MarioWiki talk:Trolls

Archives of Talk on Peachycakes
Past discussions of the troll Peachycakes/Daisygirl: User talk:Daisygirl, User talk:Peachycakes75689.

You actually talk? Anyway if you're so focused on Super Princess Daisy why don't you find a link to website with proof. You say it will be released next year in your articles yet how can there be no other similiar info on the web. We may reinsert this link when it does come out(which is improbable) but for now can you please stop with Super Daisy stuff?--Spike

I think the most recent development strictly lowers his or her chances of being unblocked. Wayoshi ( T&middot;C&middot;@ ) 18:36, 2 October 2006 (EDT)


 * I check. Unencyolpedia has standerds. It is appearently a site for a mix of fact and fiction, not just fiction. That means, SuperPrincessDaisy wound not go theres.

She wasn't so bad, all she did was want to post info about her fangame. Not so bad, right? The to-be 'Crat

Willy on Wheels vandal
This vandal is most likely a Wookieepedia vandal as well, because "Silly Dan" is the name of one of the Administrators there. -- Yoshi  626  20:42, 7 January 2007 (EST)

It's possible that ge took the name and isn't really HIM. But if that's him then he will be blocked from that site :o! Lets get some Wookipedia users over there (Warioloaf, Son of Suns ect.) to tell on him! Paper Jorge
 * I don't think its right, he was a good friend of mine. Yoshi or SOS can do it, but not me. I could go on a wiki and pretend to be you and you get blocked. Case Closed. Thats what WW wanted. Check his IP addresses. :(
 * No, I don't think it's the real Silly Dan. What I meant was I think this "Willy on Wheels" vandal also vandalizes Wookieepedia, not just here. Which is likely considering how many "on wheels" vandals Wookieepedia gets. -- Yoshi  626 [[Image:Egg.PNG|20px]] 22:38, 8 January 2007 (EST)


 * Same thing with that Crumb Vandal.

Could be a very strange coincidence, could be him. Either way, we shouldn't get into his IP and start checking it. Whatever he supposedly did here should be punished here. We're not going to chase after some vandal. What's over is over.

You have to admit, his vandalism was kinda funny. Made me lol. User: Fly Guy 2

Wasn't Willy found to be Wayoshi?

Well, that is the second non-sockpupet vandal by the name of Willy. This is what Willy probably named himself after, Willy on Wheels is the older one of the two vandal/trolls.
 * And the third non-sockpuppet vandal that has Willy in it's name vandalized Userpedia.

Well, I don't know much about the Mariowiki history or Userpedia as I've never been on the latter, and I've been inactive for a time here. but I just randamly googled Wayoshi confessing to being Willy which surprised me alot...
 * I searched that and got something from BLOf's talk archives.

The three most common sockpuppets: Willy, Smoke, and Peachycakes (not this user).

No its here:Main Page Talk Archive 12. One of the biggest shocks I ever had in my life.

Spelling error
There is a spelling error in the Peachycakes section, in the last paragraph. It starts a sentence with "hey" rather than "They". I'd edit this myself, but the page is on full protection. Sorry if this seems trivial. -- Yoshi  626  19:05, 10 January 2007 (EST)

However sadly (s)he returned with the name Peach Guardian and Candracar Peach. hey were both blocked again. Paper Jorge (Talk) while using UserScore found that this troller's really name was Taylor.

Ahh... Paper Jorge... I'd fix it myself but I'm not a Sysop currently. Thanks for pointing that out. Notice a couple other mistakes.
 * Guys, we will fix any mistakes we cross based on circumstances next time there's a real edit to do. So there are a few letters missing – the page still gives a report of trolls. Stop being grammar geeks and get over your twitches over the minor errors. 20:31, 10 January 2007 (EST)
 * OK. Sorry. -- Yoshi  626 [[Image:Egg.PNG|20px]] 20:45, 10 January 2007 (EST)
 * I was a bit harsh, but I've seen many grammar twitches lately, so bad that editing people's works on "The" 'Shroom has become a concern. 20:53, 10 January 2007 (EST)


 * Dang, Wayoshi, ripping on users, that was harsh. Just fix it, its his simple request.


