Forum:Cyberbullying getting seriously out of hand

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Cyberbullying getting seriously out of hand

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6318 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I recieved this email today.

Hi, i am SHTKLL on Uncyclopedia and i created an article entitled: "Cheyne" (http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cheyne) and as a result of this page, i have started to receive death threats, and would like it to be removed please.

I am not posting the email address out of privacy concerns. I deleted the article, and would have either way because it was pure hate slander, cyber bullying stuff. Which got the creator death threats. (As of now I will assume that the person who emailed me was in fact the user, and not someone pretending to be the user.) At the end of the article was a link to the person's (Cheyne's) MySpace. I left a message on SHTKLL's talk page and replied to the email. The reply was:

I have deleted the article, and left a message on your talk page. If the death threats continue or if you are still scared that they will be acted upon, I suggest that you immediately contact the authorities. Also, for the record, vanity and slander/libel pages are not generally accepted on Uncyclopedia and your page appears to be an inside joke and/or an inside act of slander. In other words, the page applied to someone that no one except for maybe you (the author) and a few other people know of and was created with the intent of mocking that person and/or joking about that person. Uncyclopedia is meant to be a humor site, where people can freely submit work of parody that the general population can enjoy. If the general population is to enjoy it, then the general population must understand it, and this is not the case with inside humor. Furthermore, Uncyclopedia is unfortunately being labeled as a cyber-bullying site due to misunderstandings of it's purpose. This is mainly in part because Uncyclopedia is freely editable and thus many students will use it as an oppurtunity to set up a quick hate page against someone, or even just a joke page against someone. This, unfortunately, is an abuse of the system and Uncyclopedian admins such as myself do our best to rid the site of these pages. Nonetheless, many authorities are quick to jump on us as though we are condoning these actions when in fact we do not appreciate them either (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:We%27re_a_cyber-bullying_menace). In short, your page was in violation of policy in the first place for pretty much the reasons I just described, and on top of which these death threats you say you have received are yet another reason why these pages and cyber-bullying in general is a bad idea. Uncyclopedia is a humor site and when a person makes a page just to insult a person, who in turn threatens to kill the author, the humor begins to get lost. Finally I would like to stress the fact that you should definitely contact the authorities if you feel threatened.

-Samuel 'insertwackynamehere' Horwitz

In the end however, this is getting seriously fucking out of hand. People have got to learn that they can't just post hate on our site. Getting a fucking Geocities and start your own Eric Harris hate web page and hope the FBI doesn't catch on if you want to, but don't come here and do it. This is a humor site, and making fun of your stupid playmates isn't humorous. Throw in some death threats and reaches a whole new level of unhumorous. Also a bunch of authorities on our ass because we supposedly "condone" this crap just because we can't delete it fast enough. Something seriously needs to be done. We don't need people getting death threats, we don't need pure hate pages, and as crass as it sounds, we don't need negative attention and we don't need authorities judging us as being "hateful" just because people abuse our very generous privilidges. Yes, what I am about to say is going to sound very, very dickish, cynical and crass, but I know we're all gonna think it so lets throw it on the table. Lets say Person A creates a slandanity/hate page about Person B. Person B makes death threats. Person A continues mocking Person B and Admins are not aware and the page slipped under thier radar. Person B takes a gun to school and shoots Person A. Within 24 hours Uncyclopedia's name comes out. Yes I sound like a dick, like why would I think about a website over someone's death? Well for starters, I'd be sorry for the person and thier family, but I didn't know them and Uncyclopedia is my buisness, not thier life. What would happen to Uncyclopedia? It would be like what happened to Doom and Marilyn Manson after Columbine. The masses rise up in a scapegoat witchhunt in attempt to cleanse themselves of the feelings of guilt that they themselves may have contributed to the act.

In short, this kind of shit is what could kill Uncyclopedia. Imagine, somehow being indirectly tied to a school shooting, that's an instant K.O. for anything. And it doesn't sound so impossibe either, unfortunatly. All these kids using Uncyclopedia to bully other kids? Death threats? I mean cmon, you've got the fuel all you need is a spark, and that is what disturbs me. --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 17:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we should start rethinking about making it so only registered users can create pages. Otherwise, if this continues, way may end up like... *gulps*... Encyclopædia Dramatica, if not worse. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel bad about considering Uncyc first. Everybody puts in a lot of effort to get this place decent, why shouldn't you care more about it than some redneck morons somewhere shooting each other? I couldn't give a monkey's if someone is stupid enough to shoot someone else over this, frankly, but I agree that hate, slander and likewise shouldn't be tolerated even slightly - mainly because it is never funny. That's why the vanity pages had to die. FreeMorpheme 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there are still quite a few vanity/slandanity pages out there that have been missed, hiding like snakes in the grass (or on a plane, whatever). Most of them are borderline cases, but not all of them. Insertwackynamehere isn't being dickish - at worst he's showing vague signs of incipient hypervigilance, nothing more - but the problem is that when people suggest the possibility of a large-scale deletion campaign, even if it's couched in terms like "cruft removal," someone out there is likely to cry censorship, and sometimes for good reason.

