This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Vfd Mark One

[edit]

I've restored as it was deleted out of process. Secretlondon 20:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also wikipedia:user page. Martin 01:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's the final tally here? It sems to me that the ayes (for deleting this wikisex page) outstrips the nays. Or does soemone want to do a count? Arno 09:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

33-11 for deletion, give or take a couple of votes to keep. Two or three recommendations for move to BJAODN. I'm going to go ahead and create a subpage (it looks like the wikisex is over anyway). Philwelch 15:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definite candidate for its own subpage on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. In fact, considering the ending, this is an excellent candidate for its own subpage on BJAODN. Philwelch 15:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Wikisex. I hope I didn't break some rule or something by going and doing that. Philwelch 15:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Phil - that's fine by me. Martin 17:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sexy quickpoll

[edit]

Votes on 24-hour user block: (initially, 15: 13/2; later, 25: 18/7)

Personally, I think that this page is being overused, however, I am going to suggest that User:I_am_sexy be banned for a period of 24 hours pending a longer ban. Her contributions to Wikipedia seem to be mostly self-promotional, she is trying to shock people, she is offending some, and she has forgotten that this is not a free forum for people to post whatever they want--it is a place for people to participate in building an encyclopedia. If we let her get away with what she is doing, there will be little justification for stopping other people from transforming the site into their own bulletin board/personal website. Danny 01:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Adam Bishop 01:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. BCorr|Брайен 01:39, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Maximus Rex 01:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. This user was blocked once. This user needed to stay blocked. But I guess some feel insisting on bureaucratic quickpolls and feeding trolls are more productive uses of time than working on encyclopedia articles. - Hephaestos|§ 01:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Bensaccount 01:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) As per lengthy discussion of Vfd
  7. RADICALBENDER★ 01:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ambivalenthysteria 02:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. As usual Hephaestos puts things very eloquently Decumanus | Talk 02:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. Block indefinitely. Hasn't this person ever heard of instant messaging? - Woodrow 02:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Dori | Talk 02:27, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Said user is wasting our time. Kingturtle 02:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Cyan 02:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. WP is not a chatroom / discussion forum, user is openly offensive, and vandalism. These outweigh the few useful contributions. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 07:08, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Agree with Merovingian and Calmypal and Hephaestos. --Uncle Ed 12:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. Changed vote to support. — Jor (Talk) 15:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Waste of time. Any positive contributions are used to attempt to justify personal sex play. If you are clearly propositioning folks and have sex in the stacks of a library, they'll ask you to leave. If you volunteer at a library, re-shelf a few books, and maybe donate a book or two, and then start propositining random folks and having sex in the stacks, they'll still ask you to leave. --Wirehead 16:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  18. Tεxτurε 16:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) - This is an abuse of user space. Finally got around to reading all these comments and the pages in question.

Oppose

  1. I don't believe that this user is malicious. I would prefer we issue a warning - a clear statement of why her behavior is problematic, coupled with a statement of what she needs to do in order to stay. In fact, I would like this to be standard policy on such things, so that people are not banned without clearly and unequivocably rejecting the community's statement. Isomorphic 02:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree mostly with Isomorphic.--Node 19:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • A warning eh? How about three or four? Yeah that'll help. - Hephaestos|§ 02:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify - those warning were by individuals, none of whom individually has the authority to speak for the community. I'm talking about an official, rubber-stamped, one-time-only warning that says "Do x, y, and z, and stop doing a, b, and c, or we'll have tell you to leave." There's a difference between an receiving a single official statement backed by consensus, and receiving a flurry of individual notices. Isomorphic 07:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Isomorphic. A couple of vandalisms, and a couple of good contributions. A stern warning not to remove most information from pages should be enough.moink 02:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Has been doing a good job of linking articles. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  5. This feels like a witch hunt. Secretlondon 08:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. silsor 09:28, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Witch hunt --Dittaeva 12:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see any policy prohibiting such user pages. — Jor (Talk) 13:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment

