Guidance needed - dealing with a very persistant troll
Gary Stark
We are experiencing a serious problem with a troll who is defying all
attempts to remove him from the newsgroup.
The usual approach of ignoring the individual isn't working, and over
the last week or two the troll has actually increased his activity quite
significantly. Many on the newsgroup have killfiled this individual, but
some have not. And despite repeated requests, some still respond to his
postings.
Requests to the individual concerned that he cease posting in the manner
that he is have been rejected, often with disdain.
I've had a look at the newsgroup's charter, and also at the troll faq.
The type of person we're dealing with is described in the FAQ in this
manner: "regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks
to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than
to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the
fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand
- they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are
named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such,
they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh,
ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook."
The newsgroup - comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects - is a highly technical
one; the learning curve for becoming in some way competent in the
language is probably in the vicinity of 12 months; this troll has been
posting disruptive messages on this newsgroup from the time he joined
it, about four months ago. He has little if any understanding of the
technical issues underlying problems that may arise for developers using
the tool. His posts are frequently little more than complaints about a
product of which he has no fundamental understanding, and often comprise
references to google searches that are now being taken out of context.
I have tried to take the matter up with his upstream ISP. They responded
that they rarely deal with matters of content, unless there are legal
issues involved (there are not) or unless a serious breach of the
newsgroup's charter has occurred.
That raises the question of what is a "serious" breach of the charter?
How is this determined, and by whom?
IMHO this is occurring, and from other comments I see, I believe that
many would concur. Does my belief make it a serious breach though?
Probably not.
The ISP has suggested that we regularly post an informational text about
the individual within the newsgroup. I believe that this is undesirable
for a number of reasons. It obviously is drawing more attention to the
miscreant, when that is probably the last thing one wishes to do. It
raises issue of liability - how can one say things about another,
without fear, perhaps, of legal retribution. I'm uncovinced that this is
an acceptable way to deal with the problem.
I am now looking for further suggestions on how to deal with this
person, and any and all suggestions will be most welcome.
TIA for your help.
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Paul Anderson
> G'day y'all
>
> We are experiencing a serious problem with a troll who is defying all
> attempts to remove him from the newsgroup.
Considering it must not be a moderated newsgroup, there is no way to
remove s/h/it. Sorry, that is the way of the Usenet.
>
> The usual approach of ignoring the individual isn't working, and over
If ignoring isn't working, step up the education campaign and hope for
the best. Past that, start a new froup and make it moderated.
We (tinw) get a lot of trolls in nanae and we killfile where
appropriate, post "please do not feed the trolls" messages, and
hopefully they go away. Usenet is hardly a controlled or controllable
environment.
> the last week or two the troll has actually increased his activity quite
> significantly. Many on the newsgroup have killfiled this individual, but
> some have not. And despite repeated requests, some still respond to his
> postings.
Then killfile the responders. If they refuse clue, take them out of the
equation. Yes, it is a bit harsh, but it might be worth it for everyone
else.
I don't killfile. I know who should be here and I know the personalities
of most of them to identify a troll posting as one of us (tinu). That is
my own decision. I respect any one else deciding otherwise because the
trolls do have a time-management problem associated with them.
>
> Requests to the individual concerned that he cease posting in the manner
> that he is have been rejected, often with disdain.
No duh.
>
> I've had a look at the newsgroup's charter, and also at the troll faq.
> The type of person we're dealing with is described in the FAQ in this
> manner: "regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks
> to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than
> to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the
That's your typical troll.
> fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand
> - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are
So let them utter. They can't hurt anyone by posting. Of course the
google archives don't need crap like that but it is good documentation
later when someone decided to take action against them.
> named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such,
> they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh,
> ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook."
>
> The newsgroup - comp.lang.clipper.visual-objects - is a highly technical
> one; the learning curve for becoming in some way competent in the
> language is probably in the vicinity of 12 months; this troll has been
> posting disruptive messages on this newsgroup from the time he joined
> it, about four months ago. He has little if any understanding of the
> technical issues underlying problems that may arise for developers using
> the tool. His posts are frequently little more than complaints about a
> product of which he has no fundamental understanding, and often comprise
> references to google searches that are now being taken out of context.
Okay, a troll.
>
> I have tried to take the matter up with his upstream ISP. They responded
> that they rarely deal with matters of content, unless there are legal
> issues involved (there are not) or unless a serious breach of the
> newsgroup's charter has occurred.
Considering we (tiaw) are dealing with e-mail, the Usenet is of no major
concern aside from our usage of it. That being said, I agree that Usenet
trouble is serious trouble. I'd still keep my Internet account if the
rest of the net went down. I'm fighting to keep e-mail useful. If I lose
Usenet, I might as well commit lead poisoning with a .41.