 * Thank you, Knife.


 * "OK, fine. What I was trying to emphasize is don't edit others' comments for grammar." - Wayoshi


 * I wasn't editing anybody's comments. I merely wanted to fix a mistake in the article. But since I couldn't, I thought I would bring it up here. -- Yoshi  626 [[Image:Egg.PNG|20px]] 15:39, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Tonya Logan
This article needs Tonya Logan info

yay someone should creat stuff for Tony/tonya logan.

Tonya Logan/Tony Logan needs to be here!

Yes, hey I found out there was a woody Logan doing the same stuff Tonya logan were doing.

--Great Gonzo 16:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

When? Wait, i think that was a long time ago...Woody Logan is probably the original, While Tonya and Tony are sockpuppets. 16:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

yeah,

--Great Gonzo 16:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Willy
Well, there are another 1,2,3, about 13 names to go under his username.----
 * Since most of them had no contributions, I don't think we're going to list 'em, just mention 'em. 13:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

He was attaking the wiki! I know what his plan was!

Thank you, Max, but we all know this is... (Accusing voince) Wayoshi! Dun dun dun! FG2, Trolls is a sockpuppet of PEACHYCAKES!

Unprotect
I think this page should be unprotected. If some administrators are too lazy or busy to add information to this page, users should have the right to edit it. Of couse, to prevent trollers from editing this page you can autoconfirm it similar to what Steve did to the moving rights. I  am   Confused  13:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I create stuff about Woody and his sockpuppets Tony and Tonya?

Great Gonzo

sure. knock youself out! (literaly)


 * Agreed, why did this page get protected anyway, I mean sure you're trying to keep actual trolls from editing the page. You can always just semi-protect the page because right now the page has very little information on it sadly. Fawful's Minion Fawful's Minion-Logan.jpeg 18:53, 29 April 2016 (EDT)
 * This discussion is nearly 10 years old. Why are you responding to this? And what else could we add here? The page perfectly describes the nature of these things. This is an official policy page too, so it make sense that only admins would edit it. 19:02, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Delete
Some users say that this only encourages trolls. Let's vote on having this in-depth log. 20:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete

 * 1) EXTREMELY Strong Oppose read the forum post. (which I started)
 * 2) Strong Delete. This page nothing but troll feeding. This page is like the hall of fame to trolls. I don't understand what the point of keeping this is. I can see trolls vandalizing this wiki just to get on this list, so that they can be as "famous" as Peachycakes. --
 * 3) Stong Delete. This page encourages trolls to vandalisise.

Comments
I think this should be restricted to only users.
 * Or maybe Sysops and Patrollers...but this should be kept.
 * D: Max you oppposed?
 * I think it should be restricted until a user becomes 2 weeks old.
 * Max, your comment confuses me. Are you voting delete, or are you opposing to delete this page? Also, somebody explain to me why this should be kept. I really don't see what the point of this page is. -- 21:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * To keep record of them for future refrence. As I said before, new users should not be able to see this page, only 2+ week old users.


 * yay...say a noob is on, then a new user, Charles Logan gets on. So the noob signs off, and leaves the pages to vandalized. But with this they can come here, cross refrence, and see that any logan is a spammer.
 * I don't have any problem with the first few sections, it's just the list that I want gone. If we did that, they could just use the first two sections to determine if a user is a troll, they wouldn't really need the list. As I said, that list gives trolls recognition, and we should not give them that at all. -- 21:48, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

The Patroller Part
should be deleted, cause we don't have patrollers now.

Creating user talk pages
"Do not create talk pages for obvious sockpuppets as it leads to unnecessary deleting."Actually, all of the user talk pages are automaticly created by after a few minutes after user is registered. There's no point of this mention, because user talk pages are always exist.

