Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikibully

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibully

Do we really need this page ? I thought Wikipedia existed to tell us about the world rather than itself. Manik Raina 13:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain, why do we have a category called Category:Wikipedia_culture? Isn't it there so that wikipedia culture can be told to the rest of the world? If the wikibully page is deleted, even though it represents real wikipedia culture, as experienced by at least one wikipedian, namely me, then using your logic, the entire category called Category:Wikipedia_culture and all articles in it like, Wikiwidow, WikiGnome etc., need to be deleted as well.

We, peaceful wikipedains, need the wikibully page, so that when one of us experiences the horrific feeling when he is wikibullied, he knows that there's some place he can turn to, and register the wikibully as such, so that the wikibully cannot continue his anti-social behaviour indefinitely, unchecked, unnoticed and unabated, hidden among the ocean of user talk pages, and other vandalized user pages all across wikipedia.

Once the spotlight is on the wikibully's deeds, and all wikipedians know about him, in most cases, once confronted by a multitude of victims of his, the wikibully would simply give up his bad act, at least that's my hope and desire. Because most people, when shown the ugly face they show others, in a mirror, don't like what they see and simply learn a new thing: tolerating others' views even though they may be different from their own. That's what civil society is all about. Demolition Man 14:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia obsession about Wikipedia is nothing new. I say keep it -- it's part of the culture. Or delete all Wiki--things but that would be no fun. Momenchance 15:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I've never come accross this term, wikipedia articles should be used to document existing facts, not spread ones you just made up. Show me extensive use of this term and I'll be happy to change my vote. Usrnme h8er 15:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Category:Wikipedia_culture (mostly) contains pages in the Wikipedia: namespace that have been a part of Wikipedia culture for a long time and are more or less well-known to many veteran Wikipedians. Maybe some of them don't belong in the category, but that is neither here nor there. If there is conflict with another user, there are many other, better places to register your dispute or discontent with that user: WP:RFC, WP:RFAr, WP:VIP, Wikipedia:Wikimediation, or bring it directly to an admin that you trust. "Registering" another user on a big list of "bad people" is terribly uncivil and, IMO, un-Wiki, especially when there are so many other ways to solve your problems. Delete. Alternately, this could be moved to Wikipedia:Wikibully, where its status as some sort of policy proposal should be made clear, but that's probably unnecessary because such a policy would never gain acceptance. android79 16:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I think I like the spirit in which this article has been written. But I dislike the idea of having one big bad list of bad wikipedians like android79 has stated above. Keep the article but either lose the bully list, or may be, there could be a process in which proof of bullying is presented from the alleged bully's edit histories that he has been running around mouthing off peaceful wikipedians, minding their own business and the bully is given adequate warning to cease and desist from bullying and once warned if he continues to bully, he is put on the universal bully list for all to see, alongwith evidence of his bullying nature. Yes, I think I really like this idea. Whirling Dervishes 18:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is exactly what Requests for Comment are for. There is no need for a separate process for "bullies." android79 19:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not belong in the main namespace. humblefool® 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a seldom-used WikiWord that has no place in the main namespace. Or I'll beat you up and take your lunch money. Lord Bob 19:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• hahaha, that's funny. Anyway, I'm for definitely keeping this article. The term wikibully may be new to wikipedia, but bullying behavior is by no means foreign or new to wikipedia and I can assure you that I have been bullied and I have seen other users being bullied who were too weak to stand up for themselves or simply didn't have time to fight back and some of them seem to have quit wikipedia because wikipedia seems to have no way to easily spot and remedy bullies and bullies' standard harsh methodology of forcing their views down everyone else's throats. All bullies basically have the same negative attitude and it's time we did something forceful about it, that is specific to bullying behavior. If a similar policy was enacted at Columbine, I'm sure the Columbine massacres would never have taken place at all, because the bullying behavior at its root would've been nipped in the bud.

Those users who are voting to delete imho, are either not active contributors or if they are, then they haven't tackled some of the really controversial pages on wikipedia, where people literally become vicious with their attacks and the discussion can hardly be called civil at all.