Oh come now, the analogy is hardly accurate. Suppose you were in a library, and a small group pf people went over to the corner, and in a very quiet whisper, talked about having sex ? Would you be offended? I am Hot! 14:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, but I wouldn't classify her actions as quiet whisper. There is no such thing as a quiet whisper in a Wiki; everything can be overheard by all. --Wirehead 16:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Everything can be heard yes. But does it have to be? Martin changed the page name to stop it appearing as something rude on recent changes. She shouldn't have annouced it on the pump, that is true. But apart from that, nobody has to look at the page. What if she never goes "public" with it like that again? What if she, I, and anyone else in the know, just posted to the page every now and then to relieve stress after a hard days editting. We could agree to not put anything in the edit summaries if you like. Should she still be banned? Should I? I am Hot! 17:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In non-sex-oriented internet communities that have experienced similar issues, I'd say history is against you here. Every time this has come up elsewhere, users have gotten banned, and not necessarily just the instigator. There is a difference between an "Academic" and NPOV discussion of sex and a public sexual chat, especially given that the former demonstrates that the Wikipedia is a well-functioning and non-judgemental scholarly resource whereas the later merely hurts our reputation as a site. I'd even go so far as saying that it would be OK to advertise on one's user page that one is kinky and likes to have virtual sex and suggests a more appropriate forum for such activities. I don't think Martin's renaming is going to help much. On one hand, if you don't advertise you won't be found as easily. On the other hand, if you don't advertise, you increase the likelyhood that you will be stumbled upon and misinterpreted. I am not against sex here, but there are some places that are simply not appropriate for it. If these things really mean a lot to you folks, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from creating the WikipediaBar to allow you to, as you say, relieve stress. The thing is, User:I am sexy is not helping her case. When one frames a german phrase in an english site like she did when she said what she thought of admins, it's pretty reasonable to assume that it was not something she'd want to say to said person's face and, thusly, probably offensive. When one is told that their WikiSex page isn't necessarily appropriate and a debate is started, one shouldn't create a sex journal straight off. --Wirehead 18:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ACTION: When the poll reached 13/2, I took action and banned the user for 24 hours. I will place a notice on said user's TALK page. Kingturtle 02:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed's quickpoll

[edit]
User:Ed Poor (talk) has blocked User:I am sexy and deleted her user page and User:I am sexy/WikiSex. All three were out of process and a abuse of sysop privileges. This user is experienced and knows what the rules are so there is no excuse for this behaviour. I feel that the community must make a statement that policies and procedures must be followed and hence propose a 24 hour de-sysopping. Secretlondon 20:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Block log, Wikipedia:Deletion log


Support disciplining
(vote here)
  1. Ed acts unilaterally all the time, assuming (correctly, it seems) that as a developer he is completely immune to any sanctions. If he is to be de-sysopped, he will also have to be de-developered. Could other developers do this or does it take Jimbo? --Wik 20:50, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I think that while he does not need de-sysopping or de-developering, this does warant some time away from Wikipedia, say 24 hours, after which he should definitely be allowed back with his original privellages intact.--Node 19:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • As the steward votes are apparently still ongoing, it is not clear who would be allowed to do this, but technically, any steward or developer could. Angela. 22:21, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. moink 21:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. ugen64 21:53, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Lirath Q. Pynnor He should be strongly warned. He can't just go and violate the rules simply because he thinks he is Uncle Ed.
  6. Catherine 00:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. till we *) 12:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Jwrosenzweig 16:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) I think a warning is in order, and since the vote is obviously with Ed, I'll vote up here (even though I think this vote means "support 24 hour de-sysopping"). Ed, you're an asset to this community, but recently you've taken to using admin powers to perform what I think we can agree are vigilante actions -- mob justice. I'll grant that the mob is with you, and that I am even frequently part of that mob (at least, I do frequently agree that the users you discipline are in need of it). But I think it's time to set aside these tactics -- Wikipedia can survive a little WikiSex in the corner (particularly if it's just Martin's bemused comments and one new user frantically trying to arouse the attentions of the community....and succeeding, it seems), certainly for the span of a day or two while we sort things out. I have great respect for you: that's why I say, I think it's time to stop doing things just because you know three people will instantly tell you "That may have been against policy, but THANK YOU!!!!" -- we can protect Wikipedia in other ways, and I know you believe that. If you want to talk about my comments, drop a note on my talk page (and leave a haiku, if you've time). I sense frustration in your recent actions, and I want to find a way of letting you vent without getting you in troubling situations. Sorry if this seems at all out of line -- I just think someone needs to say something other than "Way to go!" or "Ed should be de-sysopped!", and I figured if I wanted it said, I should say it. Peace to you.
    silsor 21:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) This action was taken unilaterally, but community support is the source of his privileges. Note that the user namespace is also used for such things as chess games and lotteries. Whether or not this account was inappropriate is a personal moral judgement on Ed's part. silsor 21:58, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) Withdrawn on review of user's contributions. silsor 22:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  9. 80.255 23:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Sysops are not above due process.