Help
There HAS to be some way to combat the latest troll, Marshall Dan Poop. Every time I finally begin to breathe after he strikes, he creates another account. Other than putting the delete tag on his talk page if he creates one, what else can we do? (Besides doing the obvious of reverting his edits) Epic Rosalina (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2014 (EST)

"replacing all content on a page with a negative message (User pages seem prone to this attack the most),"
"User pages seem prone to this attack the most"

That statement should be cleaned up in my opinion. With the way that the Mariowiki software is set up, the only people that can edit any given userpage are the user who's userpage it is and anyone with Sysop tools. I doubt any user would do these kinds of attacks on their own userpages and Sysops are generally trusted users who wouldn't engage in these kinds of behaviors. I'm not sure if Mariowiki software had this problem in the past or not or if it was an honest mistake but it should be removed from the page in my opinion. 17:52, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Delete this page
This page has virtually the same content as Vandalism in characteristics of a troll/vandal and how to stop them. Furthermore, the Vandals page also acknowledges that trolling ==/== vandalism and provides definitions for both. Proposer: Deadline: June 19, 2016 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.
 * 2) Actually screw my last proposal, the trolls don't deserve any recognition at all. This page should be deleted or redirected because the page is bloody useless and trolls like, , , , ,, , ,  can all be found on the Block list so I am totally with deleting the page.
 * 3) Per all, too similar to Vandalism.
 * 4) I agree with them. It has got to go!
 * 5) The term "troll" is a slang social networking term used to describe people that like to cause trouble. There are good trolls (like practical jokesters) but the way it is used in Trolls is describing people that want to cause harm to the Wiki's integrity and its users. Also the term is very unprofessional. Vandal is a better term. I support this removal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comment below. Deletions of official policy pages shouldn't be handled by a vote or talk page proposals. IMO, the staff should be the one deciding what to do with the page, not regular users.
 * 2) - Per Baby Luigi. Only administrators can edit this page anyway. This page can be a good help page to good-faith users to know what are trolls and what they can do to get rid of them. We have page about users, autoconfirmed users, patrollers, administrators and bureaucrats, so I don't see the harm to have a help page about trolls.
 * 3) Per both. Also, I noted below that this page could benefit from a rewrite rather than a deletion, so I'd like to see how that goes instead.
 * 4) Per all. I don't know that it's a rule as such, but policy pages should only be changeable at administrative discretion. I do agree, however, that a rewrite/expansion would be a good idea.

Comments
tbh i don't think official policy pages (especially deletions of them) are best handled by tpps 20:26, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * You should probably bring this up directly with one of the admins, or on the forum thread.
 * Actually yes, that seems like a better idea. If possible though I want to wait for like a day and see what people think here before withdrawing it. -- 20:36, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

(editconflict) @Fawful's Minion Your vote is probably invalid, and this page did have a list of trolls in the very past (~2007) which was when they were apparently given more attention. Acknowledging any trolls is an absolute no-no in general because that counts as baiting and only encourages them. Also that's not even related to the proposal's topic; my point was that this page is redundant since Vandalism already has the exact same content with more detail. -- 20:47, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Per Drift, who also conflicted his edit with mine. Publicizing the escapades of vandals only promotes the idea that others can reach the same level of infamy. That's not a good idea.
 * To prevent trolls from editing the page let's just Semi-Protect it. 20:52, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * The point is that a list would promote trolls throughout the entire wiki. Semi-protecting every page is out of the question, so again, that's not a good idea.
 * Another edit conflict. Time Turner already explained what I way trying to say, but the page is locked because it's a policy page and probably to stop exactly that (troll edits) from happening as well. -- 20:56, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Semi-protecting pages to make lots of good, potential editors more difficult to edit just so that a select few morons here and there are made harder to vandalize is not a compromise I support. And you didn't even need to list their names. We get a lot of those, they reproduce and respawn on a consistent basis, they deserve to be nameless. 20:57, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Actually now that I think about it you're right about that trolls can be a nuisance to the wiki because we've had many sockpuppets such as, , , , , , etc.  21:01, 4 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Per Time Turner and Driftmaster130 on points of NOT exposing vandals. The best way to deal with trolls is to be quiet and revert until wiki sysops can take the appropriate action. Trolls are NOT dangerous, they are just mere annoyances.


