Talk:Troll (slang)/Archive 1

message: "They will not compromise, or listen to reason, but focus rather on flamming (calling other people trolls, for example). From what I understand of the concept of trolling, it's not a person who happens to aggresively champion a POV, or have an alternate interpretation of whats best for an article. Strong sentiment is not a bad thing. Were all a bit of a troll, in some small way or another, whenever we dislike someone, or do something theoretically disturbing. Whats important is that we compromise where neccessary, and resort to references and arbitration (always trying to follow wiki-Rules) rather than name calling and hatefullness when we attempt to handle these cituations we happen to have some feelings about. Many trolls are simply vandals. But from what I understand, a troll is someone who fights over something they do not care about. They are rather interested in harassing a certain user, or upsetting others"
Jack 12:27, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from me 

message: I removed the lengthy post regarding "Real life trolling." This article is about Internet trolling. Real life trolling should be discussed in its own article. Kingturtle 16:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Real life trolling" 

message: 65-- You added obesity as a characteristic of the stereotypical troll. Would you say this is true? My understanding was that the troll stereotype was normally a very thin, nerdy guy (a la Steve Urkel) usually with an axe to grind due to a lack of romantic success. 
Certainly, it's possible that trolls are obese, but I don't think it's part of the troll archetype. Comment? Mike Church 20:19, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 65's addition was inappropriate.  In no case should a slang noun be used as the subject for description in an encyclopedic article describing the function of the slang term. Troll is neccessarily an object in this context. JRR Trollkien (see warning)
This is very foolish. User:AnGelaIs a Troll|Anlaoll 19:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity of trolls 

message: OK, here we go - talking point. Take a look at terrorism. You and I can agree that a terrorist is bad, and that their motivation must be to cause chaos, but from their point of view, things are very different. I think I feel that this article should treat trolling (frivilous by comparison) in a similar way. Most reasonable people would consider it is bad, but those doing it think differently. Let me know what you think. Mark Richards 03:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling and Terrorism 

message: :I changed Trolls and their defenders suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion; however authentic trolling merely derails discourse and erodes civility. to Trolls and their defenders suggest that trolling is a clever way of improving discussion; however their detractors insist that authentic trolling merely derails discourse and erodes civility.
:I can't get my head around why you think this is established fact - can you point to any evidence? without that it's just your opinion. Thanks, Mark Richards 15:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That last edit works, thanks. - Hephaestos|§ 16:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph POV 

message: I like your edits Thomas - this page needs a lot more cleanup and streamlining! Thanks, Mark Richards 16:48, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas 

message: The point of mentioning bodily harm is to distinguish between epistemic community with no-body at risk and real physical bodily communities where some-body needs protecting which have etiquettes, governance, politics etc. Confusing the two leads to a very oppressive ideology called virtual community.
:I'd consider it if it was explained a little more clearly - can you site anything to support it? Mark Richards 20:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  bodily harm 

message: I suggest moving this section to shock site, which is a more specific article. It doesn't really fit into the general discussion of Internet trolling.
:I agree - it serves no purpose here. Mark Richards 20:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-shock phenomenon 

message: One thing that springs to mind for this is that trolling is a very different phenomenon in different media. Usenet trolling is totally different from Slashdot trolling, diferent again from the trolls a wiki gets. This article needs to make this distinction. An interesting article I found is here. Mark Richards 23:38, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, *internet* media. At first I thought you meant all "Different Media," so I wrote this: observation on Gadflies: Some trolls think they're fulfilling such a role. And speaking of different media, that's where the claim may carry the most merit: I'm thinking of newspaper columnists, and other commentators. Interesting that the actual gadfly page is about the insect. Perhaps it needs some elaboration.... done. :) Krupo 03:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different trolls in different internet media 

message: :As Internet bots improve, they are also increasingly able to play troll, increasing the probability that the responder is being drawn into some kind of time-wasting trap or marketing scam. For instance, an actual person engaged in a hot debate with a troll may be suddenly backed up by another real person, who later on uses the trust gained to sell worthless insurance.
Is there any evidence of this? Mark Richards 21:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen 'normal' newsgroup people design automated scripting software that uses a dictionary of terms to spit out amusing insults/trolls. Never seen this done on a serious scale, though. Haven't seen an actual bot, that's for sure. Krupo 03:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: the grammar on this page, is absolutely atrocious.  can we clean it up?  please
:Your grammar is, too. Check your comma usage. -69.47.186.226 07:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar is absolutely, atrocious 

message: There have been two internet trolls that have been believed my the media.  There is plenty of evidence out there that confirms the CNN story on the Jews did WTC conspiracy theory and the Fox news story about jenkem were the result of these organizations falling prey to internet trolls.  This is definitely noteworthy as it shows how far a troll can go.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxiconoclast (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling in Mass Media 

message: With regard to the statement early in the article that trolls may post images, I've removed the tagged part saying that the images are '(usually indirectly relating to the individual in person)',  I could have changed it to something like 'sometimes indirectly relating...' but to be honest I don't think it really adds much anyway.  - Shrivenzale 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed re posting images 

message: I haven't changed the article, but I troll on slashdot so I thought I could offer perspective for this article.  I noticed that nobody understands why we do it, and the answer is simple: it's fun.  That's it.  You toss an idea out there that is so ridiculous, and you see if somebody bites.  Today I posted a comment on slashdot that got moderated up to +3 Informative before somebody else pointed out that it was just a broken link involving hot grits had any of the moderators bothered to follow it.  I'm still laughing about it.  Once, I informed slashdot that Big Business invented the internet and we have them to thank for open source software - I got over 100 replies!  I still smile about that one.  I am a member of the community, and I do contribute to it in a positive way, but once in a while, I like to have some fun, and the only thing more fun than trolling is pouring hot grits down your pants.  Thank you.
That has got to be the best comment in the world.
--
That was an excellent summary. Must trolls seem to be pranksters like you, in it for a giggle. It's   a pity they aren't tolerated more, I guess most people can't take a joke :p I think it is a wonderful part of the global internet culture, a streak of larrikinism and mirth that is often lacking in the 'serious business' that is the internet. Of course, they do get annoying fast...Nazlfrag 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This definately is a better fit to the behavior of trolls than the current concept in the article of "obnoxious online persona".  Not all obnoxious behavior is trolling and not all obnoxious people online are trolls.  Trolling requires baiting and catching not merely annoying people.Zebulin 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On why people troll 

message: The Smashing Pumpkins messageboard has been receiving an overwhealming number of trolls recently, shall it be mentioned?
In a message directed to a dynamic IP number, brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca received this:
-- The information is not really encyclopedic nor significant enough. I'd suggest reporting it to the troll reporting service on the Global Reporting Information Tallying System at http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html 203.59.86.3 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netphoria 

message: If you want to discuss an article, the appropriate place to do it is on the discussion page for that entry, not in the entry itself. Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles, as you did to :Internet troll. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.   Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: I believe this entry needs reworking to acknowledge the fact
in many Usenet groups, tribes of people "take over" or assert
that they have done so, despite the group being open to all
by definition, and then use their tribal "status" to abuse
newcomers, dissenters, and generally to bully. It is in 
their doing this that they label others "trolls" almost
irregardless of the validity of what their victims might say.
Additionally, tribalism creates a paranoia among "members"
about the motives of any unfamiliar person is saying
anything, which again is an excuse to condemn them as "trolls".
Hence the language in the current entry about
outsiders upsetting an "established community" is
really a typical but clever justification by tribalistic
types to bully dissenters and outsiders. It is an
example of bullies posing as victims of their victims. 
Yet their bullying is, like all bullying, based on 
narcissism and cowardice.
* This may be a valid point, but I removed the "tribalism" comments from the introductory paragraph because they don't belong there, and they were POV.  This tribalism idea could be discussed under the "vicious circles" section (and it already is, in a way).  Matsurika 23:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is. It's called consensus, and it's one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Please keep your comments to the page's content, and put your comments about wikipedia elsewhere. --InShaneee 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: gb2 school then, and take English classes
=== Reworking Internet Trolls ===
I feel this entry needs serious breaking up.
Examples of sections that need their own wikis:
*Examples of trolls
*Examples of trolling
*Troll Boards
*Troll History
They cannot possibly remain all in this one entry any longer. Borgs8472 00:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, I'll have to do something about that... Borgs8472 12:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribalism as a Major Factor 

