Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition

"Do not accuse of trolling, when stupidity suffices"

The issue of trolling is that it includes intent of malice, so without a mind reader how can you establish it without also finding statements in context where they state they accept a proposition they argue against with idiocy? TheZelos (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree that we need a better definition of "troll", malicious trolls (in my mind) typically support their own arguments at talk-pages. I think I have read somewhere , that "trolling" might be OK during certain circumstances. Let's say someone who earlier have not cared very much for his/her personal integirity, uses no alias but his/her name and has seven years earlier written I'm from Little Village, in Country with few inhabitants etc, and who now wants to improve an article about for instance Cosa Nostra, a Motorcycle-gang or certain kinds of terrorist. And hence do this under a second alias. Boeing720 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD for talk pages?

Per consensus on this page, any userspace pages associated with the vandal have since been deleted as leaving them be would have the side effect of giving the troll any incentive to continue on his childish vandalism. Now what grinds my gears are certain admins who view this as unnecessary, and would refuse to delete said talk pages, saying that they aren't usually subject to deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Also childish behavior

Article states:

"True vandals and trolls (as distinguished from users who dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community"

Here I would like to add:

"or alternatively, is a person who regardless of actual age more or less cannot help behave childishly" - or something in line with that

I don't expect this to "help" against vandalizing trolls, but is nevertheless also true, I believe. Especially regarding those who only vandalizes without any kind of agenda. Boeing720 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how that would help. Any summary describing human behavior will be incomplete, and a psychiatrist could probably provide dozens of cases showing somewhat different backgrounds of "true vandals and trolls". The point of WP:DENY is that a large proportion of dedicated vandals/trolls seek recognition for the reasons currently mentioned, and denying recognition is often best. Undoubtedly trouble comes also from people who will never mature, but why would such people persist at Wikipedia if they were not getting some recognition from it? At any rate, it would be undesirable to expand possible reasons for why some contributors are vandals/trolls because such a list would always be incomplete and unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

DENY means DO NOT escalate the level of attention

User:Septrillion here attempted to modify the fourth dot point in the section "How to mitigate vandalism", which says:

* Otherwise, quietly revert or blank. Reserve list them as miscellany for deletion (if you see a group of similar pages, make a group nomination) for serious matters, noting that a high profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of "deny recognition".

Why? Nominating at MfD is actually the opposite of DENY, it is an attention-escalating reaction. The troll wants the attention. This feeds the troll. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you are supporting. The current text (shown above) is fine although it needs copy editing as "list" should be "listing" and the stuff in brackets is too clumsy. The point is that there are a lot of vandals/trolls and simply blanking their pages might generate the least fuss. Often someone will cruise in and have fun for a few days, then disappear. People should not spend a week arguing over the sanctity of a user page in such cases. OTOH if the blanking is repeatedly undone then deletion is available. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Just CSD the page and get on with it, as long as there isn't any meaningful history available in the userpage. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:CSDs G3, G5 and G10 are the first three suggestions. If these can't be applied, it is rarely that serious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am opposing the diff provided and supporting its revert by User:CFCF. Copy edit? I removed the parenthetical stuff. I agree with all you wrote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why have deny recognition if talk pages get locked?

That basically tells us that something is going on and the main article is likely full of sanitized half-truths. 88.234.197.238 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware we locked talk pages. --DB1729^talk 14:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is some logic to the principle, but some would point out that ignoring has not been a good response in the more recent environment. Some politicians have taken the stand that people should be called out, and there is also concern that letting things go unchallenged means some uninformed people will believe that incorrect statements are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)