 * MarioWiki:Vandalism already took the pains to distinguish between the two, despite quite some overlap between the two. That's why we even have two policy pages, to concretely illustrate the distinction. Deleting this page may not to a service to distinguish between the two. That being said, MarioWiki:Trolls does a poor job on defining between a vandal and a troll. As you said, whatever content it has deals specifically with vandalism, even though components of trolling do involve vandalism. I say we rewrite the page rather than delete it, make it focus on actual community toxicity and disruption such as the rant in Vivian's talk page or this conversation or this conversation, which is indeed different from vandalism. It may overlap a bit with Courtesy too, but I think that's a start. 21:03, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * @Fawful's Minion ...you realize that naming them is still trollbaiting, right? Can you just not comment unless you have something constructive not relating to actual trolls? -- 21:07, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * @LGM I agree with some of your points but I don't think this page is any different from the Vandalism policy; it doesn't even give a definition of trolls while the other one does and besides the top part it's the exact same thing as the Vandalism page. I actually did a very light rewrite of MW:Vandalism here (only difference is at the bottom where I added the bit on not feeding the trolls) but I don't know if it would help much in that sense. -- 21:07, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I think it's Trolls that needs to be rewritten. Particularly its "Characteristics of a troll" section, where such actions heavily overlap with wandalism. The page even goes to say that "it is likely that [it] is a troll, a vandal." when this contradicts with Vandalism's "Vandalism is not synonymous with trolling". To help with that distinction, the page should focus on the community aspect of disruption, which includes incoherent rants, personal attacks, and making a scene, but care must be taken between good-faith users and actual trolls. Good-faith users may have maturity or anger issues while trolls desire only attention or a reaction (how long they are in the community can be a helpful factor). For your workspace, I say that you either move "Characteristics of a vandal" underneath "Vandalism" as examples to bolster the definition and therefore help identify users of wandalism. Otherwise, not much change is needed aside from a rewrite of MarioWiki:Trolls, to be honest. Sure, we have MarioWiki:Warning Policy, but the difference between trolls and wandals and good-faith users that deserve warnings is that trolls and wandals nearly immediately get banned. 21:20, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * What about trolls (like ones that cause personal attacks). 21:10, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Actually let's delete this page because one section says "Replacing Content with a negative message user pages seem to be prone to this attack the most" is that troll baiting so yeah let's delete this page agreed. 21:18, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * With your logic, Vandalism and Warning policy and Courtesy are troll baiting. I don't see where you're going with this. 21:24, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * What do you mean by that? 21:52, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * You seem to imply that the mention of what can trolls can possibly do to user pages equates to troll baiting; i.e. stating the possibility invites them to do stuff like that. That's what I got from your message. 22:09, 4 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I just came up with the best idea, how about we don't delete the page but redirect it to the page in question. 03:44, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

Explain to me why it's bad that this page exists, please. 12:35, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I don't know if you're asking me or but it's almost the exact same as Vandalism and has the same description of trolls, how to stop them, etc. as the Vandalism page. Also the Vandalism page does actually define and distinguish between vandals and trolls in addition to having the same content as here plus some additional information. As  said maybe this could be revamped to cover general disruptive behaviour by users (I'm leaning more towards that option now as it would not only remove the redundant stuff but also cover another important thing). -- 13:13, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Yeah but ... how is the Wiki harmed by both pages existing? How is the Wiki improved by deleting this page? 16:15, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
 * It's not, the page is simply redundant. -- 16:40, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Provided that this page is unnecessary (just for the sake of this argument), it would give users one less policy page to monitor and read about. That's one benefit, albeit a minor one. 19:00, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

@Baby Luigi Are you opposing only because of the nature of this proposal? If this wasn't allowed, the admins might have vetoed it by now (not saying that it may not be vetoed later but rule-breaking proposals are usually cancelled soon after being set up). @LudwigVon MarioWiki:Vandalism has the exact same content (what I've said multiple times now) and already serves as a guide for users to recognize/identify wrongdoers. The message is more than essential for the wiki but this page itself is completely redundant.-- 19:22, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
 * After reading Bazooka's comment yesterday I was actually thinking of adding an option to only rewrite the page, but I don't know if introducing new options is allowed like that; if it is then I might do it as that seems like the better idea according to people. -- 19:24, 5 June 2016 (EDT)
 * It's still technically a reason to oppose. I strongly feel alterations of official policy pages should be done with administrative consensus rather than popular vote. 19:44, 5 June 2016 (EDT)