message: I feel this entry needs serious breaking up.
Examples of sections that need their own wikis:
*Examples of trolls
*Examples of trolling
*Troll Boards
*Troll History
They cannot possibly remain all in this one entry any longer. Borgs8472 00:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dammit, I'll have to do something about that... Borgs8472 12:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking Internet Trolls 

message: Here, plus, interesting evidence that the term is starting to gain currency in the real world - reality trolls - here. Trigger 04:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No volunteers for this one yet? I might have a go! Trollé 23:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This alternative view is interesting 

message: I would just like to say that 68.112.220.182's recent edits, consolidating the dictionary-like intro into a normal paragraph, look pretty good to me. --Yath 07:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicdef 

message: I would like to inform you all that I have recently seen a new term being used on the net to describe people who follow others around on the internet and harass them.  These "people" are called Stalkertrolls.
For example: if I was to edit an article on Wikipedia and someone else changed it all would be well, even if this was done multiple times.  However if this person made an effort to follow me about wikipedia and revert anything I posted they would be acting like a Stalkertroll.
* Please show us an example of that? Are you sure it's intentional? I can imagine it happening though. There are plenty of nuts about. And then there are those that don't read properly on some times of the day... :) I was confused by the lack of a "signature" here. Did you omit it because of the stalkertrolling? Wit 12:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Just a comment, I've seen this behavior described as "wikistalking" but afaik there are no references to it in "encyclopedia quality" sources. 11:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalkertrolls 

message: I wonder whether the etymology "trolling for fish" is not POV. The example given further down clearly shows that the first use referred to the creature from fairytales.
:Agreed, needs to be added Borgs8472 17:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I'm not really excited about this sentence - Sometimes wikis get vandalized--as can be seen happens often in the history of this wiki. It just seems pretty self absorbed. Aside from the fact that vandalism is not really the same as trolling (although I think it still wouldn't be that appropriate on a page about wiki vandalism to reference the history of the page) it seems self absorbed and self referential. If we must, can we reference a specific example of trolling, if possible on another wiki?
I took it out once, but it got put back in. Can someone else look at it? Trolls are involved 06:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be mentioned.  Write it however you want.  Thodin 15:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a guideline on this: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. In general, phrases such as "this wiki" and "check the history" should be avoided. — Asbestos | Talk 00:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you have good logic.  That makes sense.  Still, I think it should be mentioned somehow, by disguising the self-reference, like referring to wikis in general.  I like what someone did by saying sometimes wikis get vandalized.  Thodin 00:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling in Wikis 

message: Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify themselves as such out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. - Who claimed this? Can we reference them? These sound like weasel words. Trolls are involved 06:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are these critics? 

message: This was added by 68.148.244.154 to the troll article. See if you can use any of this. --Salleman 03:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Troll]] 

message: Goodness gracious.  A troll is a troll.  --VKokielov 02:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree Borgs8472 12:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I will have to agree --Salem XIII 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolls. 

message: It took everything I had to not put SNAPE KILLED... right after "Posting plot spoilers to popular movies and books without warning, sometimes surreptitiously buried in an otherwise innocuous message." It took even more to keep me from putting it in a commented out section. Thank you. Hipocrite 00:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restraint 

message: Removed “The Bible Of trolls” link since it is a repeat link to yahootrolls.com
I’d also like to bring into question the link to Trolls Only.
The board serves as a refuge for web developers and other programming related users who have been banned from tech and programming sites. The members of the forum do not appear to participate in any trolling activity. Also the rules of the board are not consistent with other troll related boards found on the Internet.
List of rules on Trolls Only here.
(Grandtheftcow 02:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removal and discussion of another link 

message: The lengthly section on Types of Trolls, in particular the long discussions on how wonderful, intellectual and charismatic "King Trolls" are, is rife with POV. The other types of trolls mentioned are almost inexistant on Google. I think the section should go. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 11:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could use its own section Borgs8472 12:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm quite sure that whole chunk of text wasn't there before. I bet it's the work of one person who's just injecting their POV into the article. --Jacj 16:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section was replaced by User:Archival McTannith without comment, and it is four times as large as it was when I first questioned it's validity. I'd say it contains nothing but neologisms, especially since Archival had no problem replacing the original term 'King Troll' with 'Master Troll', and kept a section that's just as fawning. The rest of these, "Grammarian Troll", "Xenophobe Troll", "Sheep Troll", "Staff Troll", "Misleading Troll", "Sentry", "Shill", "Tool", "Runaround Statements", "Frame Looping (thread knotting, point knotting)", "Frame-up", are just getting ridicuolous, and clearly sounds like someone sat down and thought off the top of their heads a typology of any type of personality they could think of. I'd say their all neologisms and original research. The little "conclusion" of that section, "Broad definition of a Troll" is pointless since that's what the rest of the article seeks to achieve. I'd say it can pretty much all go. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 16:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely.  It is unsupported original research and so boring that I couldn't read it all.  Even if it was not original research, it is so poorly wikified that it would need major work to get it to an acceptable level.  195.166.17.214 14:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the guy who added this stuff. It's good stuff, but he's not yet familar with the conventions of Wikipedia. As I said, the material needs to go in an as of yet unwritted trollkingdom wiki or a who section on TrekBBS trolls Borgs8472 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that all those paragraphs should have been removed, because those descriptions of types of trolls are actually very relevant and give insight into the type of ill-intentioned forum and Wiki users most users have to deal with, and may help well-intentioned users learn how to deal with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.67.39.146 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Trolls 

message: In response to the invitation to copyedit this page, I made several edits Oct 3-4, 2005 (UTC). Also, I made the edit designated in History as 01:38, 4 October 2005 67.120.93.83 while logged in, so I don't understand why my User name is not attached to this one. I characterized many of my edits as minor. However, because some do affect substance, and in consideration of the many Wikipedians who are following this page, I am posting this notice. Finell 03:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several edits Oct 3-4, 2005 

message: It is my strong and unwavering belief that the sections on 'usage' and 'use as a pejorative' need to be merged, to form one, unfied, and glittering section, enlightening us on the usage of the word, and, in part, it's use as a pejoritive! Trollé 23:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I may give it a try. Finell 04:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: Now, tell me...is it sightly for that "troller handbook" to appear?  Can Wikipedia keep its neutrality here?  ;) --VKokielov 03:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom! 

message: I’ve removed Trolls-r-us link since it seems the owner John Ford has closed the board. I’ve added Troll Kingdom back to the links, someone removed it as a dead link when the board was experiencing server problems.
I would also like to work out what a troll board is. 
I’d define it as a message board or organization in which the planning and invasions of other forums is carried out. But we have a political centered message board (Wordforge) and a programming and computer centered board (Trolls Only). Are these really troll boards? What makes a troll board?
Also the link I placed to my own message board Fear Factory was removed. Would it be a result of the board being new and currently having few posts?
Grandtheftcow 20:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll Boards 

message: An NPOV tag was recently added to this article, but there hasn't been any discussion about that addition, nor did the person who added it give a reason in their edit summary. Having just read through the article, I don't see anything non-neutral about it, so I'm taking out the NPOV tag. Naturally, others are welcome to put it back if you think it belongs, but how about using the discussion page to, you know, discuss why you think it belongs? KarlBunker 12:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Did not hear the broadcast info itself, but a San Antonio radio host, Chris Duel of KTSA AM 550, stated that new(ly enacted, or newly considered for enaction) legislature will criminalize internet trolling.  This was not said for a joke, and I see nothing about this.  Any validity out there? Author782 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law? 

message: It would appear that there is now a mathematical index measuring what might be termed loosely the 'spam index' of a troll. This page* covers the details. I was drawn to look this up courtesy of a brief view of this page which is purportedly a FAQ for those wishing to know more about trolls (and how to deal with them). When that latter page mentioned "trolls posting at a BI of 20 or higher" I simply had to find out more, so here is the information for your delight and delectation.
Incidentally,, I'm still trying to find a page that I've since lost, which is in effect a Troll Taxonomy page, complete with cartoons in which all of the hideous nuances seem to have been elegantly captured by the cartoonist. If anyone knows of this page and can provide the link, it may be useful to add it to the article. I recall recognising some of the subspecies of trolls featuring on that page ... 
My mistake - apparently the BI is already known and has a Wikipedia page of its own. That'll teach me to read past the first Google link :)
Calilasseia 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I removed a broken link that now goes to an external page filled with ads; as Cailasseia suggests, you can find more information in the article here Breidbart Index. betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breidbart Index 

message: I've reverted the addition of that section as it does not appear to be relevant, and appears to only be an attack against him (and whether its a violation of the first amendment is not related to being an internet troll), either by labelling him a troll, et al. It bears slight slight relevance to the fact posting "annoying messages" might affect it, but it looks like it will have little jurisdiction. I will not re-revert if this is contested. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush section 

message: I warned this would happen, and my words scornfully dismissed.(See above section)
Still think it's "paranoid propaganda"? Rearden Metal 05:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how vandalism and slander are thought crimes, they seem like real crimes to me. Not all trolling is criminal, but you can definetly troll to the point you are breaking laws. It does not seem directly related the this article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.K. Internet troll found guilty of thought crimes, sentenced to 30 months in prison 

message: What are the exact details of this "anti-troll" law ? Martial Law 10:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section about it has a link to it on the Cornell Law School website. Unless I've misread it, it only covers sending messages that contain obscenity or child pornography. I'm going to go and change that now. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you send a message intended to annoy -- and you don't use your real name -- they can (allegedly) sue you. It's just an expansion on earlier legislation to cover the Internet, essentially. What do you want to know Martial Law? // paroxysm (n) 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, maybe you're right, after rereading that. The grammar makes it ambiguous. // paroxysm (n) 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In legalese, the grammar is always ambiguous. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, hypothetically, you can sue people for anything. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are.... 

message: Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place for me to say this - I figure it's the nearest I can get since it's the Talk page, but I don't know if what I've got to say would be considered a contribution or just opinionated carping.  The thing that bothers me about this article relates to my biggest doubt about 'trolling', and accusations thereof - which is that I suspect (although obviously I can't provide firm evidence) that trolls are actually a lot rarer than is generally believed.  I actually tend to think that the majority of people labelled 'troll' are, however unpleasant their views or the way in which they present them, quite genuine in their intent.  And I think, though again it's only my opinion, that the sheer number of different characteristics included in this article, especially under "Attention-seeking trolls", tends to support this, since I think that it's been necessary to expand the definition to include all these characteristics in order to make the definition fit the sort of things that're posted by the people we'd LIKE to think of as trolls.  "Claiming to be someone they cannot possibly be" - but if they genuinely believe that's what they are, then are they a troll (consider the Jedi, for example)?  "Intentionally naive questions" - who decides what's intentionally naive?  "Politically-contentious messages" - what someone considers "politically contentious" likely depends greatly on their own point of view.  Does that determine whether someone else is a troll or not?
I think the article is a little weighted in favour of a notion that seems to be widely accepted on Usenet in particular: that disagreement equals trolling - or at any rate, that accusing a challenger or opponent of trolling is always a valid tactic against them.  The article here itself says that trolling is extremely subjective - but I don't honestly think it stresses this strongly enough, or touches sufficiently on whether the term 'troll' is really of any use any more.
Again, I apologise if this edit is considered inappropriate, and I will quite understand if it is considered necessary to delete it.  Adaru 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a bit worried that the article reads a bit like a 'how to' of trolling... more analysis and less description is good! 213.86.59.92 12:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comment on Article 

message: "There is a quote on IMDb that the common troll does not understand the words 'opinion' and 'leave'," OK... what's the quote and where is it to be found exactly? Esquizombi 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote on IMDb? 

message: :Mr Comaish goes as far as to moot that the use of the term is a throwback to the early days of the Internet, when access was largely an exclusive, ruling class phenomenon. Despite assurances that the word is an 'English fishing term' he feels that the more obvious connotation, that of mythical Nordic untermenschen, clearly drowns the latter out, along with its credibility, and that the use of the term is therefore unacceptable in an inclusive online community.
Who is Mr Comaish? What in the world does this paragraph mean? ("so far as to moot"?) I've removed it; if anyone wants to improve it and put it back, be my guest. -- Calion | Talk 03:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: The current location of the picture does not seem to add anything to the article. Or am I missing something here?JoshuaZ 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klerck picture 

message: It is a very productive and entertaining actvity to do. I troll on many forums and people call me the best troll ever, I fit most of the catergories you defined by I only troll on forums and other chat places not on wikis. --68.36.205.41 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling 

message: Even if these trolls were "famous" which they aren't by any standard definition, it doesn't belong in this article. 24.196.67.58 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Trolls 

message: No one has mentioned crossposting as a topic yet. JAF1970 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossposting 

message: Why is there no mention of banning in "Resolutions and alternatives"?
--Because most serious trolls use proxies to avoid bans.--204.248.58.90 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban 

message: Reminding ourselves that, altho online, we are still basically on the same planet, can anyone imagine a Wikipedia article entitled 'nuisance' getting this amount of attention, discussion, and application? --Etaonsh 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A petty topic for an article? 

message: Is a link to a page on the alleged antisocial habits of Polish internet users REALLY relevant?
Why d'you ask? --Etaonsh 09:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ah, Poles? 

message: This rubbish article don't even have its sources cited. How pathetic. Meanwhile, there's another article which needs much more attention than this one... >CLICK< --Scotteh 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  . 

message: I find that many ebay buyers are simply trolls, some just buy without intention of paying and only to troll.  They're not the good kind or amusing kind of trolls either, no, they're the most offensive and nasty kind.  I want to call them trolls but the term feels out of place there.  Any ideas? Anomo 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term in relation to ebay buyers 

message: i cant stop them i am sorry
:You wanna go ahead and give me their names so I can get them blocked on sight? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem... (Big foot123456789)...Ahem, Ahem... -- bulletproof 3:16 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have some friends that are going to totally troll wikipedia in a few weeks 

message: IMO, somebody's list of a few "trolling" sites is information that some people who come to this article want to find out. I'm going to look at the sites on the list and then (probably) undelete the list. If you want to delete the list, please explain why on this talk page! 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:External links guideline, point #9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself". — Matt Crypto 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that sounds like a good policy. But IMO at least one link to a trolling website would fall into the category of "mandated by the article itself." A brief search to see if Slashdot  had a relevant thread we could link to didn't turn up anything. betsythedevine 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My thoughts exactly.  Thank you for the restoration.  Trolls are more likely to turn up in bbs message boards.  Links to message boards where trolls group themselves is downright necessary. conchaga 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert battle about list of trolling sites 

message: I have put together a list of sites that should be considered for entry in the troll sites section.  Those sites are as follows.
http://devioustyrant.com/
http://www.flamechampsnetwork.com/forum/index.php
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/forum/
http://www.wordforge.net/
http://www.flamevault.com/forums/
http://www.theranter.com/forum/vBulletin/index.php?
http://www.genmay.com/
This site, should be moved from the external links to the troll sites.  Though, it's a bit sub standard in my opinion.
http://www.forumcityusa.com/index.ph...um=thedarkside
 