The same minority of wikipedians, displaying bullying tendencies, are seen spreading their message of hate, with most normal users too busy with their lives to go after them using the lengthy wikipedia processes. There should be simple and straight forward way to deal with bullies on wikipedia.

Take a look at this scenario:

1. A bully harasses another wikipedian for something, like inserting comments that he, the bully, dislikes or does not share.
2. The user warns him, that he should change his hostile attitude and stop his threats, and the user reminds the bully, that through the bully's edit history, the bully is digging his own grave by continuing to bully the user.
3. If the bully does not stop, his name is submitted somewhere along with a list of his bullying edits gleaned from his edit history.
4. The bully is then officially warned by an admin to stop his bullying and shown the bully's list of bullying edits as proof which is undeniable.
5. It would be a completely insane bully who still does not get the message and still does not stop from bullying. Most bullies would stop bullying at this stage.
6. The bully would learn the lesson that bullying does have negative consequences and also that no one likes a bully.

Therefore, I say keep it. The Bulldozer 19:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • This is quite amusing coming from a user with a grand total of 10 edits, most of which being personal attacks on Talk:Kashmir. android79 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone wants this in the WP namespace I don't really care (I'm not endorsing it though) but not as an article. And let's NOT see the red List of wikibullies turn blue, okay? -R. fiend 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be an interesting Wikipedia:Wikibully article someday. But this article is nothing close to what is encyclopedic (or even deserves to go in the WP namespace). ral315 20:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you to those people who are supporting to keep the wikibully and especially for taking the time to express their views on it, much better than I did. If there are no objections, is it alright if I move the wikibully page to Wikipedia:Wikibully (as suggested above by a couple of people)? The discussion can continue there if needed. Demolition Man 20:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I disagree with doing so. For one thing, no moves should be done EVER during a VfD; it messes up link structure on VfD pages. If the consensus is to move to Wikipedia:Wikibully, then an admin will do so. Otherwise, let the VfD run its course. In any event, if it were to be removed, much of it would have to be rewritten as a "How not to be a Wikibully", "How to deal with Wikibullies", etc. ral315 20:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't care which namespace you move it to, just as long as you don't delete it. Someone like me, whose EACH & EVERY edit to date has been reverted by militants, knows full well what it means when gangs of wikipedians hound you and you are running like a fox being hunted. I also want to suggest that a direct policy be created by wikipedian authorities, just to discourage bullying behaviour. Where does one go to suggest to them that such a policy be enacted, with this page as a guideline? Lastly, keep this page or else, I'll hunt you down and show you my ugly side. lol. A big keep. Crazy Little Woman 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (disclaimer: For the seriously paranoid, my threat was only a joke!)

