User:Random account 47/Bullying

This is a petition I am going to send to Jimbo Wales, "the man in charge" on Wikipedia. If you have any changes you want to suggest, discuss them on the discussion page. I will definitely consider things anyone wants to add or change--especially if you do not want to sign it for one reason or another, but it is my petition. If people edit it to their liking then maybe I won't want to sign it and then there won't be much point in me making a petition anymore :P. So, please discuss on the talk page.

• www.bullyonline.org has some good references if you want to learn more about bullying, or to help refine ideas for changes that you might have.

Anti-Bullying Petition

Mr. Wales, there is a lot of bullying going on in Wikipedia. It makes for a very toxic social environment and should be one of your top concerns.

The sheer number of administrators means it is very likely that there are not just several administrators who are bullies on Wikipedia, but several gangs of bullies. A school of 1000 is likely to have several groups of bullies, and there is no reason why Wikipedia would be an exception. Wikipedia is the perfect environment for a bully, even better than a school. The bully can assume a position of power by becoming an administrator quite quickly and easily, especially considering the apparent willingness to promote nearly every user who is nominated. Reverting vandals and correcting spelling and grammar mistakes can provide a long list of edits. After creating a few articles and winning a few easily winnable arguments to establish their competence, the bully can and will try to become an administrator. Bullies who are administrators can also recruit and enable the promotion of sycophants--and this has likely been happening since the very first bully became an administrator. Further, volunteers are often targets of bullies, as bullies see a willingness to give of oneself as a vulnerability. While a school or workplace--even a volunteer workplace--has a static hiearchy, Wikipedia has a dynamic hierarchy. Wikipedia's noteriety--the number one result in Google for hundreds of topics--and a dictation of all knowledge, is a magnet for those not interested in creating an encylopedia, but in wielding power: bullies, narcissists, and sociopaths. It is evident from places like Usenet that this occurs. Wikipedia is no different, and by its nature and stature is actually many, many, times more enticing to those kinds of people. Even the least competent of bullies can become administrators.

Given that these groups can use regular Wikipedians (as opposed to other administrators with equal power) as their targets, and that other administrators have other concerns, this can reach (and I believe has reached) epidemic proportions. Bullies can avoid being caught by focusing on certain articles and targets and relying on other administrators to act as ambivalent bystanders in the event they are caught. Gangs and groups can congregate in IRC, away from the eyes of other administrators--though they are often not looking in the first place. There are already clear hiearchies within certain groups of administrators, with one administrator acting as leader (the head bully). The ad hoc voting system encourages the recruitment of attention-seekers who act as the lead bully does in order to seek and obtain approval from the head bully. This also results in mobbing of individuals.

I am asking you to act on this very grave problem which could--with no exaggeration--destroy Wikipedia. This is a serious problem you must address now. You may disagree it is at the point of an epidemic, but refusal to face the fact that there are bullies on Wikipedia, in all levels of the Wikipedia bureaucracy, and that there are users being bullied right now just by virtue of the size of the community, can and will lead to the disaster that Usenet has become.

We, the undersigned, believe that bullying is currently a grave problem on Wikipedia and has reached, or, without intervention, will reach, epidemic proportions. Bullying is injurious to your users and threatens the future of Wikipedia. We demand this issue be addressed. (please edit this section only if you wish to be considered as a signatory to this petition)

1. Ben 01:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Kevin baas 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC) The "other views" suggestion contains an ad hominem circumstantial argument, and nothing but. Though this petition may have been inspired by the user's personal experience and interpretation, that does not neccessarily mean that his argument is logically wrong. While the tone/style of this petition is too strong for my taste, I support it in logic, and particularly I believe that the policy for electing administrators has been too liberal, and the (more or less assumed) policy for removing their administrative privileges is too tolerant. I believe that if an administrator exceeds their authority on even one account, that reflects clearly on their character and disposition, and they should be out. I believe that it should be more difficult to become an administrator, and that there should be a strict one strike, you're out policy. We have enough administrators. What we lack is rule of law.
3. zen master T 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Kevin baas. I agree that bullying is a serious problem on Wikipedia. It needs to be addressed, and I thus support the basic motivation for this petition, although I do not agree with some of the details and wording. --BostonMA 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Bullying, and more specifically mob stalking are problems in Wikipedia, how to address this is another issue, but its an issue which definitely needs to be dealt with. DTC 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes about the petition