Oppose disciplining
(vote here)
  1. This account clearly meets the definition of an account created only for trolling or vandalism. The ban was entirely appropriate. The user is an obvious sockpuppet, clearly very familiar with our system and proceedures. Angela tmpbanned this user a few days ago, I did yesterday (for a whole 2 minutes before Martin unbanned "her"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks like a visitor from the de: Wikipedia rather than a sockpuppet. Mkweise 22:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. That user is clearly a vandal, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] How many edits does it take? Dori | Talk 21:59, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • "However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Instead, consider taking a quickpoll to decide whether accounts that go on a "vandalism spree" should be given an emergency temporary ban." (Wikipedia:Blocking policy). He made some actual edits, including creating virtual sex, so there should have been a quickpoll. ugen64 22:12, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please note I am a she and feminist :-) I am sexy 22:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Erik, was right, this user is pointing out glitches in our policy. So making one or two useful edits, gives you enough ammo to make 7 or 8 vandalisms. I can see where this will go (read: open troll season). Dori | Talk 22:18, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Whether the user was a vandal is not the question here. Ed didn't block her for vandalism, but, according to the reason in the block log, for "Running virtual-sex website at Wikipedia", i.e. for her WikiSex user subpage. And I don't see how that's any worse than chess games or lotteries etc. --Wik 22:26, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that sub-page was in any way appropriate here. What is this a teen-chat or an encyclopedia? No I don't think the chess pages are appropriate either, but the users who created them are not vandals as far as I can tell, so I'd be willing to be more tolerable toward them. As I see it, the chess relaxes them, and helps keep useful editors happy. Dori | Talk 22:34, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
        • Sex is relaxive too and keeps everyone happy. I am sexy 00:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Also note that having such subpages will probably increase the likelyhood that portions of or the entire wikipedia will end up in porn filters, which kinda ruins it as a resource for some people. Which is a pretty substantial difference between this and WikiChess. --Wirehead 00:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny 22:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. silsor 22:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Nico 22:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. Account was only used for trolling and vandalism, Ed was just the one who finally picked up the bait. The banning was overdue already. andy 22:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Let's have a quickpoll on giving quickpolls a 24 hour time out! 172 22:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose (although awarding a medal to Ed might be in order). - Hephaestos|§ 22:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  9. This is ridiculous. Maximus Rex 22:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  10. I commend Ed for taking this action in this circumstance. Kingturtle 22:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  11. Yes, Ed overreacted, but given the user and page in question, it's not that big a deal and can be easily undone. Ed has the good sense to know when he's gone too far and will not reblock the user or redelete the page. That doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants, of course, but he can be forgiven in this instance.--Eloquence* 22:24, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  12. His actions were out of line but do not warrant de-sysopping given the record of the user in question. A minor slap on the wrist will do. --Jiang 22:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Support warning only. anthony (see warning) 22:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Taku 23:41, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) This has got to be ridiculous, the ridiculousest thing I have ever known.
  15. Ed saw a clear case of abuse and took action. Whether or not he acted within the letter of the rules, I believe he acted within the spirit of the project. Wikipedia is not a chat forum, and contributing an article here and there does not change that. I still wish Ed had acted with more consensus, and I do support a mild warning on those grounds. Isomorphic 23:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  16. Conover 00:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) I agree -- no need for discipline, this was the right thing to do in this case.
  17. BCorr|Брайен 00:53, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) Ed acted correctly. I'll also note this mailing list post from Jimbo [8] with the subject header "Deliberate chain-yanking"
  18. From what I've read above, Ed definitely did the right thing. →Raul654 02:05, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  19. As much as I hate having support Ed, he did the right thing. Ambivalenthysteria 02:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  20. Cyan 02:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  21. Flockmeal 03:39, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Ed does what needs to be done because nobody else will do it when it needs to be done. RickK 04:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  23. Staunchly oppose. This is an encyclopedia. Users who are not interested in using it as such are welcome to find another Wiki to mess around with. "Deliberate chain-yanking" indeed. Jeeves 06:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Arguments above. Ruhrjung 06:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  25. Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  26. Exploding Boy 13:24, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. To use the word of the day: "witch hunt". — Jor (Talk) 13:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  28. Tεxτurε 16:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. -- llywrch 01:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. All rules here are merely guidelines. Nothing is 100% written in stone. Ed acted in good faith and that's all that needs to be required. - UtherSRG 17:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Comments