• If all your edits are reverted that probably says more about you than about "wikibullies". Your edits, as far as I can tell, hardly inspire confidence either. In fact, I see no edits to articles in your edit history. -R. fiend 21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Inspiring confidence in unrelated readers was not my intention when I submitted my suggestions to those editors to get a grip and stop trying to kill each other. I was trying to shock them into seeing the folly of their actions. Besides, the wikibully article is not about me or any other single wikipedian. Crazy Little Woman 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• There's already policy in place to deal with the sort of behavior you are describing. WP:NPA, to name one such policy. android79 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Having a mere policy with no easy way for an entry level wikipedian to pursue it, does no good. It's a lot like the UN passing resolutions against a dictator, but doing absolutely nothing to remove him from power. WHERE WAS THE UNITED NATIONS, WHEN OUR PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH WAS SCREAMING FOR THE WORLD'S HELP TO REMOVE THAT CRIMINAL SADDAM HUSSAIN FROM POWER? WHERE WAS IT? PLEASE TELL ME. WP:NPA is too slow to control bullies. Plus, like the United Nations, it has no teeth. Crazy Little Woman 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but if you really need an answer: they were behaving intelligently, unlike some people. Hope that clears things up for you. -R. fiend 01:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm dignifying your personal attacks with an answer - just to let you know, you are confirming my earlier suspicion that wikipedia, even though an American site, is now fully infested by anti-American, anti-Republic, anti-Capitalism and anti-Freedom fascists and commies, most of whom hate America. Let me guess, you are not even a Christian, now, are you? What was it you said? You don't even believe in God, you believe in that jackass Darwin? Well, I'm not surprised to hear that - not one bit. Crazy Little Woman 03:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't exactly recall saying I don't believe in God, at least not here, but I will admit I do not believe in superstition, including religion, nor tribalism, including patriotism, nor do I even believe absolute freedom exists, and I certainly people talk about it without having any idea what it means. I am certainly not a commie or a fascist, and as for Darwin, well, I generally believe he existed, which is more than I can say about God. America is an awful big thing to hate wholesale, but I don't like nations in general. Nor am I overly fond of people, as a species, come to mention it. Political assasinations. Now those are OK. -R. fiend 04:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Threatening the life of the leader of the free world is not a joke. You are this close to landing in the slammer my little foolish friend. Aren't you aware that the American secret service does not allow threats to be made against the President, even in jest. People are interrogated and imprisoned routinely in my country for saying what you just did (which I'm not even going to repeat). The only thing of note that you just blurted out above, is that may be, just may be, somewhere there's a little part of America, that you don't want to see eliminated from the face of the earth. Thank you so much for that! May be I should call the white house, and ask the President that he declare August 1st, a national holiday from now on, since it was on this day that your majesty gave his permission to America to continue to exist? Crazy Little Woman 04:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall threatening anyone's life. I just said political assassinations weren't such a bad thing. Presidents Reagan and Bush seem to agree (executive orders notwithstanding); they tried to kill Quaddafi and Hussein, respectively. Fine with me, but unfortunately they killed all the wrong people. I think if people killed the leaders of nations rather than the poor dupes who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time the world would be better off. Then again it might be better off if no one killed anyone, but that might be too much to ask for. Oh, and perhaps I should have mentioned another thing I don't believe in is treason. -R. fiend 04:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

America kills only the right people. Ever hear of the Lockerbee Plane bombing? It was that assh*** Quaddafi who did that. Ever heard of the invasion of Kuwait and the gasing of thousands of innocent civilians of his own country as well Iranians? It was that other assh*** Hussein who did that. Ever heard of the tactical nuclear missiles that the soviets dared to park on America's doorsteps? It was that son of a bitch Castro who let them do that. I'm beginning to dislike you and your ultra libral views immensely. Please remember, that it was our boys in WWII who freed that bowl of dust known as Europe, a continent that loves to hate America. USA handed Europe its freedom and prosperity on a silver platter. And what do you give us in return? Pure and unadulterated contempt. Your last entry about treason, better not be a jab at me. I wear an American flag with pride. I wave my American flag from my American car with pride. I have an American flag waving from my front porch at all times. If I wasn't slightly disabled, I would have joined the military and killed all those sons of bitches in Afghanistan who attacked my country on 9/11 and that cunt called Usama bin Laden would have seen his intestines pulled out by me, while he was still alive. I have a daisy cutter in my basement with America's enemies name written all over it. Crazy Little Woman 05:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I only noticed this staggeringly hilarious part of the VfD just now. Man, this is a hoot. This is just about the most entertaining thing on the freakin' wiki! Still, reluctant as I am to suggest reducing comedy, everybody remember: don't feed the trolls. Lord Bob 05:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the only thing funnier would have been if the US had let Europe become Nazi paradise. Now that would have been a real laugh!!! Crazy Little Woman 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm enjoying this immensely. I know one isn't supposed to feed the trolls, but some trolls are really hard not to feed. I guess I should call it quits, though. I've gotten in a few similar discussions in the past, and they really just don't end. Qvod volimvs facile credimvs. -R. fiend 05:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm willing to grant that point. I had trouble resisting throwing some food under the bridge myself. Lord Bob 06:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

