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)
 * 6) Dartignan 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Bullying is a very serious problem on Wikipedia especially among the administrators, but also in ganging up on a user to push the desired change in an article. The real problem is the lack of resolve with regards to administrative abuse and the subsequent whitewash that there is a serious issue with this on Wikipedia.
 * 7) *This user has made a single contribution to Wikipedia, and joined January 27. -- Ec5618 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Zordrac 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Bullying on Wikipedia is an enormous problem, and it can make people feel like they do not have a voice.  It is associated with POV pushing and other major problems with Wikipedia's community, including WP:BITE issues.  It gets to the point where if you try to stand up for anyone, you risk being banned for it.  Sometimes it gets to where you want to be banned so that you don't have to deal with it.  Wikipedia also do nothing about people stalking you.
 * ''Are banned users allowed to vote?  is, who is currently banned as a sockpuppet of , who is himself banned.  Anything Zordrac has to say on the subject of bullying must be taken with a grain of salt; making malicious false accusations against other editors and trying to reveal what you believe to be the real name of someone who chooses to remain pseudonymous surely count as bullying, but Zordrac continues to engage in the former and continues to encourage the latter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Ta bu shi da yu 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) - agree to a certain extent (though certainly not as strongly as Ben puts it). Now that there is an IRC channel, I think things are going to get worse. I really think that we need to start looking into determining admin abuse: with the number of admins on this site, there's bound to be abuse (regrettably). - Ta bu shi da yu 16:15, 31 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:. 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, 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 ~ )
 * Guettarda 06:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  06:46, Jan. 17, 2006
 * Jim62sch 10:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * dave souza 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 172 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC) [This user has responded civilly to me, despite my signing of the harsh statement above. I that that as evidence that he or she is learning how to respond to criticism, which leaves me inclined to strike out my sig here. 172 09:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)]
 * Parallel or Together? 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kyd 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarah Ewart 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Lovecoconuts 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I am part of © ME PRODUCTIONS (an unsigned comment from )
 * --Coolcaesar 05:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Calton | Talk 07:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PJM 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen 07:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

Tell me how this affects the "credibility" of the petition. Want me to take my signature off of it? No... You would have said that. Instead you are talking about the credibility of the whole peitition. Like the petition itself is in jeopardy somehow because I wrote it. Hmm... is that it? Maybe you would rather just say the petition has zero credibility simply because I wrote it?