Vfd Mark Two

[edit]
Note: The comments from this VfD were copied into this page. The original is preserved here as a subpage.

Article Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex listed on WP:VFD Apr 22 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to delete (16 v 6). Discussion:

If the page is to be deleted, and in this instance by popular consent, it should stay deleted, and not be left intact anyway.

This kind of thing has happened before. At one stage, someone wrote up a pageful of rubbish on 'wops'. It got deleted and then was resurrected as a deleted nonsense page. Having it there, wasting wikipedia resources, defeated the whole purpose of having it deleted. It was deleted accordingly.

A similar situation exists here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT an adult contact page/bulletin board etc. This kind of thing should not be around, at all. Arno 12:22, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep:

Delete:

Comments: *It does seem to be getting some use there, but not a great deal. I'd prefer we didn't have it, I think it's a bad precedent which we may bitterly regret. If there are better places on the Web for this sort of thing, then that's where these people should go to do it. If there aren't, then that's far more dangerous, it means we will need to stop it someday and the longer we wait the bigger the fight. But even so I'm not convinced it's worth another war right now. Andrewa 21:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FYI: No new material has been added since the move. I have no intention of adding any more. The copyediting I did after the move is likewise complete. The prior "vote" was roughly as follows:

Obviously, opinions may well have changed in some cases, due to the different location, the different name, the copyediting, and whatnot. Also, some of the earlier votes were made before the "action" finished. As with the prior vote, I'm undecided. I had hoped that the move to BJAODN, together with no new material being added, would be a satisfactory compromise between the two sides - evidently that's not the case. Martin 22:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I am sexy and I am hot get a vote do they? Or is it just quickpolls that need voters to be three months old or more (I can't keep up with all the rules we have nowadays)theresa knott 19:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's a question of rough consensus - a deleting sysop gets to use their judgement in deciding if rough consensus has been achieved. Opinions of newcomers are certainly welcome, though they may not always be weighed as heavily as others. Martin 16:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment from User:I am Hot! The other day I was somewhat annoyed by the tone of Arno's remarks. I tried not to let it show but if my own tone was harsh, I apologise. The bottom line is, I don't really mind all that much if the page gets deleted. It was only a bit of fun after all. I do want to say a couple of things about "my behaviour" though.

All I did, was type a few saucy words on a talk page. I have never knowingly insulted anyone, I have never vandalised a talk page or an article. I never wrote anything too near the mark, or indecent. I never resurrected a deleted page. I never added new material to an archived page. I tried to be funny (I accept that not everyone has the same sense of humour as me, plus a lot if not most of the jokes are for an English readership so most of you won't get the humour, but I can't help that). I think that Arno's comparing this page with what I assume to be a highly insulting page on "wops" is right out hof horder (as they say in Eastenders). I think that Maximus's comment about my behaviour being "not appropriate" is - well it's hurtful. <Miss hot looks dejected, she needs a hug> I'm tempted to dream up a suitable punishment for you two, but it probably won't be appreciated <sigh>.

Oh one last comment- Jwrosenzweig said "embarassing private joke" embarrassing for who? This has been bugging me all day, so I'm just going to ask it. Are you user:I am Sexy? Because if you are you did a grand job of disguising yourself. (and if not, well never mind, I'm sure you are sexy as well)I am Hot! 21:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

More