I'll say right now that we should probably get about 20 of us together and each take a 1000-page offset grouping from the "All Articles" list, and check them all for clear cases of hate-slandanity. Add a category/template to each one, notify the author about it if he/she is a registered account, give them all two weeks for objections, and then have a group of admins go through and huff 'em. Apply a rigid "notability" standard, keep it applied, and add something about it to the general disclaimer beneath the edit box too. This kind of thing is only going to get more problematic, and the last thing we need is to paint multiple targets on ourselves.  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we need to add links to this topic and the previous one on the message people see when creating a new page. --User:Nintendorulez 18:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We had a case today that included alot of info about some guy named "Alex" (im not gonna include the last name) and it was created by a user who was been around awhile (at least I remember seeing his name in recent changes). But yah...death threats...holy shit. --The Zombiebaron 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not our fault that people are crazy. If they hadn't done this here it would have been somewhere else. It's not like Uncyclopedia admins themselves were sent death threats. Plus we shouldn't cower to the whims of stupid people. If the "we must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaming us" people come after us, it'll probably be more of a good thing in terms of publicity. I think most people are smart enough to realize how ridiculous those claims are, despite the loud minority of blamesters.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The only change that could work, I think, was to have new articles created by unregged users moderated. But I'm not sure the software allows for that option. --Hrodulf 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• How would that work, though? You'd still have to allow them to edit the article after the original submission, but the only way to control access is by IP, and the IP can be shared by all sorts of people, what with NAT-translated routers and such... And if you prevent AnonIP's from creating new articles, they'll just turn their attention to the existing ones, and that would be even worse. I'm 100 percent for the idea of restricting all edits to registered users, but that probably just opens up a bunch of new problems. Meanwhile, Mandaliet has a point about it not being our fault that people are crazy, but the Jack Thompsons of the world and their supporters in the media and the legal professions have a way of reassigning blame very effectively, if they decide it's in their interests to do so.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• There should be some limitation(s) to creating articles in my opinion. we have so many vanity/slandanity articles and even more QVFD articles. I recently submitted a vanity article to VFD and the F***in thing is nuetral in terms of votes. Why should we let these pieces of shit live? KILL THEM ALL! unsigned, submitted by User:Kaizer the Bjorn ca. 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always opposed restricting edits to registered users or even semi-protecting pages, and I still do now. And (shockingly) I agree with Mandaliet - it's not our fault that people are crazy. That doesn't mean we should be lighter in our quality standards - I'm quite happy that we've tightened our vanity restrictions and I think they should stay strict. I DO think stuff like what Wacky removed should be removed. I DON'T think we should automatically cut out a huge list of potential users because some people are stupid.

Answer me this - how many times have you run across a website that interested you, only to give it up when you found out you had to register to get to the good stuff? I bet it's happened often. Even with Mediawiki's ridiculously easy registration system, it's going to turn people off to have to register.

And as for being linked to school shootings being an "automatic kill" - video games seem to be doing pretty well, yeah? Despite their constant villification for the past few years. You (that's a general "you") could talk about any forum on the internet in the same terms with regard to "bullying." I'm not trying to be the insensitive clod here, but I've been around the sun enough times to recognize a knee-jerk response. —rc (t) 04:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a major huffer of vanity and slandanity, I can say that the problem would in no way be solved by requiring logins to create pages. Even now, probably about half the vanity cruft I delete is by new logged in users. --Splaka 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't get me wrong, guys - I can see both sides of the issue, and the pro-openness side certainly has more than enough merit to it, it's just the relative merit (viz. the registered-users-only side) that's debatable. Ultimately the decision rests with you, since you're the ones who have to deal with the horrendous shite in question, but in the interim I'd just suggest two things - first, that restricting access to the tools required to edit isn't the same as restricting access to the site in general, and second, that there are crucial differences between video games and interweb sites - one of them being that video games are discrete, packageable products sold by big companies with lots of money and lawyers, while Uncyclopedia is, well, just a big Interweb site. And video games can often be toned down to fit more conservative cultural "standards" without completely eliminating their enjoyment level, whereas Uncyclopedia probably can't.

