If you think a question is trolling is it fair to VTC (Vote To Close)? If so what reason should be checked?
I don't want to link the question as I don't want to get into a discussion on if that question is trolling.
In the case I believe that a question is most likely ( 95% or higher ) trolling or spam, I will either FLAG it as SPAM or I will use the VTC close reason of OTHER option and write an appropriate comment. I consider both to be garbage that needs to ultimately be DELETED.
I will use the reason of "Voting to close because I believe you are trolling"
Note: The SPAM reason is within the FLAG a question option. I still think that maybe we should consider TROLLING as a reason to close a question too.
Vote based on content, not assumed motives.
If a question is so outlandish that you suspect trolling, if it lacks essential details, if it's more of a rant than a question, then it doesn't matter if it's a troll or a genuine user who's really terrible at communication. Either way, if we can't answer it in its current form and can't just edit to fix the problems, we should put it on hold. If the OP responds, we can work with him to fix the question -- or not, if he doesn't supply what's needed.
If a troll manages to ask a genuinely useful question -- which might become genuinely useful only after a community edit, which anybody can do or suggest -- then the question is useful and we should leave it open. I don't care what the asker's motives were in that case. A lot of the joy of trolling comes from "getting away" with dumping crap and sensation on a site, so it won't be much fun when we edit the crap and de-sensationalize the question. Site 1, troll 0.
I disagree with the claim in this answer that SE encourages "white-hat trolling". SE encourages people to ask real questions about problems they've actually encountered, and also (secondarily) encourages canonical questions for common or important situations. Neither of those is trolling; the goal of trolling is disruption, not knowledge. A question that's not about a problem you have is not automatically trolling, "white-hat" or otherwise. Most trolling involves problems the author doesn't actually have, but that doesn't mean you can reverse the logic.
First a question is not a trolling attempt. The OP asking the question was the attempt. We do not allow voting based on our dislike of the person posting.
A troll can, and in a few cases have, actually asked some really interesting questions here. I'll not bother listing them as most of them are in the top of the voted questions.
The only reasons to vote to close are listed. If someone suspects you are abusing your voting privileges they can report it and it is possible that you could face some sort of penalty should the powers that be deem it severe enough.
The only way to judge the fitness of the question is on its merits. If there is a problem with the question that is causing conflict (rollbacks, and comment arguing about the content) then that is a reason to put it on hold. But if the question is otherwise fine and on topic then it should be left.
SE Encourages WHITE HAT Trolling.
By this I mean it is encouraged to ask questions that you find interesting, that you will believe will be helpful and interesting to the community. Some of our most often used close questions are the results of these efforts.
Is it rude to leave an interview early if you have already made your decision? - Was asked after a discussion in the Chat room. No one was actually facing that dilemma. It was expected that it may be controversial, and it was one of our first HNQ and we were excited about it. And I still maintain it is and excellent question for the site. And it is Trolling by definition, a question asked to get attention, cause controversy, that doesn't solve an actual problem.
How can I prepare for getting hit by a bus? - Was written as though the OP were trying to be a troll. It was a tongue and cheek nod to the effectiveness of the trolling techniques in delivering the narratives.
If the question is a non duplicate otherwise On-Topic and plausible question. Assume best intentions and invest your time in crafting an answer or contributing to the question based on your value of its merit.
If the Question is causing problems for some reason Flag the question for moderator attention. The moderators will take action as necessary. I have seen SE Overloards step in early in the life of a question when the user had been disruptive on several sites. Allow SE to handle these exceptions.
If SE Fails to address the problem still, Bring it to Meta.
All of this is the standard operating procedure for SE. There is not any valid reason why this percieved problem needs an alternate workflow. There is no workflow suggested that would be able to objectively measure if a question is a "Troll Question" or not. If there is then suggest that on Meta.Stackexchange.com.
I feel trolling should be closed. It is hard to be sure if they are trolling so I give them the benefit of the doubt. A user with a rep of 1 I give less benefit of the doubt.
From the tour
Real problems or questions that you’ve encountered pertaining to a workplace.
To me by definition trolling is not real problems or questions encountered in the workplace.
The common definition of trolling is to intentional piss people off.
In the context of this site I would include:
There is difference between troll and trolling. Trolling is the act (the post). Troll can be a noun the person or a verb the act.
I feel that the reason can be Too Broad or explicitly state "I feel you are trolling."
If it is repeated behavior then they are a troll. In that case I would flag a moderator so they can consider locking the account.
because motivation should not play a role in evaluating the validity of a question. If the question and subsequent answers provides value to the community, it does not matter if the OP put it there to provoke or if he was seeking help.
If it does not provide value, then some of the other closing reasons will apply