Also, I propose a cleaning up of the list of external links.  A few of them are a bit superfluous.  Any ideas on how we can clean it up?
conchaga 00:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll Sites and External Link cleanup 

message: This article definitely needs some major rewriting. From what I've seen, most of it is just an essay on what motivates trolls and superfluous examples of trolling (e.g telling other people that you are a samurai in order to gain attention). Seriously, this is one of the worst articles I've seen in terms of encyclopedic content. I'll probably do the rewrite myself in a few days.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting article, but I have seen lots of articles just as interesting deleted as original research. A would-be troll could learn lots of new tricks, or a trolee could find was to spot them, but that would make it a "How To" article. The references are only links to Wiki articles or to websites or blogs. Surely there are some reliable and verifiable sources to support the article? It is far too interesting to be AfD'd. Could it be merged with Wikipedia:What is a troll?Edison 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if you're insinuating something, but the text that I removed doesn't have to be permenantly deleted (I would be regretful if it did, since the author obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.) It could be transfered to WikiBooks for example as a guide to internet trolling.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mod rewrite needed 

message: I do not feel that a merge to shock site, is needed or valid, However This article needs some help in various areas.--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: --Pixel ;-) 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. It isn't appropriate for an article, though.
It's a clasic picture.
--Homer slips. 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal for new image 

message: Quote from the main article: "The image of the troll under the bridge in the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the troll's negative reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in its domain without permission."
-- I recently tried to add some comment/correction to an article, but each time I did so it was quickly removed by someone else. Finally they suggested I needed "a reference". So I supplied a very respectable reference, but then was told that it was not applicable since it was dated 1971. This "guardian" wanted a 2006 reference....
This kind of jealous guardian, forever protecting their inviolable article from outside comment --- isn't that just what the above quote refers to? Therefore, a "troll" would not be an obnoxious outsider trying to intrude and interfere by offering unrequited changes or comments --- a "troll" would be just the opposite: the obnoxious "insider" forever protecting their little turf from anyone else's interference.Jakob37 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular interpretation of "troll" seems "ass-backwards" 

message: "YHBT YHL HAND" is a page that links to here, but I had to go off-site to google to get it explained to me. Perhaps someone should put an explanation in the article; I'm not sure where to squeeze it in. —ScouterSig 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abbreviation 

message: Please do not re-add the two images that I just removed yet again. This page is an encyclopedia article, not a guide to internet trolling and those images don't present any encyclopedic information on internet trolling. Also, they are both used already on Wikipedia:What is a troll?, which is a guide to internet trolling.--Azer Red Si? 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice about images 

message: I troll on Socom, I was the one who added "Trolling in Games", I felt it was necessary that Trolling in Games be mentioned and as a fellow troll mentioned above, we do it simply because its fun, we find it so darned funny to annoy the hell out of everyone and get lots of feedback from people.
:I am very proud of you, but in order for information on you trolling exploits to be on Wikipedia we must have reliable sources for that information.  The trolls themselves are not considered reliable sources.  Please take a look at WP:RS for more info. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling in games 

message: I find it very interesting in Wikipedia's definition of a troll, the "key element under attack by a troll is the forum or group's hegemony."
One example of this was a "liberal-minded person" posting on a right-wing neo-nazi site. Putting aside the fact that "right-wing nazi" is a neologism, I found this inflammatory and proceeded to change the example to the opposite sense, where a "conservative-minded person" posted on a liberal site (to which I did not add any disparaging qualifiers).
My example was much the same--I pointed out that as soon as the person was detected not to be a liberal, the person was called a troll. (I added that such a person was sometimes banned right away, which was, I'll admit, inflammatory of me!)
To prove my point, someone almost instantly reverted the definition to its original sense.
So I am using this talk page to provide an alternate definition, which is the definition that I believe is used on conservative-minded sites. Here a troll is someone who argues in bad faith. This is usually someone of the opposite point of view, true. But what is key here is that not all those who disagree are trolls, not by a long shot. On the sites I know, someone gets to be called a troll after ignoring counterarguments, tossing in irrelevant comments, and generally not answering points put to him or her.
"Group unity" is valued by liberals, not necessarily by all people. And my experience is indeed that on *liberal* web sites, as soon as one is revealed as not part of the group, one *is* considered a troll.
Trollfully yours, 
RX1045 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually reverted your original edit, it had nothing to do with the switch in political affiliation.  I found that the change in wording changed the meaning a little and didn't add anything.  Your subsiquent edit was a good compromise I think, but I think I will tweak it a little.  You are right in that there is no reason to mention particular groups in the example.  --Daniel J. Leivick 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually after reading over the article more carefully I found that I was incorrect in thinking that your initial edit changed the situation.  However I think the above user is mistaken in saying that we are using some kind of liberal definition of trolling.  This article illustrates a number of behaviors that may be termed trolling.  The situation in question is one in which the term troll is used, this may be in your opinion an incorrect use, but it is a use nontheless.  --Daniel J. Leivick 22:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not suppose that the definition of troll was found in some liberal dictionary, but rather that it was the product of liberal minds. (Notice how I am the first person to object to the inflammatory example.) My own experience, FWIW, is that the label "troll" is used differently on left and right web sites, and that is what I intended to convey here on the discussion page. Consider it food for thought. (This goes for the researcheers who are quoted on the main page as well!) 38.113.0.254 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: A simple question. I'm wondering if it's mandatory to be going to one of those websites for a long time before you can have controversial opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.34.191 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are asking if immunity to accusations of trolling or immunity from being labeled as a troll can be acquired by frequenting a forum for a sufficiently long period of time I'd say the answer is no.  No amount of seniority at a forum is sufficient in and of itself to grant such immunity.  Many forums have notorious trolls who have been trolling since the creation of the forum.Zebulin 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, there is a difference between noobs and newbs.  --Luigifan 12:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not here there isn't (click your link).  explain the difference you perceive.Zebulin 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can only noobs be trolls? 

message: We've had the following definition or minor varations of it as the lead to our article for some time:
"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."
By this definition someone like the fools who go about blanking wikipedia articles are engaging in trolling even though they have in fact made no statement of any kind.  In fact since the troll must by this definition be intent upon 'disruption' to qualify as a troll then it would follow that trolls are comprised entirely of those individuals who desire disruption or damage to a forum or community as an end in and of itself.  Since "disruption" has no purpose apart from destruction of order this definition would seem to require that all trolls are intent upon damaging the communities they frequent and are indeed motivated by spite.
The definition is unsourced and so until a properly sourced definition can be found (and this has proven very difficult) it is ripe to be challenged.
I'm sure we are all familiar with the following common usage of the term troll "Do you think he's trolling?".  By our current definition this would be asking if "he" is disrupting the community.  However, most responses to this question do not comprise evaluations of the evidence of disruption of the community by the putative troll but rather involve evaluations as to whether the poster seems to be sincere in their discussion as opposed to simply making a pretense of sincere discussion to observe the reactions of those potentially being "trolled".  The "trolls" responses are examined to see if someone might realistically be expected to make such replies if they were sincere or if instead the replies are more likely an attempt to elicit strong reactions from the community.
The most important thing this article needs is a useful source for the definitions of troll that it gives.  In the absence of such sources it would seem prudent if nothing else to insure that the provisional definition is broad enough to encompass most if not all of the extant interpretations of "trolling".
Do we really have consensus that usage of the term "troll" generally refers to someone attempting to disrupt the forum?  The ultimate form of disruption of a community or forum would be the destruction or cessation of activities of a forum.  Such disruption is absolute.  Do we really believe that such a common term reflects only such spiteful activity?
I have attempted to broaden the provisional definition of troll through the following wording:
"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others rather than an honest effort at sincere discussion."
Which differs from the previous provisional definition by the addition of the qualifier "rather than an honest effort at sincere discussion." to the end.  This was simply a modest attempt to encompass at least part of the focus of the alternative interpretation of troll in the definition by highlighting the absence of an honest effort to engage in sincere discussion as a characteristic of a troll without necessarily challenging the existing definition.
Why is it necessary to continue to remove this qualifier?Zebulin 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trolls as willful vandals vs trolls as attention seekers 

message: The following paragraph under the Etymology section is absurd
The origin of the phrase has been discussed in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the related term "patent troll" (eBay v. MercExchange, 29 March 2006):
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, is -- is the troll the scary thing under the bridge, or is it a fishing technique?...
MR. PHILLIPS [attorney for eBay]: For my clients, it's been the scary thing under the bridge....
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I mean, is that what the troll is?
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I believe that's... what it is, although...maybe we should think of it more as Orcs, now that we have a new generation.''
please correct it or remove it
:I have NOT taken the time to check this quote. However, it sounds like a perfectly plausible exchange at a Supreme Court oral argument. Finell (Talk) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can find information about that patent troll case here: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6055547.html betsythedevine (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized 