I'm not saying there's one definitive solution here, in fact there probably isn't, but I still believe that problems like this are likely to get worse, not better — and taking at least some steps to ameliorate them in advance might go a long way to demonstrate due-diligence on our part, should anything really bad actually happen... Of course, I could always be wrong about that.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know editing isn't the whole deal here, but that's why I said "the good stuff." Personally, if I was averse to registering, I doubt if I'dve stuck around to read Uncyc without the ability to edit. (...And we'd all be better off, yeah yeah.) And about the video game comparison - I was just responding to Wacky's "Imagine, somehow being indirectly tied to a school shooting, that's an instant K.O. for anything," which it's not. Even so, it seems to me that it'd be easier to protest something more "tangible" like a video game than a constantly changing website (but then, I'm not a lawyer).

And I do agree that we should take steps to limit or eliminate the kind of vanity stuff that could cause problems. I just oppose restricting editing as a means of doing it. —rc (t) 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For. Restricting edits to registered users only, based on Rc's comments. Don' need any more of them wanderin' 'round these parts.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Not. But then again, we could alienate a lot of potential newcomers. Content-free encyclopedia that ANYBODY CAN EDIT is important, we wouldn't live up and be a proper wikipedia if ONLY registered users could edit then now would we? --Wit (tawk) 07:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do, however, support everyone-but-Tompkins editing. —rc (t) 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, it was a good move by Wacky to make sure the Cheyne guy knew that he was in violation of our policies. Personal responsibility and all that. —rc (t) 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That Cheyene shit is for ED, and we want no part. I say instant permanent ban for anybody who posts slandarity or anything like it. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with da moose man. --The Zombiebaron 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to have an official Burninator week where we shoot down any and all vanity on site, like what we did with cruft about a year ago? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How about both? Vanity and cruft. Not forgetting spam and advertisements. FOR. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww, man, I want to be a burnitator too. for -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ways to deal with cyberbullying

Cigaro Cubano love uncyclopedia. Cigaro Cubano want Uncyclopedia to fluorish. He think stupid vandal people posting slandanity pages need to be made gone. Cigaro Cubano propose the following:

1) If we are having trouble catching all the slandanity pages and it's overtaxing our modz0rz, then simply, create more modz0rz. i'm sure there's plenty of deserving people out there who would love the position and treat it with respect, the way you treat a very very high-class prostitute who comes up to your 9th floor room at the Ritz Carlton for "dance instructions."

2) If a lot of this stupid crap is being posted by stupid crap kids, then simply (especially to shield ourselves from any litigation) do what Xanga or Myspace or all the rest do - have an age requirement for editing privileges. Given the amount of adult content and naughty pottymouthed words in Uncyc, it makes sense anyway. That way, they have to certify they're 18 years or older, and to be a member they have to certify that as well (like the pr0n sites do...have a little button on the registration page)

3) implement a 3-strikes you're out policy for slandanities, with a 1-month or more ban (this is serious stuff if it can get Uncyc sued or shut down or ... worse ... taken over by the wikibastards

4) hire pirates that have missile launchers to police the realm...arrrrrr...

Cigaro Cubano 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Two points about #3:

1. Users could fake being over-18 and tick the box anyway,
2. There are a lot of users already here (and almost certainly a few admins) under-18 here now.

~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm 17 and mostly harmless, I have friends who are members who are younger, still, mostly harmless, an age restriction is a bad idea. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ghelae means #2 when he says #3. And I agree with him. But all the others are quite good, especially #4 -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Kazier the Bjorn means Ghelæ when he says Ghelae. And I agree with him about #4. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

grazzi...multi grazii a tu. where shall we get said pirates? i'll volunteer.

oh, and i meant no insult to the under-18 community here. seriously. so don't bannify me. i was just posing an idea. sorry if i pissed anyone off.Cigaro Cubano 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: #3, I think slandanity in general should be one warning, then a short ban. If it continues, a longer ban. We should make an effort to tell users what is allowed and what isn't (which a lot of people already do). This shouldn't apply to all cases - realistically, I think we always need some slack in the rules for a site like this because there are so many things that are fundamentally judgment calls for admins.

Re: #1, one of the problems is not necessarily that we don't have enough admins, but that 1) it's sometimes hard to determine what is vanity and what isn't (even checking on Google and WP it's often unclear), and 2) nobody in their right mind would want to deal with vanity pages. They're a pain - especially when they're linked on community sites and have thirty users making rapid-fire edits to them at once - and I think they're low on most admins' priority lists. And remember that any users can nominate vanity stuff for deletion. —rc (t) 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless the vanity talk happens to be about my ginormous wang, in which case it's accepted as pure unadulterated fact, and, in fact, becomes part of Undisputable Uncyclopedic Canon and Lore, and as such is fundamentally correct and furthermore AWESOME.