>
> That raises the question of what is a "serious" breach of the charter?
The host of the local connection.
> How is this determined, and by whom?
The host of the local connection. Switch hosts. There are many useful
ones scattered across the net that take kooks, trolls, spammers, et.al.
seriously. Mine took almost two years to work on the biggest kook of
all (I won't name names). There are many places to go that whack the
crap. Might cost a tad sum more, but if Usenet is useful to you, you
might consider it.
>
> IMHO this is occurring, and from other comments I see, I believe that
> many would concur. Does my belief make it a serious breach though?
> Probably not.
To me, it is a serious breach to have anyone improperly doing anything
on the Internet. But I am preaching to the choir here regarding that
comment.
>
> The ISP has suggested that we regularly post an informational text about
> the individual within the newsgroup. I believe that this is undesirable
> for a number of reasons. It obviously is drawing more attention to the
> miscreant, when that is probably the last thing one wishes to do. It
True, but it also allows for education. Post a weekly FAQ in the froup
that shows people how to killfile from their news reader. Not all
can/will, but if you make it easy for them to do it, you might get more
"compliance".
> raises issue of liability - how can one say things about another,
> without fear, perhaps, of legal retribution. I'm uncovinced that this is
> an acceptable way to deal with the problem.
Rejecting a posting by someone is not saying anything other than "I
don't like you and I'm not going to listen to you". No legal liability
in the educated countries.
Gary Stark
Paul Anderson wrote:
> In article <3F53DCB1...@RedbacksWeb.com>, Gary Stark wrote:
> > G'day y'all
> >
> > We are experiencing a serious problem with a troll who is defying all
> > attempts to remove him from the newsgroup.
>
> Considering it must not be a moderated newsgroup, there is no way to
> remove s/h/it. Sorry, that is the way of the Usenet.
Yeah, sadly ...
> >
> > The usual approach of ignoring the individual isn't working, and over
>
> If ignoring isn't working, step up the education campaign and hope for
> the best. Past that, start a new froup and make it moderated.
We're starting to consider that approach. The fundamental problem I have with
that though is that by starting a new group, you're conceding "victory" to the
troll. It's kind of like giving in to a terrorist. :(
> Then killfile the responders. If they refuse clue, take them out of the
> equation. Yes, it is a bit harsh, but it might be worth it for everyone
> else.
A difficult choice that one ...
> I don't killfile. I know who should be here and I know the personalities
> of most of them to identify a troll posting as one of us (tinu). That is
> my own decision. I respect any one else deciding otherwise because the
> trolls do have a time-management problem associated with them.
Absolutely. And one needs to be quite disciplined in order to be able to avoid
responding to the flamebait.
>
> > fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand
> > - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are
>
> So let them utter. They can't hurt anyone by posting. Of course the
In this case they can. We have a few commercial entities who often post quite
valuable technical information. Frequently the troll decries that information
with his own misinformation. A newbie may be misled, plus I'm aware of at
least one trader getting messages querying the stability of a product based
upon the troll's misguided rantings. The scant details of this suggest to me
that there is more damage being caused too; this is not a good thing.
> google archives don't need crap like that but it is good documentation
> later when someone decided to take action against them.
Yes it is.
> > I have tried to take the matter up with his upstream ISP. They responded
> > that they rarely deal with matters of content, unless there are legal
> > issues involved (there are not) or unless a serious breach of the
> > newsgroup's charter has occurred.
>
> Considering we (tiaw) are dealing with e-mail, the Usenet is of no major
> concern aside from our usage of it. That being said, I agree that Usenet
> trouble is serious trouble. I'd still keep my Internet account if the
> rest of the net went down. I'm fighting to keep e-mail useful. If I lose
> Usenet, I might as well commit lead poisoning with a .41.
In the case of this newsgroup, it's become the major (only) technical resource
for the language in question. The product is a niche product with a small user
base. Any change to this resource would be ... significant.
> > That raises the question of what is a "serious" breach of the charter?
>
> The host of the local connection.
>
> > How is this determined, and by whom?
>
> The host of the local connection. Switch hosts. There are many useful
> ones scattered across the net that take kooks, trolls, spammers, et.al.
> seriously. Mine took almost two years to work on the biggest kook of
> all (I won't name names). There are many places to go that whack the
> crap. Might cost a tad sum more, but if Usenet is useful to you, you
> might consider it.
I presume you're suggesting the ultimate source nntp server for the group?
This is certainly an interesting suggestion. How do we find out who this is? I
can't recall seeing anything in the charter.
> > IMHO this is occurring, and from other comments I see, I believe that
> > many would concur. Does my belief make it a serious breach though?
> > Probably not.
>
> To me, it is a serious breach to have anyone improperly doing anything
> on the Internet. But I am preaching to the choir here regarding that
> comment.
