3

Be the judge and decide who is trolling who from the below comment thread. As you can see, three community members are trying to help a fellow user to let him understand that Wikipedia is not a valid source here. We tried giving him links on why we concluded so. Still, the user repeatedly argued with us. The whole comment thread is the same to and fro insisting on valid sources. I feel the user is a troller as I felt the user is trying to start an argument instead of understanding community but do suggest your thoughts.

enter image description here

Note: This has nothing to do with the user's identity.

Edit: Taking Rickross suggestion, I tried emphasizing on this community which clearly proved this user is a troller.

enter image description here

15
  • Almost all the comments have a rude tone to them. What we can do? --- We can flag them and get them easily deleted provided there is someone to handle our flags :P
    – Rickross
    Dec 14 '20 at 11:48
  • 1
    Also from the way the user is repeating "Wiki is a valid source" somebody needs to tell him that "might be but not a valid source for our site".
    – Rickross
    Dec 14 '20 at 11:51
  • 1
    Everyone of you is just saying "Wikipedia is not a valid source" I am just saying that you need to emphasize on the part "on this particular site". I am not going to talk about the particular user's education but I have observed there is hardly any comment from him that is not semi-rude and confrontational in nature. And, that's not the only problem, there are problems associated with the particular user.
    – Rickross
    Dec 14 '20 at 12:31
  • *more problems ..
    – Rickross
    Dec 14 '20 at 12:47
  • @Rickross check my edit. Hence proved, high education inversely proportionate to basic knowledge, in this case :D (I deleted my previous comment thinking you might be right)
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 14 '20 at 13:24
  • 1
    There is no point in discussing or arguing with someone like that.
    – Rickross
    Dec 14 '20 at 13:41
  • Are mods busy or something ? Shouldn't there be a citation banner ? Dec 14 '20 at 15:23
  • Quite a few of his answers are either not answering the question/ without citation and still not answering the question. The problem is the user and not the trolls. I too had a similar discussion twice with him, one of which is here. He just doesn’t seem to accept his mistake. Furthermore he’s randomly downvoting posts. This user is a rogue (Saying it openly), he must be brought to task. He’s very rude too, as you’ll see from the thing I’ve linked.
    – Archit
    Dec 14 '20 at 18:23
  • @Carmen Except Pandya no mod is active since long time. And Pandya is busy nowadays (saying based on the last message posted by him). So expect delay. :-)
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Dec 15 '20 at 10:16
  • @TheLittleNaruto Mods are coming online but they are not handling flags. It seems they are more busy than even PM Modi.
    – Rickross
    Dec 16 '20 at 6:34
  • @Rickross haha yeah possible
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Dec 16 '20 at 7:44
  • Wikipedia has become a valid source today.
    – Ikshvaku
    Dec 23 '20 at 14:14
  • @Ikshvaku I suggest you post a new discussion to make it valid. For now, it is a tertiary citing source.
    – Mr_Green
    Dec 25 '20 at 7:05
  • @Ikshvaku, when you are born in the '80s like me, you feel goosebumps to read that wikipedia is even considered as a valid source. I have spent my Academic life time in mocking at people who explained me whatever thing citing wikipedia. In my living place "where have you read this, on facebook or wikipedia" are usually considered as jokes. I can make the strongest effort of my life in trying to understand you, only if you admit that: 1. You are unschooled; 2. You are born in 2000. If you are born in the first years of the '90s or in the '80s or else, please, do chant Hanuman Chalisa.
    – user22667
    Jan 6 at 4:04
  • Ask Hanuman to help you to understand what is an extensive way of making a research, @Ikshvaku. Om Sree Hanumate Namaha. Jay Sree Ram. Sita Ram Ram Ram
    – user22667
    Jan 6 at 4:06
-4

No, it's not trolling and there's nothing you should be doing other than flagging the answer with one of the reasons below and asking the mods to add a citation banner:

  • Wikipedia references unreliable; needs a citation banner

  • Quora is not a reliable source. Needs a citation banner.

  • primary reference used is Wikipedia, doesn't explain what it says in second reference, needs a citation banner

  • reference used is a blog, needs a citation banner


Also, I think it's unfair to pressure new users into conforming to the 'cite sources rule' when some high-rep users are routinely ignoring it.

This no-sources answer has 4 upvotes:

Sources? The first part looks like an opinion and the second a refutation but without any references/alternate translations. – sv. Jan 25 '19 at 17:55

Not every answer needs sources. – TheLittleNaruto Jan 26 '19 at 4:15

This 'Source: Upanyāsa' answer has 2 upvotes:

...

Source - upanyasa


Can you clarify the source bit more? With link if possible. – Pandya♦ Feb 9 '20 at 2:58

IMO, link to a Wikipedia article is a lot better than no sources or "Source: Upanyāsa".