message: Max Goldberg has repeatedly stated that he does not condone trolling and in fact has trying to delete people who are involved in such behavior. At one point, the people on the YTMND forums were heavily involved with trolling but Max Goldberg has deleted the forum several times and right now that forum isn't even part of the main site anymore. I don't really think it's fair to label YTMND as a trolling site because the admin has been doing all he can by himself to stop people from creating trouble. In fact, in a recent post he states that trying to control what people do on the site is impossible. But, you have to realize that a very small minority of people are involved in trolling. Most of them were with the old forums which are now not as big as they used to be. The majority of the trolling is done by the group of people on the YTMNSFW forums and the forums that splintered off of it. Calling YTMND a troll group is like saying GameFaqs is a troll group simply because of LUE. Just because a small group within the website involve themselves in malicious behavior does not mean that YTMND (or even GameFaqs) itself is a trolling website. --192.203.136.254 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YTMND is not a troll group 

message: I'm trying to be a good troll.  Here I go look up trolls on wikipedia I see a strong anti troll bias.  Well anyway, I'm pruning everything I can find that has been reasonably marked as citation needed as someone else, or just removing the flag.  Mathiastck 06:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: please remove the "don't feed trolls" picture. It isn't needed.
:Done. Pipatron (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted back the picture per reference to Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Igor Berger (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a reference. The point of a reference would be to prove the actual common usage of the image in conjunction with the term. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:36, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't feed troll picture 

message: Urkobold. He has his own blog.Highnumber 21:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the troller of trolls? 

message: It's less clumsy than "Troll (Internet)". Anyone else agree?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in line with policy to avoid bracket names whenever possible. Since Internet troll currently exists, I will request an admin to make the move. Eleland 12:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested page move to "Internet troll" 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Per HisSpaceResearch above, it is less clumsy. Eleland 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Hi,
To summarize roughly from the article and from some of the comments, the genuine definition of a troll is 1) someone who consciously sets out to irk people for fun, as in a game or a sport. -Less legitimately, “troll” is also 2) used as an ad hominem attack, aimed at hollowing out someone's points.  -Finally, “troll” can, also illegitimately, be 3) used against someone who is not of the right allegiance, such as liberal posting on a conservative board, or someone holding unpleasant opinions (which touches on the ad hominem attack).
But I wonder if, though the first point presents a definition of trolling that may be true to the original usage in newsgroups, it might just too easily dismiss a broader definition that has come to be used in blogs and discussion boards, and that is more legitimate then the simple ad hominem attack.
Here, I mean people who post on boards but categorically refuse to comply with conventions, agreed upon standards of civility and rules laid out for discussion flow. People who, in conjunction, tend to impose their “style” on others, regardless of the negative comments they receive on their manners. Especially, such posters would tend to get overly self-righteous when others tell them that their behaviour is being frowned upon, thus doubling their efforts to make their viewpoints across, claiming for example that they are so right that that is why others are trying to "censor" their opinions.
Initially at least, such posters might genuinely want to partake in the ongoing discussions and think they have plenty to contribute. They might also be of the right allegiance. But they will refuse to follow conventions (or lack the social intelligence to understand those conventions?...) : refusing to be courteous, themselves using ad hominem abundantly, storming the board by replying 3 times for every other post, posting overly long messages, etc. And they will generally create the annoying consequence that every thread they participate in will end up revolving around their person, as they keep being successful in bating some people who will try to either make them comply or leave. (Thus prompting the “Do not feed the troll” reply by others.)
In short, a “troll” here would mean someone who disrupts the flow of conversation by ignoring every social rule and by self-righteously and adamantly insisting they are right against everybody else.
This kind of behaviour routinely grants people to be called “trolls”. And I would believe genuinely so. (Or is there a different term used for that particular behaviour?) I'd be curious to know what you think.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Pra Phnom 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll definition too narrow ? 

message: Removed the lines "The exact reasons as to why people troll are moot. There is also reason to doubt that much of what is called trolling is in fact trolling." because it makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe on Enccyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia but not on Wiki.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts messages suggesting anyone who reads this is gay in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of sparking an intelligent and sophisticated discussion. [1]</blockquote>
WTF? This is a travesty! The "anyone who read this is gay" part seems to have been blatantly patched in the sentence by some cretinous 12 years old boy. Gay should not be used as a pejorative term in a serious article. Amd anyways, the whole sentence is completely wrong, we can see a Troll passed to modify it. Worst part: "with the intention of sparking an intelligent and sophisticated discussion". That's the total opposite of trolling! 
This part doesn't seem editable by non-suscribed user, so I ask, please, get someone to repair this! It's awful!
P.S: the whole article is very bad. It's just trying to explain the etymology of Trolling, without really explaining what is considered trolling ('cept that part about "good trolling", which makes me really wonder how it got in there. )
:(
24.226.198.174 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol wut 

message: Leaving aside the problem of unsourced statements and "original research, this article is falling apart because it jumps back and forth between two different topics. 
The original topic of the article was the history and activities of a Usenet subculture that still thrives on the Internet--
people who intentionally disrupt online conversations and may or may not gloat about their successes to one another afterward. 
The emerging topic of this article is the misuse of the word "troll" as an insult to devalue someone whose comments have made you angry. That is, instead of being an article about the thing "troll", others want this to be an article about the word "troll."  Much of this seems to come from people who have had their feelings hurt by being unjustly called trolls. 
Some of this material might fit into the wiki page 
In my opinion, all the expanding commentary about how people misuse the word "troll" and etc. has no place in this article except maybe in a section called "controversy."  This article is about trolls. betsythedevine 07:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be about trolls, not about the word "troll" and how it can be misapplied 

message: Will someone please define the above somehow, somewhere, sometime soon? Ludvikus 12:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Troll (Wikipedia)]] 

message: I disagree with the view that trolling on Fark is "flooding rather than trolling".
Farkers view a troll as:
"Someone who disagrees with ((the consensus of the thread) | (their own views)) in order to provoke a (negative) reaction from other posters".
I feel this is in-line with the definition of Troll (Internet) in general.
I think that if Meow Wars (early Usenet) and goatse (dead except for mirrors) are included in the list of trolling subcultures, Fark should be included as well as Slashdot, as it has a current community that includes a wide selection of trolls in the current time frame.
I welcome counter views from other Fark users (or User:Sunray) who say that Trolls (as defined by Troll (Internet)) are not present in the Fark community.
Skrrp 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links in this section are supposed to be examples of "trolling subcultures." How is Fark an example of a trolling subculture? Please explain. Perhaps leave aside the others (Meow, Slashdot) for now.  We can deal with them once we get this sorted out. Sunray 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fark as a Trolling Subculture 

message: Hey all. I agree this article needs to be improved. Can we focus on particular subsections that contain OR, instead of tagging the entire article? This will move things along much faster. I've removed the OR tag at the top of the page, and I encourage people to tag individual sections and sentences instead. Sdedeo (tips) 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a sensible approach. Sunray 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: This page should be Troll (internet), with lowercase internet, per WP:NC. I won't move the page because maybe there was an earlier discussion which decided otherwise. If there was no such discussion, please move this page. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: If she isn't a media celebrity - she would most likely be an internet troll... Her statements has all the earmarks of what a bad troll would say in forums - attacks without fact.  I've had to deal with such people - there were plenty of those on the Yahoo forums before they took it down.
18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter 

message: Under Etymology one line states that the homeless in Santa Cruz were described at "trolls".  This is unrelated to the origins of the word in the context of the internet.  It is unsourced in any case.  Removing.  --Bridgecross 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but totally irrelevant. Good riddance. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disconnected sentence on homeless as "trolls" 

message: I think this reflects a particular viewpoint.  It is a pejorative term for a moderate republican and I think that to view them as trolls is POV.  It needs to be reworded and citation added or else it should be deleted.67.81.39.219 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RINO as a troll? 

