#OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS PLUS#

I agree with RagnГ¤rok that this poll is in violation of the quickpolls policy.Perhaps it would be worth writing a page on wikipedia:dealing with trolls? Martin 17:03, (UTC) I continue to support blocking of obvious reincarnations of banned users. I reluctantly have to agree with Seth, based on some of the people that some sysops have seen fit to categorise as trolls - people who, in my opinion, did not warrant a lifetime ban.Poorly defined 'rules' tend to cause more problems than they solve. Oppose, mainly for the reason that a significant minority of people use the term 'troll' to mean 'user who annoys me.' I trust the judgement of 95% of sysops 95% of the time, and I don't believe that we need to endorse banning of 'obvious trolls' in order to strengthen the position of sysops within the present system.If obvious trolling not equal to vandalism, then i oppose. For me, obvious trolling = vandalism, and that is already discussed to nausea. This is another false problem designed by the community as a way to spend the weekend.But with these proper safeguards in place - yes, an Admin should take this course in order to safeguard the project. A procedure for reversal is also a given. Also agree that we must maintain good faith in case of naive new users. SkArcher 19:24, (UTC) Concur with Dysprosia - meaningful contribution to Wikipedia should be a rule that prevents an Admin from taking this course.Also, I think that we need to have a page set up where sysops explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans (forgive me if we already do). Support, so long as the final policy is specific and clear.There are going to be arguments otherwise.

Support but i do think we will need a strict definintion of what obvious trolling is.Dysprosia 08:09, (UTC) if and only if they have not been contributing productively also.Heresiarch 23:53, (UTC) Agreed w/ Alteripse. We need spend more effort giving positive reinforcement to those who do the work here and less attention and agonizing over those who can't or won't. Nobody 'accidentally' does all those things and they will keep right on doing them until we don't let them. You look at whether someone spends more time editing or arguing, how they respond to a disagreement, how much they perseverate over minutiae, how much time of real contributers they waste, how much they complain about those who do the work here, and how quickly they support the few others whose purpose here seems to be other than writing. Alteripse 02:36, (UTC) People, it isn't that hard.People who come to the project to incite conflict should be asked to leave. But get the trolling and obvious anti-encyclopedic behavior out of here. Sysops will at times make horrible and inecusable errors. And remember that if some admin makes a bad judgement call, any other admin can unblock. This can be a useful tool to minimize damage. Infrogmation 17:30, (UTC) Yes, with the stipulation that I think we are talking about a 'block' rather than a 'ban' here (ban seems to me to be a more formal procedure).So provided they ban obvious 'u r gay', 'the holocaust never happened', 'relativity is false' etc trolls, and will take being overturned with good grace, yes. Tarquin Admins are people whose judgement we broadly trust.users with 'troll' in their username, or variations on previously banned names. Particularly when they go out of their way to make it clear that trolling is their aim eg. It's important to assume good faith, but not to the point of being naive and allowing good contributors to be driven off.Yes, and let's not water down this resolution by trying to define 'troll' and 'obvious' in detail - I trust the judgement of 98% of admins on this matter.

Support - Graham вє | Talk 13:34, (UTC).I don't think he did - can you reference that? Mark Richards 19:53, (UTC)

#OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS PLUS#

troll-reference in user-name plus provocative or revenant behaviour). Obvious should mean flouting the system (e.g. Where to draw the line for 'obvious' is another debate entirely.

Tannin 09:25, (UTC) If it isn't, then there really isn't much point in having sysops at all.

Is it acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls? (NOW CLOSED) (31/18/1) Support в†’Raul654 19:01, (UTC)ДЄfter a four-month deadlock in the arbitration committee, it seems appropriate that this question should be decided by the user community at large. A new poll has been started at Wikipedia:Trolling poll.

2 Is it acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls? (NOW CLOSED) (31/18/1)Д«ecause of problems with this poll (no end-date sent and no definition of what constitutes trolling) this poll is hopelessly riddled with problems.

Obvious troll is obvious