Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/WikiSex

Vfd Mark One

 * I probably don't need to say anything else about this? &mdash; I'm starting to be inclined to regard it as a speedy deletion candidate, actually. &mdash; Timwi 21:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? Martin 23:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe not. Still though, look at all those "Delete" votes! :-p &mdash; Timwi 16:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trolling attempts get inflationary currently. andy 21:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Angela. 22:41, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * And Wikichess is?--Node ue 17:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No, Wikichess is not. I've already said that elsewhere. Angela. 05:54, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete if Wikichess games are also deleted. Otherwise, keep. My preference would be deletion of both. The reason is that wikichess, while essentially harmless, can be used - and was used in this case - to justify similar recreational activity, and there is no good reason to give preferential treatment to one while disallowing the other. I don't want to pat myself on the back too much, but that's why I opposed wikichess when it started many months ago. Before you argue that this page is offensive, we have no strict policy against offensive user pages (cf. User:Paektu). --Eloquence* 22:43, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep Wikichess games. Evercat 22:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? I see no reason to delete one but keep the other.--Node ue 17:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - harmless. Secretlondon 22:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't fair to keep WikiChess and delete WikiSex. If you find it offensive, Paektu's page should be deleted too. Please be consistent with your policies and don't discriminate against newcomers! I am sexy 22:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless. Funny. Nobody's actually having WikiSex - we're just chatting. Martin 23:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Maximus Rex 23:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the greatest insight a Wikipedian could have is the understanding that the wiki isn't really something serious. We create articles but we also have fun, and this is what makes Wikipedia so different. We aren't paid employees of some big company who must work hard 8 hours a day without joking or socializing. We are amateur writers who came here to make friends, have fun, socialize and feel the warm feeling one has after publishing a new article. Sadly some people have lost their sense of humor. Haven't you thought that a WikiSex page would attract more contributors, too? :-) I am sexy 23:12, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No. Maximus Rex 23:16, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Please prove your point. I am sexy 23:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this and chess, or neither. I agree with Eloquence. --257.47b.9½.-19 23:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this, and chess. what, are you wiki puritains? Maybe/probably its just trolling, but you should still lighten up. Its on user name space, so who cares. You remind of this calvinist I knew once... Sam Spade 23:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not a troll. I can't understand how easy some sysops call names on innocent people. Perhaps we need a constitution. I am sexy 23:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Del, (& chess too if that's what it takes to make the quota). There are two diffences between Ias & chess: (1) Ias is not a colleague and is a vandal, but the only name recognize as a chess player is a colleague and i assume not a vandal. (2) While there is no theoretical difference relevant to us between sex and chess, it is irresponsible to suggest we should ignore the practical difference, which is that people nearly everywhere but here treat them entirely differently, and the fact that Ias's survival here would likely swamp us with other vandals and spammers is absolutely relevant. Bottom line, the chess is harmless, but if we have to dump it to dump Ias, it's worth doing so. --Jerzy(t) 00:33, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * But nobody's actually having WikiSex! It's just a load of harmless fun!--Node ue 17:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.--Jiang 00:37, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this and chess, as long as it is userspace and doesn't become something eating bandwidth, reputation, memory, processing speed or what other resources we are running low. -- till we *) 01:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. To keep Wikipedia educational, we should keep the site suitable for general audience, not just adults.  I hate to see all public libraries banning this site because of these postings.  I strongly object to censorship.  However, if we don't censor ourselves, we will bring censorship upon us.  Kowloonese 01:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's in no way related to the process of building an encyclopedia. Dori | Talk 02:55, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * And WikiChess is?--Node ue 17:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I'm concerned, this is costing us reputation.  It's hard to take an encyclopedia seriously if you come to recent changes and see "User:I am sexy/Wikisex". Meelar 03:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have solved this problem. "WikiSex" will no longer appear in such a form on recent changes. Martin
 * WikiLove used to be a concept promoted on Wikipedia... If WikiSex (which is in a user's namespace) has to go, WikiLove has to go to! Guaka 08:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I finally found this page. I say DELETE. Sex is not the same thing as chess, believe it or not - and turning the wikipedia into a part-time adult contact website is not the way to go. Arno 08:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Who's trying to turn Wikipedia into a part-time adult contact site? It's just a chat page - user talk: style. Martin 22:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * " If you want to have virtual sex with me, click here: WikiSex" - that is Fraulein IamSexy's own description of it. And I see no point in splitting hairs over its precise definition. Arno 06:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * But - as has been said earlier - nobody's actually having WikiSex! --Node ue 17:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. User should get a room. :) Bryan 14:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. User should get a room. ;) Plus, nobody's actually having WikiSex (yet)!--Node ue 17:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The presence or lack thereof of Wikichess is immaterial here.  Perhaps WikiChess should also be classified as abuse, but you can't answer a question with another question.  I don't think you *need* to have virtual sex with somebody to be able to make friends with somebody, and virtual sex is on the other side of the taste line from the very well-thought-out-and-NPOV sex topics covered in the Wikipedia proper. (which, to User:I am sexy's defense, she has actually made some appropriate contributions to)  The problem is that the user pages were traditionally assumed to be a free-for-all to help coordinate and communicate stuff.  Now that people are starting to push the limits of what's appropriate in them, I fear that we'll need particularly onerous requirements that will mean more innocuous things like WikiChess will be gone as well.  --Wirehead 19:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, "she has actually made some appropriate contributions", but in a sham, not "to User:I am sexy's defense". After pointed sarcasm abt skull-f'g her into doing so, she made 4 article edits so that no one can say she's done nothing: 7 virtually redundant words added to KISS; 10 links in two articles, and a one 'graph stub (with a stub-notice that i can only regard as cryptic: how can you know stubs-msgs exist, but be at a loss as to how to create one?).  Has she apologized in any sense for her initial 5 edits, in which she replaced the entire content with her come-on? --Jerzy(t) 23:35, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as noted previously, the real WikiSex hasn't started yet... has it?--Node ue 19:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, but we delete pages with intentionally POV and/or inflamitory titles even though the content hasn't been placed there. So the fact that the participants haven't quite gotten over the heebie-jeebies and moved on to having an actual session doesn't really mean that deletion should wait until then --Wirehead 20:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * But remember, this *is* her userspace...
 * OK - I'll change the title. Martin 22:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