But yeah. I want to frag this slandanity stuff because i've read like 20 million when i click the random page button and it makes me a very unhappy Cigar. Cigaro Cubano 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think most of them other than #2 are fairly good ideas worthy of consideration. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should introduce a "report slander" button directly on the left side? I think the solution is just more visibility. --Chronarion 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just restrict 'all edits to registered users only. If that's possible. You want Million Dollar?!? ^{(blah • my contibs • Wikipedia account)} 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would it not be better, after all as we are a wikipedia parody site, to restrict CREATION OF PAGES to registered users and still allow IPs to edit pages? And more importantly, how about we introduce a power to the people system, where normal users can take action over vanity and slander. No one here in their right mind (except for the vandals, obviosuly) wants Uncyclopedia to have a bad name, and I'm sure they'd be happy to help. If we could make others aware that they can clean up the wiki themselves; it's not just an admins' job, anyone can do it - take a look at Sbluen. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PWN m0r3 n00bz

I think we should PWN more n00bs. After all, if the n00bs were properly PWNED they wouldn't be being bullied like this. They'd be PWNED. The bullying is only happening as a poor substatute due to the lack, or at least the signifigant decline of PWNAGE and the PWNING rate on the internets in general ATM. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL i pwn n00bs evry day. it liek wat i doo. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

nothing lik3 teh smell of PWN3D n00bz in teh m0rn1ng --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

n00bz in t3h m0rn1ng, n00bz in t3h 3v3n1ng, n00bz @ supp4r t1m3...when n00bz b3 on t3h 1nt4rn3t, j00 c4n pwnz t3hm 4ny 7ym3!... CigaroDiscorsoArticoli

wh04h d00d u r a p03t!! LOL!!!!! --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OMGWTFLOLROFLLOFLIMHOG2GBBLTTYLBBQ!!! CigaroDiscorsoArticoli

I figure that this is the place to say this

I know it may seem as if i am venting just another IRC rant, but listen to me. People are signing on to our IRC, unregistered users of the website, and seducing registered users into meeting them and doing worse. I lost a friend like this, from a user kingbob, told her all kinds of things and planned to meet her locally. He has been gone for a week or so and she has been acting erratically since this started happening [about 2 weeks ago]. I know it may seem like a wasted concern but what if someone actually meets someone from one of our IRC chat rooms and does unthinkable things to them. Can someone at least relate? I cannot see this happen to someone else! --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I never use that IRC thingy and I maintain the prejudice that it's just another chatroom for geeky, nerdy teenagers. Anyway, people who have met each other on the internet may well desire to meet again in real life, but to me it's always a stupid move - you know - how on earth can I tell that the "nice chick" in chatroom so-and-so is not a hairy 40-year-old pedophile? So, never, ever get the internet mixed up with you real life - and that's my advice.

-- Colonel Swordman 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Geeky nerdy teenagers? Wow, that's a relief! I thought it was for 12 year olds invading the internet. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The phone, that's how. I've met several people in person that I knew online and it worked out fine.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks! It was a warm night in summer and a stupid drunk rang me up like ten times and slurred a truckload of garbage to me. I swear - that actually had nothing to do with the internet. Just imagine how much it could be worse if the guy ringing me up was someone I had chatted with over the internet, with a purpose:

• Is you phone number a hidden one, or just one of those listed in the phone book? If it is not hidden, then you should better wait for your "net-friends" at the door, with a 12-guage shotgun lock-and-loaded.
• Did you give away your personal information, including age, gender, marital status, mugshots, etc.? Crooks and perverts need these things in order to prey on their victims effectively. So, if you want to the next news headline, go and chat with your net-friends over the phone - the longer the better.
• Do you still feel like a phone chat?

-- Colonel Swordman 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I must know my Internet friends a lot better than you do. I've never had any problems like that.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mandy, you also weren't trying to hook up with them and wasn't flirting with them either.... --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 00:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the issue of site/IRC culpability, I feel it's completely moot, if not ludicrous. I know this will sound callous, but speaking as one who's had more than one unpleasant internet-spawned mishap in my personal life, I feel completely justified in saying that anyone who is "seduced" in the matter you describe is solely responsible for putting themselves in the position to be "seduced." I had something unpleasant happen myself, and I fully acknowledge the fact that it would not have happened had I shown more discretion. (I too have since avoided "internet friendships" in general, but I have a good friend who met his charming wife online, so I won't condemn it either.) Anidn, if you have an acquaintance that you suspect has been assaulted in any way by anyone that you can remotely identify, you should try to coax a story out of her and submit any dubious or criminal information to the proper authorities. It is not possible to assign blame to Uncyclopedia or its affiliates for the actions (whether they be merely unwise or worse) of individuals who use its services. Said actions, however, do cast an unfavorable light on the site. I believe that any further attempts at using Uncyc's IRC as an "online dating service" (term used loosely, read "cyberstalking") should be immediately reported to the admins, the offending parties permanently blocked, and any transcripts of offensive or suspect dialogue logged for possible future reference. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)