Site policy for very heavily-trolled topics

Question

What is the site policy for dealing with questions on very heavily-trolled topics, like Hitler and The Holocaust?

We've long had problems with these particular topics, as they seem to be magnets for new users who either want to push offensive ideas (hereafter called "pushers"), or troll others by appearing to do so (hereafter also assumed to be pushers for simplicity's sake).

Normal rules about offensive content and topicality can of course take care of the worst offenders. However, such rules require the poster to step over a line, which they may not do until considerable user effort has been expended on the question.

This is part of the cost of maintaining a SE site in general. However, there are some topics that specifically attract pushers, to the extent that the odds of a new question from a new user on those topics being a legit question appears to be quite low.

Thus is has been demi-official site policy for years that new questions having to do with Nazis, Hitler, Jews, and the Holocaust have a much higher quality bar they need to reach to stay open than other questions do.

So the question is, what is the official site policy on this? Is what we are doing now sufficient, or should something different be done?

Answer 1

On Politics, we have a custom off-topic close reason for questions that appear to have been asked in bad faith:

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center.

This - of course - doesn't do much to stop the trolls. It does, however, help us communicate our policy far more effectively than Meta (which very few visit) or comments (which more often than not spiral into unconstructives messes).

It might be a good idea for History to adopt a similarly worded close reason.

---

Related discussions:

• A full and objective description of good faith?
• Please reword the “good faith” close reason

Answer 2

Current site policy (before this post unofficial) has been the following:

Questions on these topics have a hair-trigger for being put on hold. This goes in particular for new users who don't have a proven track-record of asking good questions.

There is a certain quality bar that all questions on SE sites in general, and this site in particular, must reach in order to remain open. However, questions on these topics in particular, due to excessive past abuse, are not given nearly as much leeway.

These questions can't be sort of on topic, or even mostly on topic, they must be fully on topic. They are expected to fully comply with our SE help center guidelines, and with our site expectations for good questions. Any issues with this that are pointed out in comments, particularly those with multiple upvotes, are expected to be promptly acted upon by the poster. User edits to fix perceived problems should not be blindly reverted. If this is a problem for a new user, they should probably start their participation experience with another topic where the standards aren't as strict.

Answer 3

I'm told its possible to put "alerts" on specific tags, such that warning pop-up text is given when a user sets out to use them. A moderator for another site suggested this could be used to effect a bit of an informational speed-bump for the problem tags.

This is apparently accomplished by requesting it on meta and getting developer attention. So its not something we could do ourselves on our own schedule. But it is something other sites have done.

Answer 4

I haven't been in the trenches half as long as most of you guys, but I'm getting awfully tired of the not so subtle "hidden" agenda questions, as I tried to raise in this question

I also feel we are going base over apex at times. This question, despite an excellent answer from @DevSolar, was swiftly put on hold. A quick glance at the OP's profile would suggest that he does not have English as a first language, and culturally did not have a West-oriented understanding of the references. Yes, it could have been better researched, but it was a genuine question from a Rep 1 newbie - precisely the people we are supposed to be encouraging!

Compare that with the time, spilt ink and angst expended on this question and I think the point is obvious. Personally, I'd rather use my time helping a genuine newbie than arguing out-moded notions of race, colour or creed

If I sound irritated, that's because I am, and I apologise in advance. But I do think the very different treatment of these questions does indicate a problem!

Answer 5

In the years since this "higher-bar" policy was described, things have actually gotten worse on these topics.

For that reason we should actually go a step further and just automatically put any question on these topics from a new user on hold. If, presumably after ironing out any issues, users decide the question is acceptable, they will vote to have it opened for answers. The "higher bar" will probably still be in use by users to help determine weather to vote to (re)open the question.

Answer 6

Posting a question about a heavily trolled topic does not mean that you are a troll

I want to make it explicit that if we flag your question (or answer) as trollbait, it doesn't mean that we think you are a troll, or that you are trying to attract trolls. The opposite is probably more likely - that you're unaware how attractive the topic is to trolls. We will close the question on a hair trigger, but provide the opportunity for you (in cooperation with the community) to refine the question up to a level of rigor where it is more interesting to serious historians than to trolls.

Example

“Words like ‘bone,’ ‘pubic’ and ‘stream’ are frankly ridiculous to ban in a field where we regularly find pubic bones in streams,” Brigid Christison, a masters' student in biology at Carleton University, tells Becky Ferreira of Vice. Smithsonian magazine