Template talk:Trolltop

I just saw this on Rc & read "trollop" - thought it was designed for me! 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: do not delete, but we are discussing alternatives to this template below

Yea ADK...I'll dehydrate your lava! 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 67.159.36.22 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC) MarcusCicero (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Leninist123 (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Anarcho Symphony Noise Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Per the ghost of Susan, kill this garbage with fire. ħuman 05:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC) It's been abused from the start and the original purpose was mooted by the LJ's decision to permit unilateral deletion of certain talkpage comments. 05:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I've never seen this help anything. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Nay What isn't helping is edit warring over its use. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC) --ǓḤṂ³ 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Rationalize (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC) serves as a good rebuke to trolling and flaming.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I likes it. The shit is still there, but you don't have to plough through it after someone's kindly used these templates DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Aceof Spades 05:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC) -- Nx / talk 05:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Here comes my infrequent hat. Blue (is useful) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC) ListenerXTalkerX 19:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC) --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Pippa (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC) --BobSpring is sprung! 17:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I'm Nutty Roux, an established editor changing my vote as a BoN--68.225.194.245 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (this BoN is not actually Nutty) Goat ТyYes? 02:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not helping this and the wheel warring over what people define as "blatant" or "obvious" trolling is a testament to that. This is why we need a smaller number of like-minded people with the authority to make these decisions instead of just putting this up and pissing about over it. ADK^{...I'll cruise your cockroach!} 19:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just get rid of it. I've seen at least 3 pissing contests within the last few days over the use of it. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 20:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over the use might be the problem, but this sort of thing cannot be effective if edit warring is allowed to continue. And of course, without the ability to actually stop people going for the rollback button repeatedly it can't stop. ADK^{...I'll quantify your weasel!} 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

While I believe that calling each other trolls doesn't help much, this template is better then making 40 nasty comments in a row. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't help if it can be rolled back and cause additional problems. ADK^{...I'll deter your beagle!} 20:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Two things. One, this will be very difficult to get rid of because it is an in-text template and used so frequently, so there will be a lot of red links left over - I suggest, rather than deleting it, simply blanking it, to avoid the red links issue. Two, I originally developed this as a way of not "removing" comments but still hiding them from view, in the wake of the controversial Loya Jirga decision, so I agree that it is no longer useful. However, I completely agree with Armondikov about the "smaller number" solution. Blue (pester) 20:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking would be the practical solution, rather than "delete". I agree that hiding rather than deleting is best for this sort of thing but when edit warring ensues, it cannot serve its purpose. ADK^{...I'll abandon your mammary gland!} 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Its stupid and indicative of the decline of the wiki. Reject it forthwith and refuse to tolerate any halfwit who uses it. Its typical really, you cunts can never be happy unless your censoring and generally fucking with people. Just ignore what you dislike and get on with your lives, stop attempting to control everything you fascist bastards. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting it will cause problems. Just nullify it by blanking {{Trolltop}} and {{Trollbottom}}. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

BoN's get a vote?--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The BoN's vote has been stricken, as it was Occasionaluse's IP and he voted with his proper account. Blue (is useful) 19:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't my IP. I'm not sure who did that. Nonetheless... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Unstricken. It was the cheerleader troll. If he/she/it wishes to log in to vote, he/she/it can simple add her/his/its sig in place of the BON. 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second - so we can't delete comments from talk pages because they're "public property" and we can't use this template when some Malignant Cunt crawls out of a sewer to deliberately crap on talk pages? I really think we're being too prissy about this. I think if people want comments removed or hidden from their talk pages they should be allowed to do so. End of story. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when can't you remove some of the comments MC made on your page that are solely personal attacks? You did remove them, didn't you? I didn't follow this before it exploded so I honestly don't know. I do know the edit warring over use of the template and the lack of a useful definition of troll are the very reasons this template is shit. It gets used to commit a kind of genetic fallacy where the OP is not always straight "trolling," whatever that even is but gets smeared. Why isn't the community coming up with a real standard instead of letting the issue and this page smolder for months? You people seem to want drama more than you want peace. Learn to fucking suck up criticism and harsh words and use the LJs policy to remove whatever kinds of comments it permitted to be removed. And for fucks sake follow WPs lead and use a less inflammatory collapse template for off topic comments. Also, fuck you to the people who edit war the removal of this template on pages where it's been used inappropriately. You perpetuate problems like this. 14:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as we can find something that can be consistently applied, I'm fine with it. It shouldn't have to be a HCM every time. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But how will these people get their daily dose of pointless drama? All the good soap operas were canceled years ago. Maybe enough HCMs (this isn't really an HCM) will teach you guys to devise real policies that actually provide helpful guidance instead of putting out fires. 15:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Finalized?

Can we close the vote now, or should we wait some more?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

How about reverting the "rule" that user talk pages are community property? Leave it up to the user what's there? It might stop a whole lot of strop. Pippa (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure which I like more: all or nothing. Either everything stays (until it can be archived) or anything can go. Those are the only two options which are both consistent and feasible. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Or people wash the sand out of their vaginas and learn how to use the collapse template we already fucking had. 15:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That would imply the former. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I wasn't being clear enough. Learn to use the collapse template. Remove what the LJ says you can remove. And be prepared to be cooped if people disagree and you're obnoxious about it. And THEN the community will hopefully start learning that when shit like this starts heating up it needs to get smart and come up with real policies instead of voting on the symptoms. 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Loya jirga

The lj decided that obvious trolling can be deleted, and now it's in the standards as well. Are we just going to ignore that, in which case why do we even have the lj or the standards? -- Nx / talk 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Loya Jirga said we could delete trolling from user talkpages. This has been overused to censor people on non-user talkpages. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial"

It doesn't say anything about non-article talk pages, but I'm going to assume by "article talk pages" they meant everything else that's not a user talk page. -- Nx / talk 22:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but this template does neither of those things. By "delete the vile" they meant you can actually delete it outright from the page by blanking it off the page. This template does not do that. By "ignore the trivial" it meant that if you're not sure how to take it, just leave it alone. Censoring comments with this template does not "ignore it", on the contrary. Therefore, this template serves no purpose but to be a means of censorship. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion is censorship. Hiding comments is not censorship. I'm not really comfortable with deleting comments even if they're nothing more than personal attacks. Hiding them with this template is a good compromise IMHO. -- Nx / talk 22:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm glad to see that it's never been abused in light of the policy of deleting the vile and ignoring the trivial, either! Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Go complain to the loya jirga that their decision was not well thought out -- Nx / talk 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The lj decided that people could remove hate from their user talk page. Not what you said. ħuman 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"obviously vile comments can be deleted by anyone. Others leave up to the person who's talk page it is. Article talk pages: delete the vile; ignore the trivial"

It doesn't say anything about non-article talk pages, but I'm going to assume by "article talk pages" you meant everything else that's not a user talk page. -- Nx / talk 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Punishing people results in fascism. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no one agrees on what "obvious" means. While I'm sure OU is just doing it to piss people off, no one really agrees on what blatant trolling is. And as the LJ can't enforce the standards, it's a pointless exercise anyway. ADK^{...I'll suffocate your arc welder!} 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)(EC)(EC)So I should have just deleted the trolling instead of getting into a wheel war with you, despite cordially inviting you to discuss the issue on your talk page? Or should we change the standards to read "trolling obvious to Nx"? 67.159.36.25 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Also keep in mind that the standards are not rules, and as such cannot be enforced by anybody. They're not rules, goddammit! Trent said no rules! Blue (pester) 20:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just only use it when trolling is really really obvious. The definition of trolling on RW seems to be "comments I don't like that are slightly inapropriate" (in addition also: "When I don't want to discuss anything with someone anymore, I can just call him a troll - and if he has been called that before it's completely ok no matter what the content is"). Seriously, it's not easy to pin-point down what a troll is and does if we only use what we have from RW. Actually at that point it's simply a term we call people we're pissed at. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Because "really really obvious" STILL isn't a usable definition. ADK^{...I'll dry your dollhouse!} 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted too reject that with common sense but by then it came to mind where I'm making this comment. So you're right. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I don't particularly think there is a way of making a working definition. If you make your definition, people can try to slime around it. All we need is for people to make the judgment of "yes, that was too far" and for that to be final. ADK^{...I'll explicate your buddy!} 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Too far? By who's standard? Same story. Just ignore it. You'll end up looking better in the end and the "troll" will look worse. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Moderation

The current Mod discussion here shows need for this template. Тy^YAUA 02:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This template is a lazy version of cheap censorship. Oh, my, I must click a link to see the missing comment someone didn't like? ħuman 04:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The alternative is that the comment gets deleted, and you may not even know it was there unless you check the history. -- Nx / talk 05:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but reverting comments is far harder to get by with and abuse than this nonsense which, I proved in some post above, has been used overzealously. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 06:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. I said deleting, not reverting. Meaning you click edit, find the comment, select it, hit delete, and save. -- Nx / talk 06:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Less inflammatory alternative

{{Collapse}} and {{Collapse end}} serve the same purpose but don't automatically accuse the commenter(s) of trolling. This is a perfect example of an off-topic conversation between two editors that no-one cares about, but labeling it as trolling just creates more butthurt. -- Nx / talk 19:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also a chance for mods to show off without banning. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your filibuster!} 19:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw my lot in here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it. i prefer the firm rebuking of unacceptable behavior. Simply collapsing will confuse as to the intent.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, redirecting this to {{collapse}} would probably be the best option. ADK^{...I'll jerk your ape!} 22:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wildly overused and in need of policy or blanking

I suppose these templates have become part of wiki culture now, which is a shame. When I created them all those years ago, they were meant for a single purpose: as a compromise between the faction who wanted to ban MarcusCicero outright and the faction that wanted to give him an unlimited right to post (and troll, in the view of some). As we know, the former faction ultimately won, and MC is no more. These templates have lived on, however, and now serve as way of an established user to obliquely call a dissenter a troll. This overuse has caused a ridiculous number of pointless edit wars.

My recommendation is for us to institute a policy seriously curtailing the use of these templates. I fear that such a policy would be impossible without giving moderators actual authority to moderate, so that's out. The next best thing is to just blank them and be done with it. Blue (is useful) 17:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Idle suggestion: The template should only be used in the case of personal attacks. If something is offtopic and/or offensive, it should be moved to forum space or Robrail--"Shut up, Brx." 17:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's currently being used on a Talk:HIV denial thread by the very person who started a thread to hide its dialectic failure. The converssation is on-Topic to the max. Argument by toptroll at the click of a mouse... bad idea.-- Brasov 17:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the {{collapse}} idea above. Redirect this to that. It also has a more positive use, of allowing subthreads to develop without derailing the main thread. Sophie^Wilder 18:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Collapse would be better I guess. Humorless fascist^sociopath 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always supported getting rid of this stupid template. It's always been widely overused and will always be widely overused. It's just the nature of having no enforced standards of use for things like this. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like most of the "trolling" occurs during the late hours. Maybe if we somehow restricted editing rights during those hours, the problem would go away? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think, perhaps, a mode we could turn on/off at night might help this situation? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's like you're reading my mind! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Collapse}} says "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." If we'd like to redirect this template to that, we might want to change the wording on the latter to allow the collapsed discussion to continue. I still favor blanking. Blue (pester) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

according to the documentation, you can change the text to suit. Sophie^Wilder 10:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

'Spoiler' template

Can someone more versed in Wiki than me create a generic version of this that can be used to hide large pieces of text so that everyone doesn't have to scroll through them? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, nevermind then. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)