And you guys do realize that I didn't make this petition about any of you in particular, just about the bullying on Wikipedia. You know who made it about you? You guys did! I'm growing tired of your stupidity. I mean, it's possible that some of the people signing this aren't trying to delegitimize an anti-bully petition, but are actually just confused by FM's ad hominem. Maybe I'll just take this crap off again. Heh, try to get an admin to block me for reverting trolls on my own userpage! That would almost be a better example than your responses!--Ben 10:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And how did you come to the conclusion that bullying was a problem on Wikipedia? -- Ec5618 10:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Through my own experience with people like FeloniousMonk and quite frankly the majority of everyone who signed up there. Now, before you say "gotcha" which I know you're itching to say--This a petition to stop bullying, not an RFC against any of them. It doesn't say anything about any of them. Unless they're bullies and feel threatened by Jimbo cracking down on bullying...*cough*... I don't see why anyone would try to discredit it. Discrediting my signature, sure I can understand that, but if you think I'm a bully then maybe you should just laugh as I shoot myself in the foot signing an anti-bullying petition. That's what I was planning to do, laugh, since that's what I thought these bullies would do; I could laugh at Duncharris and FeloniousMonk and Jim and whatnot as they signed their own death warrant just to annoy me. Jimbo would say "Look, quite a lot of signatures, let's crack down" and then boom they're out based on a petition they signed themselves, which of course would be quite ironic, and I would think it was funny. Alas, they thought it would be easier to just reveal themselves this way, which is a bit more annoying, but still pretty funny I think. --Ben 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha aside, the fact is then that you feel your experiences with these editors, myself included I'd imagine, revealed the rampant bullying on Wikipedia to you. Surely, that suggests this is directly about the 'ID cabal'. You diagnosed the problem based on their actions.
 * Funnily, many people here seem to feel your actions have been less than civil, less than productive, less than useful. I have tried, as have others, to reason with you on several occasions. A discussion of ours still adorns your talk page (User talk:Benapgar). In that discussion, you talked about the actions of your fellow editors more than talked about actual improvements. You tried to 'point out the hypocrisy'.You also called me naive, repeatedly, without apologising. Note that you suggested nothing useful, no valid change to the article that other editors had missed or purposely ignored.
 * It is hard to take your petition as anything but a veiled attack, and your contributions as ill-founded. -- Ec5618 11:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And behind the veil is what exactly? By all means, tell me what it is. What am I trying to do? What's my motivation? How does this attack work? You seem to know. I'm certain, though, that you won't come up with a substantive answer. You know why? Because there is none. --Ben 11:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it possible you are upset? You seem upset. That might be why you're doing this. Substantive enough? Because of your experiences with specific people (which you percieved as bullying), you are now attacking the general concept of bullying. The only evidence of actual bullying comes from personal experience with specific people. How is this not personal?
 * Perhaps you get bullied, because people don't like your attitude.
 * Perhaps you get bullied, because people don't like your attitude.
 * Note that I didn't attack you in my previous post, I merely pointed out that your credibility is not great, and that you have contributed little. You seem content to suggest that there is bias, without pointing it out in the article, and without fixing it. You seem intent on taking things personally, and spend most of your time complaining, when you could be doing harder work, such as editing and discussing. -- Ec5618 12:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Motives are not substantive. You accused me of creating this petition as a "veiled attack." I demand you substantiate your accusation by doing the following:


 * Given, Ec5618 asserts my petition is causing harm through a "veiled attack."


 * Explain the harm my petition is causing.
 * Show how my petition is causing this harm.


 * You have 24 hours.--Ben 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears I have generously been given 24 hours. I have removed my previous comment. I hope it is obvious to you, Ben, that you are indeed a joke. -- Ec5618 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Only 23&frac12; left. --Ben 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there does appear to be some bullying on Wikipedia. I may sign your petition. Keep it up. Demand more. -- Ec5618 14:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 17 hours left. --Ben 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (reduce indent) Signing our own death warrants? That would be rather funny were it not for the fact that in CJ circles that might be seen as a terroristic threat.  You might want to reread EC's doubled comment -- it's pretty much to the point.  And, what's up with giving someone 24 hours?  A display of bullying on your own anti-bullying petition?  Jim62sch 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours is more than fair. 16&frac12; hours left...--Ben 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is kind of exciting, in a sarcastic sort of way. Now, what do you have planned for the big 0? I am tired of trying to reach you. -- Ec5618 21:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are unwilling or unable to substantiate your allegation that this petition is a "veiled attack" and as such is causing you or others harm. Do you wish to withdraw this allegation? --Ben 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So we're clear, I never accused you of making veiled attacks. I have no wish to withdraw anything, and maintain hope that you'll read what I wrote, as oposed to what you'd like to be offended by. I do hope you'll cool down at some point. When you do, I feel the bullying problem will go away too. -- Ec5618 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "It is hard to take your petition as anything but a veiled attack." &mdash; Ec5618
 * 16 hours left. Ben 21:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What's your point? -- Ec5618 22:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concluding remark is clearly accusing me of making a veiled attack. You have 15&frac12; hours remaining to substaniate your claim.--Ben 22:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually claimed nothing. You simply took offense with my conclusion. -- Ec5618 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Reduce Indent) Ben's behaviour here, as far as reading what he wants to read not what you wrote, is a continuation of the behaviour that started much of this. He has a very bad habit of inferring that which is not implied, or harping on a minor point because to him it is a perceived slight. Jim62sch 22:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a minor point. Harrassment is a serious issue. Frivolous accusations of harrassment are also a serious issue.--Ben 22:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Frivolous harassment is also a serious issue. Stop telling me the time, and stop demanding things. You may ask, politely, what my point was. I might be willing to explain it to you again. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, you may simply re-read my posts. They should make my point clear. -- Ec5618 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. One last chance. Please state your point. Do not simply rephrase accusations that this petition is a veiled attack. You have 15 hours remaining. --Ben 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked you to stop telling me the time. I asked you to stop demanding things of me. I suggested you ask me a question, kindly. You have failed. Thrice. I have nothing more to say to you. I am done pleading with you. -- Ec5618 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been and am currently being bullied. I've also found this view is not uncommon. Many people say they are bullied on Wikipedia. Since you know this would be my answer, your question must be rhetorical. Rhetorical questions are devices used by the speaker to assert or deny something. I'm not sure what it is you are asserting or denying. Please refrain from communicating in this manner to prevent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.--Ben 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't remove my comments, or yours when they have been commented on.
 * Perhaps you should assume good faith to prevent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
 * Your comments sound hollow. It is hard to take your petition as anything but a veiled attack. -- Ec5618 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll leave you to it. I'll reword it so you understand better:


 * Given, Ec5618 asserts my petition can be "taken as a veiled attack," and, further, emphasizes that alternate perspectives are unlikely, he can therefore substantiate the reasons for this perspective in the following ways:


 * By explaining the harm my petition is causing.
 * By showing how my petition is causing this harm.


 * 14 hours remaining.--Ben 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Time's up. Plaintiff failed to establish harm. Ec5618's your allegation is frivolous and your argument is misleading and defamatory (not surprisingly.) --Ben 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not surprisingly? What are you saying? I demand you substantiate your accusation. you have 5 minutes, 24 seconds. -- Ec5618 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's "not surprising" to me, and I believe to any reasonable person, that you couldn't substantiate your allegation because it was obvious that it was frivolous. It is also "not surprising" that it was malicious (misleading and defamatory) as opposed to an error considering you were accusing me of harming others without substantial evidence, and considering your evasiveness and your sarcastic and caustic attitude.--Ben 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a long running user conduct RFC detailing your sarcastic and caustic attitude, whereas for EC5618, we only have your opinion. Objective readers here will draw their own conclusions. FeloniousMonk 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reasonable people draw their conclusions from objective observation, the way you talk it's like you are trying to give them a paint-by-numbers set. If I were you I would hope they don't draw their own conclusions. Your tu quoque is based on distortion. --Ben 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking around here, seems to me they already have. Your history speaks for itself. FeloniousMonk 23:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so long as it goes through you first, right? Repeating the same things again and again doesn't make them true, no matter how much you try to pass off your version of my history as objective. If anyone really wants to know about my history, they can go through it themselves. I stand by everything I say--unlike people who, for example, resort to bashing my demands for proof of their frivolous allegations because they think my demands for proof amuse them too much for them to take it seriously.--Ben 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, FM...but this is funny, "Plaintiff failed to establish harm". Jim62sch 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? That's the truth. Maybe you just want to mock the truth. --Ben 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben, Wiki is not a Court of Law, you are not Chief Justice, District Attorney, One-Man Jury or anything else. Furthermore, giving someone a specified time in which to respond is a form of bullying (this does not however apply to EC's tongue-in-cheek "5 minutes, 24 seconds"), and is quite out of place here.  Additionally, giving EC 24 hours virtually guaranteed that he would not respond, except for TIC comments.  That, would be the truth; it this little charade of yours that mocks the truth.  Jim62sch 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking for proof of accusations against me is bullying? Trying to ensure that I will actually get proof this time by giving a time limit is bullying? You know what, Ec5618 can still establish harm if he wants. You can even do it for him. Hell, anyone here can do it. Go on, if you think you know what Ec5618 means when he says my petition is a "veiled attack" you can prove it for him. All I ask for is substantive evidence.