You know, this discussion gives me an idea for a new law, sort of like Godwin's Law. "When a person's argument descends to 'we saved your ass in World War II', they are offically out of ideas." I'll call it "Fiend's Law". I wonder if it will catch on. -R. fiend 06:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But we did save your butts in WWII. Would it kill you to admit that? England would be a tourist attraction today, submerged in the Atlantic ocean, France would have been Deutscland's whore house, and all other pathetic little European countries would be taking dictation from either that little man with the little moustache or that other not so little man with a not so little moustache. As for those klingons called Indians & Pakistanis, it was not that butt naked half blind beggar called Ghandi or that I wanna-be-a-white-man self-important fool called Jinnah that freed the Indian lands from the Brits. Hitler pummelled Britain so much that they had no choice but get the hell out of there. They still did not want to quit India. But once again, it was the mighty & proud American President who told them to hurry it up and get out of the Indian countries. Otherwise, those naked beggars had been fighting since 1857 to throw the Brits out - AND HAD FAILED COMPLETELY. Now these beggars love to hate the USA and not once have they ever thanked the USA for its role in their achieving their independence. But interestingly, now that they are all free, they are piling over each other to try and go to Britain. Idiots should have never thrown out the Brits, and they would all still be citizens of the United Kingdom. Crazy Little Woman 16:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Are you really getting mad or just pulling everyone's leg? Please calm down, it doesn't help the wikibully page's case by you shouting your support of Mr. Bush in our faces. But thanks for your passion. Demolition Man 23:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, drivel and on wrong place. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please just vote on the issue, without personally attacking the editor - which is exactly the kind of thing he has listed as bullying behavior in his article. My $0.02: Keep it but move to Wikipedia:Wikibully. Keep. Sir Toby Belch 21:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is not an encyclopedic entry, (essentially a wiki-neologism) and so does not belong as an article. Any elements that could go into the namespace, which might be those about recognizing abusive behavior and how to deal with it would be better adressed in places like RfA and RfC. --Icelight 21:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't like the spirit in which it's been written, and I don't consider it to have been written in good faith, given that the author has zero main namespace edits under this user name (apart from this article, which should be in the Wikipedia: namespace anyway). On top of that, an aggressive and bitter piece such as this is not a profitable way of dealing with "Wikibullying" anyway, even if it is really such a serious problem, which I don't believe it is. Utter delete, and look at our existing mass of policy before writing something like this again. sjorford →•← 22:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like the tone please feel free to change it so that it is to your liking. Please know that bullying occurs more commonly in at least certain parts of wikipedia than you or me might be aware of. There are over half a million articles in the english language wikipedia, and many others in other languages, and no comprehensive way to keep track of abusive users. The WP:NPA policy and any other IP address blocking policies are unenforceable, as all that does is block IP's which can be counter-productive since many innocent wikipedians also suffer, because many users share ISP's and proxy servers and therefore, IP addresses. Please read the NPA (Remedies) page.It says on the page itself and I quote:

==Remedies==

If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial.'

So, the WP:NPA page speaks for itself and that's what I'm saying: Blocking policies have failed miserably. But we can still tag and track bullies, so that they may be shamed into stopping the bullying. Being in a state of denial or personally attacking me is not going to make the problem go away. So, why not at least document the problem. It'd be the first step towards solving it. Demolition Man 23:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:12, 1 August 2005
• Delete. Redundant duplication of existing policies as stated above. Perhaps worth redirecting to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or some similar page. Flowerparty ^talk 22:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. As usual, the "support hosiery" has come out of the woodwork. - Lucky 6.9 22:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - does not belong in the article namespace, Wikibully is not a well-recognized term.. As for list of wikibullies, it would be inherently POV... whatever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Listing someone as "bully" is a form of personal attack (namecalling) -- likely to provoke further wars about who deserves to be in the listing, and as mentioned by others earlier, there are more reasonable places to bring disputes to. --Mysidia 00:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Wikibully to be consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedians and the like. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not move. Search reveals no Google hits. A local search shows the term is not used even on Wikipedia itself. Eric119 03:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A solution in search of a problem, and doesn't belong in article space, to boot. --Calton | Talk 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is no encyclopedic article. --{{IncManImage:IncMan.JPGtalk}} 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Started out somewhat interested, but BORED NOW - DELETE Bores are bullies, too. --Mothperson cocoon 01:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete flamebait material that shouldnt be in the namespace. JamesBurns 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.