message: Why is troll (internet) a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo? Joeking16 (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo]] 

message: Why no mention of them?Tailsfan2 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of who? Feel free to add a section or sentence about them if reliable enough sources exist. --McGeddon (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bunch of youtube trolls.  That is the problem.  I am unsure where reliable material can be found.  They are some of the tougher ones.  Threats are not uncommon.  My board got trolled by them today.24.46.211.141 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FCTC 

message: Logical arguments are healthy for a discussion.  It senseless to brand someone who solicits logical and non-emotional argument a troll.  It also deviates from the meaning conveyed in the alt.troll faq, and internet newcomers are beginning to throw the term around abusively because of it.  There has been a recent surge in the practice of branding someone a troll who practices clean argumentation theory.  The wiki definition was overly broad and likely responsible for some of this over zealous use of the term - which has lead to damaging forms of censorship.  It enabled the erroneous labeling of someone not looking to cause emotional outrage, so I added the word "emotional" to the definition.  Emotion is an essential component.  Although the definition is now accurate, it's tempting to simplify it without losing meaning.  I suggest something as short as "to provoke flames intentionally", and from there simply ensure that the wiki definition of flame is accurate.
:I'm not sure if Wikipedia can really be blamed for the misuse of the term. Even as the article states, it is very common to accuse people who disagree with you of being a troll as a form of ad hominim. —Memotype::T 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting arguments is not trolling 

message: I believe that the term "trolling" should also include chatroom users who post the same "singles ad" text repeatedly in the room.  I can't think of where I would cite such a definition, but in the past I've observed it being used heavily to describe the "horny net geeks" who are "trolling" for women in a chatroom.
:Perhaps, but I would certainly propose it as a variant of trolling, because this would be an atypical application of the term.  And what you describe is closer to spamming than trolling.  "Spam troll" or "spam trolling" sounds reasonable to me.  I think it would overly complicate the basic definition of trolling to include your chat spam case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.131.35.214 (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that use is covered by this definition; it's just being used metaphorically. --DocumentN (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trolling" for women 

message: The example of "Joan" cited here is early but it is an example of sockpuppetry not trolling. Why is it here? Was the word "troll" used in the early Ms. article cited? betsythedevine (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history example  is not trolling, it is sockpuppetry 

message: I see an external link entitled: "Unconvential approach of feeding trolls, not killing them by Henk van Ess"
This leads to an Ad landing page on a domain that doesnt host the article. The article is in French.
I would at least like to change the link so that it leads directly to the artcle, or completely remove it since this is the Englisg version of wikipedia.
If youre against it speak up Bl4h (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it should be removed... but maybe also archived here so it isn't lost and someone might translate it or find an english version somewhere. —Memotype::T 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXTERNAL LINKS 

message: The current article doesn't seem to acknowledge that trolling could take place in any context other than an internet forum. Wouldn't the paper described at  (note title text) be an example? --DocumentN (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying the comic is trollish or the research paper they're referring to? Honestly, I don't see how either is trollish, even though I might personally disagree with the premise of each. —Memotype::T 17:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper was "meant as more 'provocation' than 'well-reasoned argument'"; isn't that basically the same as a message written "with the intention of baiting other [people] into an emotional response" (current revision)? --DocumentN (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Usenet trolling 

message: Is an editor that is so tedious and tenacious that he or she will go through loops to desrupt WikiPedia to prove WP:POINT. While a dedicated editor who cares about WikiPedia project as a whole is not a Troll and should never be called such, an editor with a hidden objective my be consider a Troll. Still calling an editor a Troll is very derogative and should not be done without proper justification, because of the negative ramifications that may follow the calling event. for Wikipedia essay see Wikipedia:What is a troll
*I would like to add this paragraph to the Troll (Internet) article. Although there is reference to the Wikipedia Troll esay on top of the article the reference is very small.
*May editors inclduing admins are calling other editors Trolls, this is degorative and insalting, so we should educate oureslves as well as the the public users what are Wikipedian Trolls.
*By having prominent reference to the sub article and a summary of the essay is Folksonomy of Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a good point.  Probably the objection is that it crosses the line between Wikipedia namespace and article namespace. DurovaCharge! 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, as with many see also pointers, it has a place in the very first line of the article. This proposed paragraph seems like original research to me. It could belong in the troll essay, but it does not add to an article about internet trolls, in my opinion. MKoltnow 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling or percieved trolling is a very big problem and has a negative affect on Wikipedia. Highliting - making reference the notable information to the subject at hand is what Wikipedia is about in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, giving a subject undue weight in an article is dangerous, because it treads into areas where we have problems with neutral point of view. What you want in this article is at the very top of it. Making a bigger deal, in articlespace, about what Wikipedia trolling is and what sort of a problem it is, gives it undue weight in an article about internet trolling in general. This is not an essay or policy, it is an encyclopaedia article in mainspace. MKoltnow 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A prominent SEO/Social media consultant Andy Beard refers to Jason Calacanis a Mahalo.com founder as, "Wikia Troll" http://andybeard.eu/2007/12/jason-calacanis-wikia-troll.html Googling for WikiPedia Troll returns 416,000 page results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wikipedia+troll How more notable do you want this to be? Igor Berger (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *You seem really convinced that your contribution is important. Maybe first you could have another read of this whole Talk page. It repeatedly talks about issues of original research and point of view. If you're satisfied that what you have still needs to go in, I suggest you use your spell-checker and put in what you want. I don't know whether you don't understand what other folks say, or you choose to ignore it. But in this  you claim that Durova endorsed your addition to this article. In reality, I think you were given moral support--your idea is good, but this is perhaps not the right namespace. (correct me Durova, if I am wrong) When I challenged your contributions as being original research and not adding to the value of the article, you suggested that Wikipedia was about highlighting the notable information about the subject at hand. When I suggested that might give it undue weight, you made an unrelated argument about notability. Your entire argument seems to be original research--an overreaction to being called a troll? I don't know. I don't see why what you're interested in does not belong in the troll essay. Perhaps someone else needs to chime in now; I don't think this is worth much more effort on my part. MKoltnow 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Excuse my steping in here. Right now I think that mentioning wikipedia in a article is not proper unless the article is about wikipedia or one of its parts. Even though wikipedia does have its trolls, giving undue wieght to the article is unnecessary and should be avoided.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Troll 

message: Does anybody object to this? I will impelemt it if nobody objects.  Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs)  14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep my thread (just above this one) in the main talk page for at least another day or so because it was a recent edit. Also, you have yet to respond to my threads on here and on your talk page. I will interpret your lack of objection to mean that you approve of my edits. —Memotype::T 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving. 

message: By the poster's own admission, it has no provable relationship to the modern use. "Troll" was an offensive anti-homeless term in Santa Cruz in the 1980s, but neither is this documented. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.173.112 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2008
:Meh. It's interesting, related to the page and apparently verifiable; that's good enough for me. --DocumentN (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 17th century definition as knave should be removed 

message: From the second paragraph. This was apparently done by user 24.34.163.23. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I didn't know what to put on the user's talk page for a warning, (Lv. 1,2,3, etc). I'm not sure which applies, and whether this IP address should be reported given the circumstances. If someone could take care of that, i'd appreciate it. I need to read more about vandalism on Wikipedia :) Thanks. MoeJade (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed vandalism... 