 * By explaining the harm my petition is causing.
 * By showing how my petition is causing this harm.


 * Let's see the proof fellows. Or would you rather make jokes? Actually, I think your best bet here would be not to respond at all.--Ben 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Netoholic
We, the undersigned, find this petition interesting only for its humor value.

Are you going to ask for my lunch money next? ;) --Ben 09:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Netoholic @ 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Guettarda 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ 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)
 * 7) --Coolcaesar 05:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) hydkat 13:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) PJM 17:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Blnguyen 07:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A quite telling search of Wikipedia for "Netoholic" "bully" --Ben 23:37, 22 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. Complete bollocks because why again? You were calling it "complete bollocks" before I erased all this crap. Hell, you called it complete bollocks before you found FeloniousMonk's ad hominem to latch onto. I've never even seen you before Freakofnurture. --Ben 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ 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)
 * 12) --Coolcaesar 05:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) PJM 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Hipocrite
It is unhelpful to poke fun at the deeply held sentiments involved here. Regardless of how misguided this user is or is not, each user gives us the oppourtunity to learn how to better engage troubled or troublesome editors in an attempt to make them useful to this project. Baiting the bear does not help.

Ben, please contact me (Hipocrite) on my talk page if you would prefer we talk in public, or via email (my email is enabled) if you would prefer we discuss in private a better way for you to work within this community to get whatever it is you want done.


 * 1) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) agreed. Ta bu shi da yu 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by LoveCoconuts
My personal experience with Ben is that he is hardly befitting the character of a "bully victim." I quite understand he'd like to see himself as such, but really - to me - he's *a* bully. Ben should have reflected very deeply before making this petition, because a bully accusing others of bullying is nothing more than a hypocrite, and is I think *the* worst kind of bully.

I am now going to just ignore anything relating to this user. I really feel that reading what Ben has to say about "bullying" is a ridiculous waste of my time.Lovecoconuts 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Jim62sch 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) FeloniousMonk 17:00, 31 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
Admin_accountability_poll Kevin baas 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Note the bullies
A lot of bullies have added to this page, and tried to ban Benapgar for 3RR for reverting his own user sub page! LOL. I just think that this has become a good way to tell who are the bullies on Wikipedia - the ones who have protested against an anti-bullying petition, and who have gone to the lengths to try to belittle the person making the petition and all who support them - PRIME EXAMPLES OF BULLYING BEHAVIOUR. So if you are writing your name on here, trying to ridicule this petition, then there is a very good chance that many will consider you to be a bully yourself. Of course, the fact that most of the people protesting this petition ARE bullies adds to that. Say hello to Mr. Wikistalker himself, User:Antaeus Feldspar, who I note has contributed here. I am sure that everyone else here can feel proud in associating with him, and others like him.

Oh and have a look at a place which actually discusses such things in a bully-free environment: http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1138355718 This unsigned comment is by, a.k.a. the banned user , a.k.a. , who was banned for bullying behavior.