Amen!
> > The ISP has suggested that we regularly post an informational text about
> > the individual within the newsgroup. I believe that this is undesirable
> > for a number of reasons. It obviously is drawing more attention to the
> > miscreant, when that is probably the last thing one wishes to do. It
>
> True, but it also allows for education. Post a weekly FAQ in the froup
> that shows people how to killfile from their news reader. Not all
> can/will, but if you make it easy for them to do it, you might get more
> "compliance".
Indeed. I'm almost thinking of writing a small newsreader style of application
that can be configured to look for postings from a particular user (as a
killfile filter on a reader would) but instead of killfiling, posts an
informative auto-reply to any such message. That way we could autotage every
one of his messages.
Does anyone know if such a tool already exists?
Curiously, the troll posted a rather angry message this morning complianing
that someone has "illegally" cancelled the messages that he has been posting.
I'm wondering about the source of those cancellations ...
> > raises issue of liability - how can one say things about another,
> > without fear, perhaps, of legal retribution. I'm uncovinced that this is
> > an acceptable way to deal with the problem.
>
> Rejecting a posting by someone is not saying anything other than "I
> don't like you and I'm not going to listen to you". No legal liability
> in the educated countries.
Rejection is fine ... :)
Gary Stark
> > > That raises the question of what is a "serious" breach of the charter?
> >
> > The host of the local connection.
> >
> > > How is this determined, and by whom?
> >
> > The host of the local connection. Switch hosts. There are many useful
> > ones scattered across the net that take kooks, trolls, spammers, et.al.
> > seriously. Mine took almost two years to work on the biggest kook of
> > all (I won't name names). There are many places to go that whack the
> > crap. Might cost a tad sum more, but if Usenet is useful to you, you
> > might consider it.
>
> I presume you're suggesting the ultimate source nntp server for the group?
> This is certainly an interesting suggestion. How do we find out who this is? I
> can't recall seeing anything in the charter.
Does anyone have an answer to this question?
> > > The ISP has suggested that we regularly post an informational text about
> > > the individual within the newsgroup. I believe that this is undesirable
> > > for a number of reasons. It obviously is drawing more attention to the
> > > miscreant, when that is probably the last thing one wishes to do. It
> >
> > True, but it also allows for education. Post a weekly FAQ in the froup
> > that shows people how to killfile from their news reader. Not all
> > can/will, but if you make it easy for them to do it, you might get more
> > "compliance".
>
> Indeed. I'm almost thinking of writing a small newsreader style of application
> that can be configured to look for postings from a particular user (as a
> killfile filter on a reader would) but instead of killfiling, posts an
> informative auto-reply to any such message. That way we could autotage every
> one of his messages.
I now have such an application up and running. The problem I have with this is
that it, too, might be considered to be a spam type of response.
Right now I am posting to the same server that the troll is using, and I can tag
each of his messages within minutes of him posting a message. Other users can, of
course, killfile my autoresponder messages, as I hope they will killfile the
messages posted by this troll, but is this approach by me a correct one? Is it
even reasonable?
I recognise that the autoresponder messages are going to clutter up Google (which
doesn't thread the messages properly either, but that's a different issue) and I'm
not enthralled with that consequence of my actions either.
I remain uncomfortable with this sort of approach, even though it's quite finely
targetted at just the one user.
The sooner that all users in the newsgroup in question start to ignore him, the
better.
Does anyone have any other suggestions ?
TIA
Walter Roberson
Gary Stark <tas3...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote, having stripped attributions for
some of the previous text:
:> I presume you're suggesting the ultimate source nntp server for the group?
:> This is certainly an interesting suggestion. How do we find out who this is? I
:> can't recall seeing anything in the charter.
:Does anyone have an answer to this question?
There is no 'ultimate source nntp server' for newsgroups. Messages
propogate outwards from whereever they are posted, making their way
from system to system, eventually getting most everywhere. It works
sort of like "Tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so
on and so on and so on."
--
"The human genome is powerless in the face of chocolate."
-- Dr. Adam Drewnowski
Turan Fettahoglu
> > informative auto-reply to any such message. That way we could autotag
> > one of his messages.
> I now have such an application up and running. The problem I have with
this is
> that it, too, might be considered to be a spam type of response.
Dear Gary:
it seems the persistent troll auto-response seems to work, the troll has
been quiet for the last two days, and has been answered only in one or two
threads. So please keep your auto-responder on. I have killfiled both the
troll and your auto-responder, but not you.
It seems the same person was active at Borland CppBuilder, Smalltalk and
LISP, mostly for three months before giving up or getting thrown out. So
perhaps the VO newsgroup can become productive again soon.
Let's hope for the best, but what about moderating the newsgroup?