Signatures will be e-mailed to Mr. Wales, rather than posted on his talk page with the petition to prevent bullies from finding new targets. E-mail me with your signature if you are concerned and do not want to sign here. You can e-mail me through Wikipedia: [1]. Bullies have been to and are reading this page.

Also please note that while it may be tempting to air your grievances here, this petition is not a place to comment about any specific disputes you have. This is a petition, not an RFC. If a bully is targeting you in particular, please don't add comments about them or about your specific situation. Feel free, however, to add comments about the petition and about bullying in general on Wikipedia. Instead of saying "User so-and-so is bullying me," consider saying something like "I have been and am currently being bullied" instead.

This petition is a work in progess and may go through a number of edits. If any substantial changes have been made by the time I send it to Jimbo (which is likely) I'll place a note on each signatories page asking for a final review in which you can remove your signature if you feel that that's necessary.

Anti-Anti-Bullying Petition Petition

What's with the reduplication of petition? I suppose it means something, but the mind boggles. Jim62sch 02:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Deboggler: Anti-"Anti-Bullying Petition" Petition

Soon to be followed by the Anti- "Anti- Anti-Bullying Petition Petition" Petition. Jim62sch 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by FeloniousMonk

Much of Benapgar' frustration and venting against admins here is the result of his repeated run-ins with admins arising from his apparent inability to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as documented in his recent user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar. Ben's time would be better spent working to contribute to the project in a more constructive and meaningful way as opposed to raising tendentious petitions. Before any petition of this sort can gain a semblance of credibility, its bringer needs to demonstrate to the community that they are dedicated to all the community's codes and conventions, particularly one as a central to it's functioning as WP:CIVIL. Ben's extensive recent history of religious-based personal attacks and trolling undermines any legitimacy this petition attempts to claim. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Guettarda 06:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:46, Jan. 17, 2006
3. Jim62sch 10:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
4. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Robert McClenon 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
6. — Dunc|☺ 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
7. dave souza 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
8. 172 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Parallel or Together? 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Kyd 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Sarah Ewart 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Lovecoconuts 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
13. I agree with you. I am part of © ME PRODUCTIONS (an unsigned comment from 71.36.135.232 (talk · contribs))

Outside view by Netoholic

We, the undersigned, find this petition interesting only for its humor value.

1. Netoholic @ 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Guettarda 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:42, Jan. 18, 2006
4. Jim62sch 10:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. FeloniousMonk 15:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. csloat 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Freakofnurture

We, the undersigned, find the whole premise to be complete bollocks as the editor lodging this complaint of "bullying" has also seen fit to revert this page not three, but six times in a two hour span (and additional times in the 22 hours preceding) to censor revelations of his own bullying and general incivility, and that attempting to paint himself as an innocent victim of everybody else only further damages his credibility.

1. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:42, Jan. 18, 2006
2. Jim62sch 10:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Ec5618 11:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Sarah Ewart 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Guettarda 14:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
7. FeloniousMonk 15:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Lovecoconuts 05:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
10. csloat 18:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Ifnord 05:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The view of a troubled Endomion

This is an example of a fire which is feeding itself. If a user is behaving in an inappropriate manner, make your move on the RfC or Arbcom process and get a third party involved. The user in question may have feelings of being persecuted, and this process looks like a bunch of sharks circling around who want finger food. Move along, there's nothing to see here, folks. Endomion 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Another place to voice your opinion

Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll Kevin baas 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)