message: How come we do not have Igor Chudov in the Troll (Internet) article? He got 1996 Troll award of the year http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/usenet/palm-chudov.html his website http://igor.chudov.com/ Read this also http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/337904/ShowPost.aspx The original group http://groups.google.com/group/alt.genius.bill-palmer Maybe we should do a section on this? Igor Chudov and Bill Palmer Troll incident. Igor Berger (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor Chudov and Bill Palmer famous usernet Troll incident 

message: Scanning this talk page I see no mention of sports trolls; simply put, at a forum or blog that is more or less dedicated to a certain team, a sports troll willfully represents an opposing team.  Sports trolls are not considered to be much of a problem, they are usually considered to be just "part of the game," more like dragonflies compared to the aphids and weevils described here.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports trolls at sports fora 

message: We should mention something about 4chan. The great habbo raid, the COS raids, the hal turner raids, the internet hate machine. This is an example of high level trolling.YVNP (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolls and invasions 

message: Removed section as it was highly POV with no source
The following, especially this part: 
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
The page is about what trolling IS. "Potential misuse" is utterly irrelevant here. The argument could be made for just about anything really, but again, this is not the place for it. Edit the page "ad hominem" if you want though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.220.41 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section needs rewriting, shrinkage, and some legitimate sources rather than deletion. If you look back over the history of this Talk page, you will see that many commenters are very upset about this word's misuse to discredit opponents in online debate. My experience with similar contentious issues in other articles is that new people show up, look for some text addressing the issue of interest, and if they don't find it just add their own new versions of it. If we could find a "real" media source discussing this phenomenon, that would be the best possible solution. betsythedevine (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is an interesting and relevant quote from an online article: "I would also add that accusing people of “trolling” adds nothing useful to the conversation...For goodness sake, ALL blogging is trolling — if we didn’t want to engage other people in our ideas, we’d write them in a notebook and hide it under the mattress." betsythedevine (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: IMDB also has some very good troll-related advice, including advice about false accusations of trolling:  betsythedevine (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: The question is whether or not this article should include a reference to the WikiMedia article "what is a troll?" My feeling is that this link has been in the article since more than 1000 edits ago so it has been considered useful and relevant by at least some other editors. I also think the link reflects what at least some and possibly many people will be looking for when they come to this article. For a similar example of second-guessing what people may want, the top of the article RSS includes a line "For RSS feeds from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Syndication." betsythedevine (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self reference and/or useful information? 

message: I feel that the Usage section needs to be reworked. I don't agree that the fact that the conversants are not in immediate physical danger means that they are naive to expect civility and common courtesy. Anonymity can provide a certain freedom of expression, but it is not a license for rudeness and verbal violence.
: It may not be a licence, but anonymity is a large factor behind people trolling...
::Agreed. It makes one feel invulnerable - "They can't do anything to me because they'll never find me."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.141.13 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Usage section 

message: All that discussion simply because I contested the trite meaning of the foremost header for "Troll."
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
If there's a law on Internet Trolling, add that to the other Sedition Law, The Patriot Act.
It's quite true, what they're saying, this generation knows how to memorize multiple choice to pass a test, but none know how to think anymore.
You can censor me all you like, but like an ancestor, Thomas Jefferson, I'm not going to stop saying you're wrong, not even at a price of one hundred thousand pounds on my head.  Why?  Because you opened the can of worms, you decided to provide the weapon of namecalling to the visitors here, and that alone makes you fit your own definition.
A "Troll" was, and will remain, a German mythical being.  A creation to be told to small children as a scarey story.  A Grimm's Faerietale.  Borrowed from Norse legend.  Were they the little people, the Romans and Brits that the lanky Germans and Saxons raped and pillaged after the sacking of Rome, and Brittania, or were they imagined creatures made up a thousand years afterwards based on tales taught from father to son?  Are they from Midgard or Middle Earth?  Like the Trojan War, "The Illyad" and "The Odessey," they are discounted as "myth" and "legend" by all but the most persistent intellects.  Heinrich Schliemann would have totally disagreed with your position, and would have proven you wrong, at his complete expense, just as he did academics and scholars of the past in first finding Troy, and then founding Archaeology itself.
But one will always wonder:  What is a troll, really?
You can pass laws to impose censorship, but you can never win its wars.
And you cannot define "Troll" without including all of its definitions, roots, and its complete history.  The modern day definition is simply "epithet," a dirty name you call someone when they displease you, or, it simply pleases you to bait and switch them.  It is the act of namecalling that is the mark of the "Troll" and the epithet is the word "Troll" itself; the completely Pavlovian transference of your personality onto something else.  Behavior modification, torture, at its most subtle.
You put food in front of the dog, who is in isolation, torture, then you "teach" your victim to "ring the bell" for survival.  Which is the troll, which is the "controll," which is the "bad," the captor or the captured?
Troll is a nice piece of bait, but the moment you use it, the only one you're going to catch is yourself.
:That may be so - there may be a level of pot-kettle-black here, but on the other hand, everything needs a name. Someone who forces someone to have sex with them is a rapist. Someone who kills someone is a murderer. Someone who is rude, off-topic, and abusive on the internet is a troll.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.141.13 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argumentative 

message: The etymology section states that "The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s", but where is the evidence for this? Footnote 5 gives a 1990 example but acknowledges that even that example is unclear. If the term first appeared on Usenet in the late 1980s, then let's see it; if not, change this. The Oxford English Dictionary's first examples are from 1992, from alt.folklore.urban, for what it's worth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.2 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology: evidence? 

message: I have a link to an article on NY times which could be useful for improving this article
Zippy117 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Article 

message: By the way, where is your "Reproduced with permission" for the photograph of the dead guy?
Because there are real laws about copyright, and the rights of family members, and every movie company and newspaper knows you better have permission, in writing first, it's not only seen as in very bad taste, it's also a legal liability to post such photographs without license.
I don't think you know this.  Being in Entertainment, Music and Movies, I do know that that law is far stronger than any law you can cite on legitimatized censhorship, i.e., Sedition Laws.
But to name him as a troll, is both injurious and detrimental, not just to him anymore, but to everyone who is related to him, was a friend, or other associate, and any newsman would recognise instantly that publishing the picture with the accusation, is a libelous act.
A great deal of talk goes on here about things like publishing, the Press, various freedoms, including Freedom of Expression, but little is said about the responsibility to play fair.
It's very reminiscent of the Marth Stewart Case.  I have advised Martha to turn around and sue, and ask that those people in the government, particularly the ones who locked her up for lying, should themselves be called into account and tried on this whole last five years thing since 911.  Otherwise, it's a double standard, isn't it?
Did Gonzalez lie?  Absolutely, and at least two witnesses have come forward in the Valerie Plame case.  They say the head honcho is the liar and that Gonzalez backed him up.  Aside from bombing babies, blowing their arms and legs off, for which the American people are actually responsible, since they approved and paid for it, which are all war crimes, they "trolled" Joe Wilson, and took it to the level of physical action against his wife, Valerie Plame.  This evidence was not presented lightly, especially by those who should know and those who knew for a fact, the C.I.A., after it was attacked by the same group and many of its members' lives put in jeopardy, but is proven.
Yet the biggest trolls set the example, don't they?  And if they can get away with it all, then perhaps this encourages others to try.
If you turn a blind eye to any side discussion, if you disallow what may be and what actually is the truth, then you've no credibility whatsoever.
And censorship is seen as the sole defensive autonomic reaction left to you, simply because you have nothing left to say in defense of your actions, thus you end discussion by saying "I don't want to talk about it."  Classic regression.
You have two choices:  live in the bubble, or get out and fix your environment.  Ignoring this problem is not going to make it go away with hiding out and having no opinion at Wikipedia.
It's all been seen before, as you say, from before the PC brought you the Internet.  As early as the first year of the first computer ever.  The politics of the epithet.  The ultimatum.  The Blacklist.
Why don't your rewrite the whole thing and start with the aboriginal, Troll as a mythical character, instead of the newspeak Troll as as weaponword.
         Why not? Because this page isnt "Troll," it's "Troll (internet)"
Oh yeah?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.193.114 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead guy's photograph 

message: This is totally not neutral POV. What about the trolls? Ever think of them?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.65.217 (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling is good 

message: I'm not entirely sure that image of a boat "trolling" for fish is an apt example.  I have to wonder if the original contributor might've heard of trawling for fish and thought it work here.  Then again, I suppose "trawling" an internet forum or mailing list is functionally the same as "trolling"
...or I'm reading into some kind of double-entendre that isn't really there. :|  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.169.193 (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered about this myself, but it turns out that trolling and trawling describe different ways of fishing -- the former trying to lure fish by trailing a bait, and the latter dragging a big net so that fish get caught up in it. Also, "troll" comes from old French "troller", which is a hunting technique where you wander around looking for prey  while "trawl" comes from a old German word "traghelen" meaning to drag. . betsythedevine (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling vs. Trawling 

message: Should this article have an illustration, and if so, which image? The knitted puppet under current dispute adds nothing to the article, IMO. Only its caption identifies it as a troll and nothing at all relates it to the internet. There have also been other images here in the past, including Wikipedia troll at play sign (which I created, so my judgment may not be objective!) and "Do Not Feed Troll" sign. The knitted puppet using a handpuppet over at Sockpuppet (Internet),  is useful and illustrative. Can somebody suggest a better image for this article? betsythedevine (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll image 

message: Please mention how the term is very often incorrectly used simply to avoid a debate between 2 conflicting points of view. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Trolls
Please mention also cranks which are similar (different?) to trolls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porton (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cranks don't belong in an article on trolls, but for misuse of the term, see the section on "Usage." betsythedevine (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please mention 

message: It just seems totally out of place, and well this is part of the word's etymology I am not sure a picture of it belongs in this article. Is there any precedence for this in other articles(links please)? Anyone else have thoughts on this? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the picture of the fishing boat necessary? 