Kind regards
Turan
Gary Stark
Turan Fettahoglu wrote:
> > > Instead of killfiling, it posts an
> > > informative auto-reply to any such message. That way we could autotag
> every
> > > one of his messages.
>
> > I now have such an application up and running. The problem I have with
> this is
> > that it, too, might be considered to be a spam type of response.
>
> Dear Gary:
> it seems the persistent troll auto-response seems to work, the troll has
> been quiet for the last two days, and has been answered only in one or two
I'm not convinced that it's worked, but certainly he's been quiet for the last
couple of days, and that is a good thing. I suspect that he's getting together
with his cronies (I don't believe that he's acting alone) and they're trying
to work out their next plan of "attack".
But I've also turned off the autoresponder for now as well: I actually did
that before he shut up. I was rather bemused by some of the comments about the
autoresponder - as if some of the people there hadn't a clue about how to
killfile those messages, and even a couple of comments about who was
responsible for it. It's not as if I tried to hide anything about it, after
all ...
But to my mind, the most telling part of this person's postings was his
reaction to Geoff's offer to meet with him. No matter how far out of his way
that Geoff was going in order to meet with and accommodate the troll, he was
simply not interested in pursuing that path. To me, that, more than anything
else, tells us the truth of his motivations. His only interest is to disrupt
and destroy, and his "complaints" cannot be taken with any degree of
seriousness or commitment.
> threads. So please keep your auto-responder on. I have killfiled both the
> troll and your auto-responder, but not you.
If he comes back and starts to disrupt things again, then I can easily turn it
back on. It's set up to talk to the same server that he uses, and any messages
that he posts get responded to typically within just a few minutes of him
making a posting.
The real problems are the ones who respond to him. Whilstever others entertain
him with a response, he will believe he has an audience ... Is it for us to
tell others they should not respond ?
Well. of course it is, but ... :)
Personally, I quite liked the elegance of Erik's solution. I'm rather
disappointed that some felt he was not behaving correctly.
> It seems the same person was active at Borland CppBuilder, Smalltalk and
> LISP, mostly for three months before giving up or getting thrown out. So
> perhaps the VO newsgroup can become productive again soon.
Yes he was ... he'd been bothering us since March though .... using a few
different but similar names. Track back and look at messages from "usenet" and
a few other similar names.
Also look for a message from a "jack". Look at the originating IP for that
message, and trace it back to its source country.
This is one of his "cronies" that I referred to earlier. I think I know who it
is, but it's not something that one can or should speak about (in this regard)
in public. However, if I'm right, his bosses would be very disappointed in the
attitude he's expressing and encouraging here.
We're talking about something far more disruptive than simple trolling ....
> Let's hope for the best, but what about moderating the newsgroup?
That's plan b, but for obvious reasons, we don't really want to go down that
path. It's certainly been actively canvassed and discussed, but we want to see
if we can return things to normal in the current group first of all. That
would be the best option.
Rather than actually moderating, which could be a bit of a hassle to operate,
I'm thinking along the lines of a closed newsgroup. To participate you'd need
to register and get a password. We could echo the group between a few servers
on a few continents, and you could register with your local (or not) host.
But at least that way we could maintain an element of control over who was
able to participate, and in the event of a troll, we could just pull the plug
on the individual.
Gary Stark
Turan Fettahoglu wrote:
> > > Instead of killfiling, it posts an
> > > informative auto-reply to any such message. That way we could autotag
> every
> > > one of his messages.
>
> > I now have such an application up and running. The problem I have with
> this is
> > that it, too, might be considered to be a spam type of response.
>
> Dear Gary:
> it seems the persistent troll auto-response seems to work, the troll has
> been quiet for the last two days, and has been answered only in one or two
> threads. So please keep your auto-responder on. I have killfiled both the
> troll and your auto-responder, but not you.
And I see that overnight he has returned, and posted a response to Rod's
insightful message.
Sadly, his response rejects Rod's suggestions ...
This guy is a total jerk, the ikes of which I don't think I've ever seen.
Turan Fettahoglu
Please switch on your auto-responder again, and never mind the colleagues
who object.
> This guy is a total jerk, the ikes of which I don't think I've ever seen.
I try to find out some equivalent swear-words in Turkish, he'll need help to
translate them, if he wants to sue me.
I remember two real-life trolls. Rumour said the first made it to the
lunatic asylum, the second just disappeared after being sent home drunk from
our local user-group.
In offline life anybody would have turned out this guy from any meeting, so
he might be a loner. I suggest switching the news-group to "moderated", as
discussed several times. Or what about the German newsgroup
de.comp.lang.visualobjects at news.visual.objects.net? Anybody there should
speak reasonable English, and our "friend" has been officially declared
persona non grata.
Best regards to Down Under, I've been there twice as a backpacker!
Turan