch-hunts and the "cabal" only support the suggestion that your choice of name was malicious. If you are a truly concerned Wikipedian, you should attempt to bring yourself in compliance with this policy. - Fennec 23:32, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. To sit back and do nothing while control is siezed by an unaccountable group of power-mad egomaniacs would be irresponsible and show only contempt for wikipedia. Re the 'policy', see my comment below to Fred. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 15:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there is an established Wikipedia policy which mandates blocking of inappropriate user names. Fred Bauder 05:56, May 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * There has never been a policy. A group of Admins have always behaved as if they could bully other users without consequence. When this issue (re usernames, which came to a head when Heph started banning people with names he didn't like) was raised with Jimbo, Jimbo stated that he did not believe that people should be banned for having the word 'troll' in them. You and a few of your goons started a kangaroo court to give yourselves this power despite Jimbo and many other's objections. Saying that you will be 'bound by this decision' is a little disigenous, since you are making it. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 15:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I will consider myself bound in this matter by the decision at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JRR_Trollkien#Blocking_of_JRR_Trollkien Fred Bauder 13:36, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

George Bush
Why the reversion of the As of link? Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It is a redirect to 2001. There is no point in changing to a redirect that ends at the same article. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:27, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Wikipedia talk:As of - it is a time sensitive marker - you can use the 'what links here' to tell which articles contain info that needs updating. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:30, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This does not appear to be an accepted practice yet. I don't understand why you would replace the link with a redirect but keep the same "2001" text.  I don't agree with the idea or, in this case, the implementation. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:42, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty common on many articles - As of will tell you how to access the list of articles that are linked to it. The purpose of keeping the same text is so that the reader doesn't need to worry about it. An editor looking for statements made in 2001 (or any year) like 'Is President' that will change in the future, can just look at the list of what links there to tell what needs to be updated. If you disagee with it, I suggest you take up the issue on the talk pages rather than start reverting folks who are putting in an accepted marker. Thanks, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The talk page you refer to has little traffic and little support. When it is an accepted policy it will be a different story.  I did read the link and that is why I responded that I disagree.  Can you provide a link where it was made general policy or where a vote was taken? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * (btw, thanks for the revert on my talk page. Can't figure out what the respiration image was all about...)

No, I'm not sure whether it is accepted policy - it seems that, rather than one group going round putting the links in, and another removing them, a more productive approach would be to work out whether we would do it. We are bold in making edits that there is not necessarily any policy for, and these links seem to provide a benefit, without causing harm. I am not going to start a revert war if you indist on removing them, but I find it anti-social, and think it undermines a group who are trying to make updating time sensitive pages easier. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't want to be categorized as a liar, so goodbye. - Hephaestos|&#167; 17:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

patently false accusation
User:Hephaestos has blocked this user accusing them of "persistent disruption of discussion" -- which has been defined for a long time as tampering with other people's comments (See Blocking policy and Three strikes you're out policy, 'Definition of "disruptive"' for some attempts to codify this longstanding community consensus). This accusation is an outright, bold-faced lie. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 21:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Removing my comment which referenced an earlier verison of Trollkien's comment. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:55, May 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * shut up