Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What is a troll?


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. I think we can see by the discussion, where this is going. (nonadmin) Navou banter 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a troll?
Let's get this straight, we already have, Do not insult the vandals, WP:DENY, and WP:RBI, and so this page doesn't really serve a purpose on wikipedia. People are not trolls, and calling such people that is insulting, and harsh; and doing such puts people down to their level. Those other guidelines feel in the need that annoying disruptive people should be ignored, and denied; and the main purpose of this nomination. As that with those two essays, this one isn't needed, and I believe that calling people trolls provokes a response to cause even more problems, which is what they may be looking for. The sunder king 12:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Created in response to "I not a troll" claims from trolls. Raul654 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it's redundant to any other essay. WP:SPAM defines spam and tells you how not to be a spammer and how to respond to spam; I don't see how trolling is fundamentally different. Shalom Hello 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this page dating back to 2004 and describing behavior that has been commonly encountered then and since. If the nominator believes the listed page does not do its job well enough, he is free to edit it rather than seeking to delete it. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how it's redundant to other essays. Also, (and I hate to use this even as part of a keep rationale) but it's useful. This essay describes different types of trolling. The page may need improving, but not deleting. Acalamari 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with all of the above. The purpose of this essay is to describe what a troll is, not to accuse particular people of being trolls. This essay is not redundant, since trolls are distinct from spammers and vandals. If there are specific problems with this essay, the solution is to address them, not delete the entire page. Chaz Beckett 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Many people abuse the word "troll", throwing it at anyone they dislike. This page needs to discourage such behavior.  --Ideogram 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, perhaps a section titled "What isn't trolling?" might be helpful. Chaz Beckett 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the first subsection ("Bad faith") already says: "When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem." ---Sluzzelin talk  23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If somebody is trolling, they are a troll. This page helps to explain the terminology.  Keep   as a useful tool for education.  Jehochman  Talk 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly not redundant to the other essays listed by the nominator. I agree with Jehochman, it's useful to have this page. During my first weeks here, I also read it, found it informative, and have re-read it occasionally when frustrated by what I saw as trolling. Re-reading it usually calmed me down and helped me lose the need to throw the T-word in the perpetrator's face. ---Sluzzelin  talk  23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the essay is mature and humane in its insistence that we need to start by looking for alternative explanations of troll-like behavior. I recently found the section "Pestering" (asking "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers") almost spookily appropriate to a case I was involved in. In the acute state of irritation I was in, it was a good thing the section was hedged with cautions about other reasons for repetitively asking dumb-seeming or confused questions. It would be a real waste to delete this useful piece. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Trolls are a significant part on any internet forum. Whenever there is a place for discussion, there is a troll. Therefore, it's important to have this essay to remind others about such behaviour, to prevent aggrevating matters more.--Alasdair 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reason for this made no sense. There are 3 essays who think something, and one essay who contradicted them, so the one should be deleted? This is exactly what an essay is supposed to be:In the project space, and explaining opinions of some authors. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; it's a good essay, and quite to the point. I encounter people all the time in "real life" (remember that?) who look at me blankly when I use the word "troll"; not everyone knows the lingo of internet culture.  Some of these people will happen upon Wikipedia and try editing.  Basic explanatory pages like this are essential.  Antandrus  (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - well, I have found it very useful :) Moreschi Talk 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom, this is about trolling, not vandalism. Kusma (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Very useful. Raymond Arritt 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.