message: Couldn't a troll being an existing member of a forum, who, when conditions change within the forums or society, becomes a troll?  I do not like the requirement of a troll to be an outsider.
:: I don't think conditions even need to change. A troll could be a longstanding member of a forum who just likes to see people tick. 121.220.7.134 (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Troll being an outsider 

message: I think that would be a good category
Liquidblue8388 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top most trolled sites 

message: The is the Troll mascot on 4chan especially the two most popular boards /v/ and /b/.
Should we add it?
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barakeh (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll Face or "LOL I TROLL U" 

message: The definition of a troll needs to be changed.  The current definition found at the top is too limited.  It focuses only on "bad" trolls, while the article repeatedly discusses "good" trolls.
This sounds like an interesting direction for research - does anyone know of any scholarship done on the benefits of trolls and/or trolling?  I've not come across anything yet, but I'm new to the topic.Penguinstypmanum (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better main definition needed 

message: I think it's better to post some of most popular troll infested sites like:
stormfront and asiafinest.com sites.
Asiafinest.com forum site is full of trolls.--Korsentry 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most troll infested sites 

message: I haven't seen mention of this in the article's talk area yet (if it's been said, by all means point me to it!)  but it would be nice to see a section on trolling and certain online communities, eg feminist spaces, GLBTQ spaces, race or ethnicity-specific spaces - perhaps with focus on community response/mechanisms for "troll control", or the problems with a free-speech space and the user's desire to keep trollers out of it.  If anyone's had thoughts along these lines, I'd like to hear them.Penguinstypmanum (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling and specialized online communities 

message: (1)Shouldn't a person who commits "trolling" - writes a "troll" - be referred to as a "troller" (a certain kind of fisherman), and not a "troll" (a creature of norse mythology)?
(2)Yes, that's right, and further evidence that the term is undesirable, thinly disguised racism.
:Sign your posts. I'd answer your questions but I don't really know if it's worth the effort. Thus, I'll mention WP:NOTFORUM and be on my way.   Aar  ►  00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling trollers or Trolling trolls? 

message: That first topic really irritates me, and for one reason - the trolls have, like so many groups over the years, convinced themselves that what they're doing is right.
I earnestly admit that society is, to be blunt, stupid. And I also earnestly agree that something needs to be done to give society a wake-up call. but random insults aren't the way to go about doing it! Calling someone gay, to ignore the more obvious point of using discrimination to turn the word into an insult, will not make someone think. It will just make them angry and make them call the moderators of whatever forum or game you're on.
The simple idea that a troll - and it very much was a troll who posted the first topic here, as, if the "gay niggers" comment at the end wasn't enough giveaway, only a "troll", that is, one who does the things described in the article, would defend said activities. Calling people "gay niggers" over and over has absolutely no value, on the internet or in real life. All it does is suggest that people of other races and other orientations are inferior. and if you honestly believe that, well... if you're so much better, how come you're wasting time on acts of trolling?
:WP:NOTFORUM, also sign your posts.   Aar  ►  00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deluded 

message: Posting controversial information with the primary intent to provoke an emotional reaction is always trolling? What if the intended reaction is positive or helpful? Shouldn't we face controversial issues with bravery instead of hurling insults ('troll' being one of them)?
I think you should change that.
98.230.13.113 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you do so, you post controversial information with the primary intent to tell a truth or help people. Emotial reactions are not part of the intent but known to be inevitable. Troll have the primary intent to provoke emotional reaction (and had often no secondary intent of any kind). The definition is correct like this. I think. Lacrymocéphale 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of trolling too vague, in my opinion 

message: Nice to see that internet slander term gets 42-kilobyte article with pictures and freakin' examples.
Isn't it?
Plus a politically biased set of examples. You, author/s, can't come up with a single example of a liberal-left troll? Ah, well, just go back to James Wolcott and see what he can come up with. Sean Smith  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.63.172 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloat 

message: There I said it. 70.59.2.81 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling is relative 

message: The present usage 'trolling' as explained upon the page is a typical example of the low level of literacy found among people on the net. In the article, we see 'trolling for fish'. No, you TRAWL for fish. A troll (scandinavian mythical figure) does not trawl and trawlers (ships which are used to trawl for fish by dragging a net behind them) are not 'trollers'.
I guess this post makes me a bit of a troll...
Except that it's not off-point, just trying to clear up a misapprehension.
abenfield (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling? 

message: Just realised that what I wrote above was complete crap. Please ignore it abenfield (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling? - addendum 

message: This is a great edit to the lead. The best lead paragraph I have seen in years, on this article!
diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troll_(Internet)&oldid=305012109 Igor Berger (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. However, I would put the last 2 sentences under 'usage' since they explain that you should not 'use' the term 'troll' since trolls themselves often try to label their opponents as 'trolls'. Also the third to last sentence already exists elsewhere in the article. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The version of the lead paragraph you are praising would be fine in a personal essay on internet trolls. But check Wikipedia's policy on "original research" to understand why sentence after sentence expressing the personal experience and opinion of its creator is not appropriate in article space. betsythedevine (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make the edit personally, but I believe it is a good edit. If we can wikify and reference the lead it would be great. So is it possible to do so? Igor Berger (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I would also like to point out, that in addition to not meeting WP:NOR, this lead also violates WP:NOTHOW. Whether it's "how to deal with a troll" or "how to use the word 'troll,'" it's just not encyclopedic. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sometimes you WP:IAR and use common sense. Not saying this is the place or the time, each individual decides for themselves. Still Wikipedia is a great twilight zone, if you know what I mean. It is all relative in catch-22 You guys can decide what is best. I said my piece. Thank you very much, Igor Berger (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While more or less ok as something to read, that lead is indeed mostly original research and how-to, essay-like, not encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great lead paragraph on the article 

message: The concern troll section is marked as have disputed neutrality. However, there is no discussion here. I'm just really concerned that this might go unnoticed for a while and lower the overall quality of the article. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.180.165 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality problem? 

message: I think trolling has very much to do with the so-called Socratic method of coaxing feedback from the discussion environment by inquiries. A subtle and successful troll can be as much profit as fun; it can have an enlightening effect on discussion.
Of course, typically what people understand by "trolling" is wreaking havoc a la rec.pets.cats. --Sigmundur (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Socratic method]] 

message: I have an issue with this line "It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers, itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a bait through water, known as trolling." While it is true that this explanation is fairly common online, knowing the tendencies and recreational habits of the Sys-ops, BBS denizens and code-monkeys of the time, I find it highly unlikely that they would use an out-door recreational term. When I first began to test the waters of Usenet groups, I was given to understand that the term had its origins in the trolls of J.R.R. Tolken Hobbit series as well as other "fantasy" or "sword and sorcery" tales or the game “Dungeons & Dragons”. As I was also a devote of this genre, this made sense to me. A troll was nasty troublesome creature given to dark places, sudden ambush and Tolkien's writings they are portrayed as evil, stupid, with crude habits, although still intelligent enough to communicate with a known language which pretty much describes Internet trolls.  
Instead of “reeling in suckers that they have “baited (as the current naming explanation implies), Internet trolls jump out of nowhere, raise a bit of mayhem then run and hide when exposed to light. Internet Trolls have more in common with middle earth trolls than they do with fishermen.
Any thoughts on this theory?75.6.128.220 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term "Troll"