Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition

Strangely unhinged tone in first paragraph

The psychological analysis included in the first paragraph is remarkably dark, uses basically dehumanizing phrasing in assessing people as pathological while also not citing any sources at all to back up this rather extreme assessment of motivations behind a problematic phenomenon. I feel like the problem of vandalism on Wikipedia can be handled without employing the tonality of a law-and-order right-wing politician talking about perpetrators of urban graffiti. Seeing as this page is being treated as an official guideline on Wikipedia, should it perhaps be toned down a bit, or if such strong statements are going to be made about psychological traits motivating vandalism shouldn't they be sourced? 80.56.159.130 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's very offputting and not a good look for Wikipedia as a neutral resource. 107.12.51.118 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

How to answer to abuse of this

For context, I have often done anti-vandalism. This has led me to leave the standard warnings on a variety of pages, including on pages of probably good-faith disruptors (e.g. someone adding to their own page unsourced information about their children). In some cases, I have been reverted by others, with no other justification than "WP:DENY". I think others will agree that this is a blatant misuse of this page, aimed at those that intentionally disrupt Wikipedia. Still, I wouldn't have objected that much if the editor in question just didn't themselves use warnings, as opposed to trying to impose their way of doing on others through reversion, which is disruptive. This has not happened many times, and last example I remember was months ago, but I was wondering, how should I answer/react to such reverts? Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness"

Does this really belong on this page? 88.97.192.42 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

IMHO it doesn't, that's why I've been tagging it and I tried removing it. It sounds like clinical psychology, but from what I can tell, it has no basis. I think we should avoid such authoritative-sounding language if it's uncited, even in essays.

I don't think trolls' motivations are really relevant to this article anyway. I mean, if a stranger were being rude to me on the street, knowing why would help me deal with them, but I don't need to go that deep. So to me it's just distracting from the issue at hand. A better place to cover it might be at one of the linked pages: Wikipedia:Vandalism or meta:What is a troll? Even better, put it in the relevant article with a citation: Troll (slang) § Psychological characteristics. Even if it were moved into a section of this essay lower down, that wouldn't be so bad, but right now it's the first darn sentence.

@CFCF, you added it back and wrote This is a slightly humorous essay, it's allowed, but where's the humor? I looked it over again but all I can see is "don't feed the trolls", which is idiomatic, and "believe they are 'hackers'", which is a bit mocking but not really "humorous" IMHO. I'm also not saying it's "not allowed", more so that it's not helpful, maybe even dishonest at worst.

Tagging involved users: @Jojalozzo (originally added it), @Johnuniq, @IrisChronomia

— W.andrea (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC) edited 01:02, 01:08

The sentence boils down to “dedicated vandals basically has nothing better to do”. While essays are, by definition, not representation of majority opinion, I do find it humorous (and true. Based on my experiences).

That’s just for me. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an essay—it contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. If your opinion is that vandals and trolls do not suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness, you are free to write your own essay. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait for opinions from others about the recent edits by 海盐沙冰. However, adding references is not really a good idea IMHO. Essays do not use references (which is why there is no reflist resulting in waffle at the bottom of the page). A reference will rarely mirror an opinion expressed in an essay so the reference is not useful. Having a couple of refs lends credibility to the mistaken idea that more refs are required, or that the essay wording should be tweaked to follow the reference. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there are a few points here:

• Essays convey an opinion - we do not have to agree with that opinion. I for one disagree with many essays on Wikipedia, including ones that have been quoted to me - to which I've replied that I disagree. Heck, there are even counter-essays. The first pair to come to mind is WP:OVERCITE and WP:UNDERCITE.
• Essays are collaborative, and may be edited. Fundamentally however, edits are to be made in a way that is in spirit of the essay. When I say that it is "slightly humorous" - what I mean is not that I agree with either the position or the tone, or even find the humour especially funny. However, the intent is clearly there to be sarcastic - and disagreeing with this message is not a reason to change or remove anything. If you want you can write a more balanced counter-essay - which you might appropriately link here.
• WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS probably stacks higher on essays than anywhere else on Wikipedia. Unless the essay espouses an opinion that is directly counter to policy or guidelines - and only if it does so without stating that it is a non-consensus view - it should not be edited to change the position of the essay. The WP:ONUS on essays is reversed compared to the rest of Wikipedia. If something has been around for long in a essay, you will need exceptionally strong arguments to remove it, which we just don't have here. Anyone is free to write something like WP:Don't alienate the trolls if they want to.

P.S. I don't really mind the references, it adds to the sarcasm here. But the section should be properly formatted. CFCF (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

the intent is clearly there to be sarcastic

What makes you say that? I read it completely seriously. For one thing, there's no other sarcasm in this essay as far as I saw. — W.andrea (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If your opinion is that vandals and trolls do not suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying:

1. Prove it
   • To be more precise: How do you know that? If it's just an opinion, please don't phrase it as if it's a fact.
2. Why is that relevent?
3. Why is it so important(/relevant) that it needs to be in the first sentence?