13
  • I agree with all your points except link to a Wikipedia article is a lot better than no sources or "Source: Upanyāsa". An expert mentioning source upanyasa should be respected. I am not saying we should blindly follow it but the expert mentioning that it is not his/her interpretation but what is their in the original source is all we need. Coming to Wikipedia, I am still with community decision that it should be tertiary citation source but again comparing an expert's "source upanyasa" with Wikipedia is incomparable.
    – Mr_Green
    Jan 6 at 6:54
  • 3
    1. The concerned user is not a new user. He is 6 yrs 4mths old means much more old than me. 2. Just because some high-rep users have posted answers without sources doesn't mean that doing so has become the new standard for this site. 3. As far as I can see no one is harassing the concerned user. It's the user whose behavior instead is blatantly rude. 4. The user is an experienced SE user and he has accounts on multiple SE sites. And, he has been banned on 3 of those sites currently. Upon seeing his behavior here we can guess that he must be getting banned quite often. He is a repeat offender.
    – Rickross
    Jan 6 at 8:01
  • On a second thought, I agree with Rickross. I don't think I pressured him - just mentioned the helpful link for him but he started attacking.
    – Mr_Green
    Jan 6 at 8:32
  • 1
    5. If mentioning Source-Upanyasa a problem (which I admit that it is) then mentioning Source-Wikipedia article is even a bigger problem. Because while an online link for an Upanyasa may not be always available but a Wikipedia article can always be linked to. The screenshot in the question here is from comments posted under this post. There the concerned user has mentioned "Reference: Wikipedia article" at the end of his answer. He does not even bother to mention which Wiki article exactly is he talking about.
    – Rickross
    Jan 6 at 10:03
  • Rickross is 100% right and the "lot of rep = be the boss" is a tendency of many places that must be destroyed.
    – user22667
    Jan 6 at 18:37
  • I do not have rep to downvote this answer. Means no power to express an opinion. What a ridicolous rule. I am tired already, after only 3 days of use. But I want to find some good communicators to discuss. If you have my same mind, do not hesitate to contact me. This is not spam and this is not any kind of troll or other similarities. I cannot access the precious chat of this website. Fix this problem. I did not know that SE was the cousin of Rotary Club.
    – user22667
    Jan 6 at 18:41
  • @hindustudent link to chatroom: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15189/hinduism
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Jan 7 at 3:44
  • 1
    As you earn some more rep points you will be able to downvote. @hindustudent
    – Rickross
    Jan 7 at 6:04
  • "An expert mentioning source upanyasa should be respected." - who is the expert here? The user or the preacher? The reason why Wikipedia was not considered a good source on the topic of Hinduism is that several passages cannot be verified. I can edit a Wikipedia article, add my personal opinion there and 5 mins later write an answer here referencing the same. Same with an answer citing an unverifiable upanyāsa. @Mr_Green Jan 7 at 13:13
  • Even I could cook up an "upanyāsa" by a fictitious preacher and present it as an answer here. No one can verify or disprove my claim or source. Before you know everyone will be taking advantage of this loophole. Wikipedia can at least be verified by a Google search. Some random upanyāsa cannot be. Check this post which lists references in by the increasing order of reliability. IMO, unverifiable upanyāsa is equivalent to 'Missing reference' and 'Opinion' - which is worse than Wikipedia. @Mr_Green Jan 7 at 13:21
  • "I don't think I pressured him - just mentioned the helpful link for him but he started attacking." - your post is not limited to your comments alone, you presented everyone's comments. I don't see anyone asking the user for the link to the Wikipedia article. Another user can be seen pestering the user to present sources listed in the Wikipedia article. The same user has nothing to say under this answer to his question. The hypocrisy of some users is quite evident here. They don't seem to mind high-rep users breaking the same rules. @Mr_Green Jan 7 at 13:28
  • ok, I understand that citing just source-Upanyasa is as bad as source-Wikipedia or source-internet. I want to press more that citing from wikipedia should be avoided or used as tertiary source because that makes users like me answer questions by just simple search from google. I will definitely own this site in that case :D (I used to do this in my older posts if you check). I am good with searching on internet being a programmer. About the user being troller or not, yes better to observe for more posts to take possible action (though even Rickross complained about him before).
    – Mr_Green
    Jan 7 at 13:30
  • @Mr_Green Again, not following 'cite sources' or 'cite reliable sources' rule is not trolling. He has the same right to break that rule as any other user. Besides, that rule is only a recommendation, it's not mandatory. "About the user being troller or not, yes better to observe for more posts to take possible action" - You clearly stated in your post it was not about that particular user so better not bring up unrelated posts here. You can do a separate post about the user's other comments. Let's not discuss it here. Jan 7 at 13:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .