User talk:Benapgar/Bullying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Examples needed 2 Ownership 3 Ad hominem arguments do not belong in signatures section 4 Style Issues 5 Research 6 Technical difficulties

[edit] Examples needed

I think more specific examples are needed. Talking about general social patterns does not show that the pattern exists here. (SEWilco 14:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

One assumes that should they be provided, the entire history of the alleged incidents shall also be provided. One fears, however, that a selective process whereby only the items that the bringer of this petition feels support his evanescent claims will be applied to the provision of any examples. Jim62sch 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I'm concerned what I'd need more from this particular user is a definition. Exactly what does this user mean by 'bullying'? The use of the term seems too vague, and more of a catch-all phrase for... okay, so maybe an example and and a definition. Right now it just feels too vague to endorse in any way. Specifics, man, specifics! --T-Boy 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see if I can work the definition in somewhere and provide some general examples of bullying as well as some examples from Wikipedia (using "User A" and "User B"), and other outside complaints of bullying. I actually thought I was only one of a few people with this complaint, but a quick search in Google for Wikipedia bullying shows that not only is this complaint not new, it's getting pretty common. Considering it seems to be getting worse and worse, it seems Jimbo needs a lot more convincing before accepting this as a major problem he has to deal with. While the petition should be all he needs to take action, in my opinion--since perception is very important, he seems to be more concerned about "whining" and what he calls a "trollfest" of people complaining about abusive and bullying administrators [1] [link corrected], though, to his credit, he is aware of the problem, but is likely not aware of the pervasiveness of the problem and the damage it does to Wikipedia [2]. There's quite a lot of material out there and I'll try to work it in. --Ben 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is one type of bullying that I have seen repeatedly in my very short experience on Wikipedia. An editor, or a small group of editors attempts to put together some document that will give voice to a concerns felt by that editor or editors. Then a group of counter-editors, who oppose giving voice to the particular concerns, edits the document in a hostile fashion. Votes might be taken, rejected tags added, pages moved. The end result is that the voice becomes smothered, and the concerns treated with disrespect or contempt. --BostonMA 02:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm sounds familiar! --Ben 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good thing SEWilco or T-boy didn't give you a 24 hour time limit. Jim62sch 00:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making allegations about them. --Ben 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a forest beyond those trees. Jim62sch 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Jimmy Wales does not own Wikipedia. Jimmy is Wikipedia founder and chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. The Wikimedia Foundation is a public charity that owns the Wikipedia trademarks and many of the servers that run Wikipedia. Authors own their original text. --mav 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it to "man in charge" since that's probably the most understandable and accurate. Thanks. --Ben 01:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ad hominem arguments do not belong in signatures section

Guettarda: I think that courtesy would indicate that signatories be permitted to express their voice without the clutter of ad hominem arguments. I also consider it rather rude that you made edits to a section that said "do not edit this section unless you wish to be considered a signatory", when you are a signatory to another section. Please explain. --BostonMA 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling comments "ad hominems" is prejudicial and amounts to an attack on people who are making comments. It is, thus, an unacceptable header for a section. Guettarda 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a "comments" section and moved the comments there. zen master T 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda:Thank you for responding on talk. I disagree that calling a comment "ad hominem" is prejudicial and amounts to an attack on the person making the comment. Perhaps we have differing understandings of ad hominem. My understanding of an ad hominem is that it is a comment that relates only to the person making a statement and not to the statement itself. 172's statements, do not appear to be address the content of the petition, but merely the person of one of the signatories. What do you view as an ad hominem argument? --BostonMA 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, ad hominem or not, since Silverback is accusing 172 specifically of being bully, 172 has a right to defend himself if he thinks the accusation is frivolous. He may have done it in an ad hominem kind of way by counterattacking. The ad hominems against the petition would be what is explained by Kevin Baas on the main page--this is a little different because Silverback is accusing 172 and there are a couple of other things involved. I think I see what both of you are saying.

That's why I've asked people to keep it impersonal and not use your signature to air specific grievances they have. I've told Silverback on his talk page (I didn't have the note up not to do this when he signed), but he hasn't responded yet. Plus, each time I've removed both Silverback's comment about 172 and 172's response, which would resolve 172's objection, someone has reverted it (and Guettarda, you did that this time.)

Let's just leave it as a "comments" section now and (hopefully soon) Silverback will remove his comment about 172 and 172 will remove his objection to Silverback's comment about him. --Ben 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove Silverback's signature because he didn't want to take out his comments about 172 :/. --Ben 11:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't have to take them out. It is quite unfair of you to remove them while just leaving your characterization of them here. They were the best evidence of what they were.--Silverback 14:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to file an RFC against 172 I gave you the diff. I explained why signatories should not bring up their own disputes. If you want to just sign the petition go ahead. If 172 starts writing stuff next to your signature I'll take it out. If he makes an "outside view" about you, well, that's even better evidence he is harassing you. It's really annoying to put up with, but look at all the evidence that I have. I just got lucky because they were so intent on discrediting and bullying me that they didn't stop to think that doing so on an anti-bullying petition about bullying in general would reveal their intent.

Their best argument would be that someone would see the signatures and then investigate why each person is signing the petition and then "be fooled into" believing the signatories were being bullied when they are the ones doing the bullying.

First, no one has actually made this argument, even though it is the only argument, because apparently they just want the petition to "go away." They'd rather stick to mockery and ad hominems and malicious characterizations of motives. Second, if there could be secret ballots, I would do it, but you can't have a petition with secret ballots because inevitably someone will accuse you of ballot-stuffing since, at least on the Internet, the process cannot be watched. Secret ballots would deal with this concern, but they're not going to work.

I'm sure the people writing the "outside views" trying to discredit the petition (or in some cases, just mocking it) will read this. To them I ask two things: How come I had to make your argument for you? Do you at least have any suggestions of a way to deal with your concern? --Ben 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style Issues

I notice the phrase:

"and a dictation of all knowledge"

I'm not sure I know what it means, so it could probably use polishing. --BostonMA 03:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh yeah, it's not too good. I wanted to emphasize the way Wikipedia is perceived as this great knowledge repository for all the world's knowledge--how often the results come up in Google, how often Wikipedia articles are referenced, the number and scope of Wikipedia articles (from Neurosurgery to Rigid-hulled inflatable boat to Stairway to Edible frog to Chewbacca defense to List of Ohio railroads); that sort of thing. --Ben 04:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

Add links and information here. Please feel free to help out with this. If you think an example is not good enough, please find a better one. If you do not want to participate in this research, do not make any comments.

Note: It's important to know what bullying is when looking for examples. It is different than disagreeing. It is harrassment, and manipulation, and condescension, and things like that. Read up on it. Trolls do it too, and I want to find a few examples of trolls bullying administrators. While the biggest harm in bullying always comes from those in power, trolls can also be bullies. The problem this creates is that it gives bullying administrators something to call you. Validating the real experience of trolling bullies should go a long way to helping this petition gain the respect it deserves. --Ben 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is controlled by group bullying and hatefulness - Indymedia forum post - individual who says he is bullied
• Critical views of Wikipedia at www.wikinfo.org has a few examples and criticisms of this problem
• Discussion on mailing list re: abusive admins[3]
• Definitions of Wikipedia at Urban Dictionary - www.urbandictionary.com contains some complaints about Wikipedia
• A "whistleblower" talks about administrator abuse - www.wikipediareview.com "I believe that the project is in serious trouble." "I have seen literally dozens of people leave the project because of abuse by others that could have been prevented by policies/guidelines that punish or reform those who wish to force others into conforming to a viewpoint, whether it be one of a rude user or of a groupthink gang."
• Blitzed Wiki has some criticisms and more references.
• [4] Wikipedian/Blogger notes bullying

Complaints to be reviewed

• User:Rangerdude (seems to be inactive) various complaints you can find on his user and talk pages
• User:MBE (quit) on Talk:Greeks archive: [5]
• User:Www.wikinerds.org/Bullying

• User:Lir possible troll bullying administrators? Claims admins are abusive.

[edit] Technical difficulties

Jim, I am very sorry that my edits had the absolutely unintended effect of removing comments of yours. I wasn't aware that any such removal had happened until I saw your edit summary, checked the diffs, and saw that comments by you that I hadn't even seen when I looked at the page had disappeared. At first I thought that what had happened was a bug in the system that I've run into at least once before since the beginning of January, where the software should notify an editor before they save that there's an edit conflict, but instead it simply saves the new version without comment. However, looking at the edit history and the time, it looks like it was human error; I somehow failed to notice when I hit the "edit this page" button that I wasn't on the latest version of the page. My apologies; I had no intention of removing anyone's comments and wasn't aware that it had happened. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus, thanks...I've had things reverted both by Ben, and Jason Gastrich and I guess I got a bit jumpy (sorry about that). What puzzled me though, was that in looking at your user page you didn't sem the type of editor to do that. Oh well, water under the bridge...after all, stuff happens.  :) Jim62sch 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like to think that I'm not the type of editor to do that, but in this case I'd think even someone who does think so would have to admit that of all the comments on the page, yours would be the ones it would probably make the least sense for me to remove! =) It's just, as you point out, stuff happening, and I really can't blame you for thinking it might have been deliberate, but it wasn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)