— W.andrea (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC) edited 08:44, 7 August

This isn't an article, it's an essay. It's an opinion. There's nothing to prove here. A search for alienate with user essays gives me 22 results. – The Grid (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, "prove it" was too strong wording. I edited my above comment to clarify what I mean. — W.andrea (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Now that IrisChronomia has added a citation (Aydın) to back up "alienation", I'm satisfied. — W.andrea (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention before is that the phrasing was negative with no positive light. I mean, ideally we would stop people from trolling entirely, but it didn't really give any insight toward that – that is, it didn't explain to trolls or to people in contact with trolls what they might do to help. Iris's addition includes some details that could help trolls see themselves in a new light:

In adolescence, there is also a tendency for getting away from parents but towards peers. [Rejection from peers may cause] significant increase in stress [and contribute to] certain mood disorders. [...There] are thought to be links between significant brain changes and problems socializing and bullying.
— Aydın et al.

I also just noticed there's an existing topic on this talk page, which talks about the same concern: § Strangely unhinged tone in first paragraph. (For reference, the article at that time had the same first paragraph.)

— W.andrea (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

[For reference, the citation Aydın et al. was removed at this point and that led to further edits.]

Did you not read a single sentence of what I wrote? There is no need for references, and statements do not need to be proven in an essay. That something is shaky is not an argument to change it. If you want please write a counter-essay - do not change the intent or style of this one. CFCF (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you not read a single sentence of what I wrote?

Don't be rude please. Of course I read it, because I replied to it.

do not change the intent or style of this one

You're aware that the content I have a problem with wasn't originally in the essay, right?

— W.andrea (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Why did you roll back my edit? I didn't "change the spirit" of the essay, I mean I didn't delete any content, just moved it around. Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with it, just that it shouldn't be featured so prominently if it doesn't have any authority. — W.andrea (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The essay was fine before the recent changes and I have restored the previous version. Anyone wanting to change the wording or add references should do so in their own essay. This is a community essay and as such can edited by anyone. However, the prior wording (that I have restored) has been silently endorsed for a long period. Recent edits changed the tone of the essay and introduced the mistaken idea that references are needed for basic statements of opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This change is fine by me, compared to the previous version, but I do still have a problem with the psych content.

Firstly, yes it has been silently endorsed for a long period, but now it's being vocally criticized by myself and two others. I've only seen one person in this thread actually vocally support the content (Iris).

One thing I'm trying to get at is it's phrased like a fact that has clinical research to back it up, but as people keep pointing out, essays are meant to be opinions. This is bordering on medical misinformation; now, obviously, it's nowhere near as clear-cut as something like "vaccines have a 15% mortality rate" would be, but we should still try to avoid misinformation as a community. Keep in mind that this essay is linked from a number of places as a reference about not feeding the trolls.

And like I said above, even if it were just de-emphasized, like by moving it out of the lead, that would work for me. How do you feel about this version I tried earlier?

— W.andrea (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's just leave it be.

I genuinely recommend having a counter / differently-worded essay written and link it here in See Also.

On the lack of explicit endorsement: it may be ungraceful for one to endorse a sentence as sharp and scornful as this one.

Meanwhile, I added an explanatory note behind the statement. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! The note works for me. Why didn't I think of that? :p — W.andrea (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Aydın et al.

I just tried to open the Aydın et al. article using the DOI. It doesn't work, even though this DOI is indeed the one listed on the journal's homepage. I did some further research: Apparently, JEBMS is not a reputable journal, see X / Publishing with Integrity (the X account of predatory‑publishing.com). I would remove the reference. DaWalda (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

same. i stumbled across that post when searching for this journal too. apparantly the journal is ran by a single researcher in Turkey with the owner as an author on 75% of the papers. seems like people didn't even cared to discuss it.

the problem of citing these essays being that empirical studies on trolling (specifically, the mentality of trollers) are so rare that they're non-existant. both two of my citations are also (apparently) WP:OR. thanks for bringing this up, it really helps. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Copying from Twitter:

We were alerted to the Journal of Experimental and Basic Medical Sciences. Oytun Erbaş is both the owner and the EiC. The journal has published 189 articles. Of those, 168 (89%) have the EiC/owner as an author. That can't be ethical, can it?
buff.ly/Yw5iJTm #JEBMS
[two attached images]
— Publishing with Integrity, @fake_journals, 2025-03-02 04:36:03 (UTC)

— W.andrea (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

DNR?

I hope editors realize that DNR's more typical usage is Do not resuscitate. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)