 * Gee, I wonder who the anon is. Jim62sch 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, asserting that everyone must either sign the petition or be stamped as a "bully" is a surefire way of gaining credibility. &mdash; Timwi 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't think anyone is claiming that by not signing the petition they are a bully. However, defacing a petition might be considered bully behavior.  After all, individuals who don't agree, don't need to sign.  This is not a vote, and this is in user space.  Would you like it if you started a petition and others came by and started a revert war?  That happened here (see history).  --BostonMA 03:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Benapgar invited comments here from the community by listing this petition at Requests for comment: RFC is an invitation for all opinions, not just those you agree with. Deleting those comments that were not favorable was partisan and a bad faith move on his part. FeloniousMonk 07:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't an RFC. As others have (mistakenly) done on the RFC page, the author of this petition  made an announcement on the RFC page.  This announcement was quickly removed after it was pointed out that the RFC page is not a general bulletin board.  That announcement might have been taken as an invitation for comments from opponents.  However, it was clear from the text of the petition, as well as the numerous edit comments, that the author had intended this to be a petition, and had not meant to invite general comments. Some hostile editors, however, would rather see an accidental posting of an announcement on a non-bulletin board as a general invitation to engage in extensive edit warring   inside user space, rather than honor the explicit wishes of the editor in whose user space the petition exists.  --BostonMA 12:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right... It's clear Benapgar was soliciting community participation for this petition by posting it at RFC, having been made familiar with the process already (Requests_for_comment/Benapgar), and having announced his petition at the Village pump as well. ,


 * Which raises another issue, though the announcement was quickly removed from the RFC page, and it was just as quickly reinserted by Benapgar again, and again . This is just the sort of intentional disruption that got Benapgar into trouble in the first place. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Benapgar was soliciting a form of community participation, that is, the signing of a petition. He was not soliciting comments in general. Benapgar's wishes were quite clear to anyone who chose to read his comments. However, rather than respect his wishes, certain editors decided to use the argument that since he advertised his petition on the RFC page, that he had forfeitted the right to edit his own user space as he wished. --BostonMA 18:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, WP:AGF. FeloniousMonk 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The AGF guideline does not ask us to assume good faith when evidence seems to be contrary:
 * This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring.
 * Nevertheless, if you are asking me to accept, after the fact, that you were acting in good faith, I would be happy to do so, if you are willing to help me to understand your motivations. Did you not realize that oppositional comments were not welcome from Benapgars POV?  --BostonMA 20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I get the feeling that you totally miss the point. If you invite everyone in the neighborhood to come over to your house to discuss the validity of subject X, and then get pissy when people disagree with your interpretation of subject X, that's your own fault. Ben could easilly have left his screed, unannounced, in his user space and no one would have commented.  But, no, he chose to act as if it were a thesis posted on an outhouse door. Jim62sch 02:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If Benapgar had invited everyone in the neighborhood to come over to his house to discuss the subject X, then you would have a valid point. However, the fact is, Benapgar invited people who supported his petition to sign it.  That is hardly the same thing as inviting everyone to discuss subject X on his petition page.  The entirety of Benapgar's advert on RFC consisted of:


 * User:Benapgar/Bullying This is a petition I am sending to Mr. Wales regarding bullying on Wikipedia in general.


 * When I read the word petition, I understand it to mean, sign if you want, and ignore if you don't like. When I see canvassers on the street petitioning for something I don't like, I don't scrawl my objections all over their petition.  However, I wouldn't judge anyone too harshly for not noticing that aspect of the advert.  But while individual editors might have missed the point with the advert, when they browsed to the page itself, they surely would have noticed at the top:


 * This is a petition I am going to send to Jimbo Wales, owner of 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.


 * At least at that point, I would hope that they would realize that Benapgar was not "inviting the whole neighborhood to discuss X", at least not on the petition page. please discuss on the talk page. .  Is that not clear enough? --BostonMA 03:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, given that you're number 4 to agree with Ben, I can see why you can't see what happened here. Oh well.  Jim62sch 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to interpret your comment (and associated edit summary) as a statement to the effect that you are not inclined to further discussion. However, if I have misread you, please let me know.  --BostonMA 23:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(On a side issue, Benapgar did indeed repost his advert on the RFC page under the mistaken impression that such a page was an appropriate place. Radiant! had also used the RFC page as a bulletin board, and Benapgar was following what appeared to be acceptable practice.  Considerate editors might have simply recognized that a mistake had been made, and moved on.  However, certain editors found this mistake to be an opportunity to conduct an edit war against Benapgar in his own user space.)