See also user page. Martin 01:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - UtherSRG 20:26, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to say that many Wikipedians have lost their sense of humour, their WikiLove and they have got lost in witch hunts... Please remember I have contributed articles too and I'm not a simple vandal or troll. Maybe I'm just a bit different from you. Ed Poor blocked me and deleted my page, which is now restored by Secretlondon, who seems to be one of the very few sensible sysops who really follow the policy here... I am sexy 22:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sexy, You can't go back in time. Communities change.  As people like you push the boundries in areas, rules develop.  As you seem to be somebody who likes to push boundries (if there was a virtual sex record book, it's possible that WikiSex might make it in there ;) ) you must understand that sometimes you create a rule by breaking it.  I'm not going to say that Ed Poor was right in deleting it out of process, but what's preventing from you establishing that you are, in fact, the kinky sort of person and setting up for yourself a forum (your own wiki, LiveJournal, etc.) more appropriate for that sort of thing and linking to that from your user page? --Wirehead 23:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (this goes for all user pages). The user is the problem. Not the user page. Bensaccount 23:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)\
 * Why am I a problem? Perhaps WikiFascism is the problem. I am sexy 01:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You are using it as a chat room. Bensaccount 01:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The other fellows are using it as a chess board. Others use it as a lottery. I am sexy 01:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * There are people who have gotten away with murder. (Whats your point?) Bensaccount 01:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete my page, you should delete the chess and the lottery too. I am sexy 01:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the page is not the problem. You are the problem. Bensaccount 01:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That means you hate me. I am sexy 01:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know you but I hate your abuse of Wikipedia. Bensaccount 01:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * abuse? what abuse? perhaps you hate coz I am more sexy than you? :-) :-) I am sexy 01:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Misuse is abuse. I will not continue this unreasonable discussion. See the quickpolls. Bensaccount 01:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I still say delete, and wikichess as well. Are we an encyclopedia or not? Meelar 23:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. fabiform | talk 23:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is ridiculous. I think that those users who believe this is appropriate for Wikipedia are in a bit too deep. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. This is not encyclopedic. This is treating the Wiki as a forum, with attendant self-indulgence. Although, I think the debate is kind of pointless, because even if it isn't deleted now, it will be deleted eventually. Jeeves 00:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonencyclopedic, abuse of user pages. Andris 00:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a candidate for retention on the basis of what policy? -- Nunh-huh 00:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a chat room. Isomorphic 01:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Abuse of user pages. Ambivalenthysteria 01:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is personal abuse of public bandwidth. Mikkalai 04:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Abuse of Wiki bandwidth. Not appropriate for the Wiki, even in the User namespace. Go make a virtual sex Wiki if you must, but we don't want it here. (If WikiChess must be deleted to delete this, then so be it.) PMC 04:56, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exploding Boy 06:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Free speech on user page until bandwidth or storage becomes an issue. Philwelch 07:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Storage or bandwith, as if those were our core resources! Our attention and trust are being squandered by this willful person, to whom i wish all success once she goes away to a suitable Web location, and by these ivory-tower colleagues who disrespect their colleagues' contributions so much as to support her on the basis of unrealistic theories. The waste of these crucial human resources will only multiply if this non-colleague, who complains that our problem is our belief that the 'Pedia is worth what we think it is, is permitted to draw her soulmates to this site. --Jerzy(t) 15:13, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * Your attention is being squandered! Why don't you just stop paying attention to the page if you feel that? I am Hot! 16:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Because unlike you and your sock puppets, we care about Wikipedia. &mdash; Timwi 16:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not a sockpuppet of "I am sexy". I do care about wikipedia, very much. I fully expect the page to be deleted, and even support the idea. BUT! "I am sexy" doesn't appear to have drawn any soulmates in so far as i can tell. Most of the people who have posted anything on the page have been wikipedians. "I am sexy" did not post anything obscene. We don't have any policy about user subpages. Perhaps we should. Many people have pictures -is that an abuse of out attention? I am Hot! 17:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Stupid troll. Delete and ban, or ignore. Cribcage 18:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless and funny. Everyking 18:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. But of course it's best if this can be done amicably. What seems likely to happen to WikiChess as that the proponents will find a more appropriate Wiki (there are many other public Wikis available, I ran one myself once). They will link to it from their user pages, to which there is IMO no possible objection. This is not censorship, just focus. Food for thought? Andrewa 20:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Meelar 23:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Andrewa you as always are the voice of reason. I agree that this is a sensible solution. I hope that Sexy get's off her "all admins are contol freaks" horse and agrees to this idea.I am Hot! 23:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. R ADICAL B ENDER &#9733;  23:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm trusting that all participants in this discussion have read the page in question. Frankly, there's nothing there that couldn't be purchased in any number of books or magazines at Cole's, and the worst that can be said about the "play" on this page is that is is silly and funny. While I appreciate that to some Wikipedians, funny = pornographic, I would also note that this is a user page, and I am sexy has actually contributed some material to articlespace. Looking at the length of this discussion also prompts me to wonder how much is about a serious issue and how much is about being shocked and outraged. Denni 05:28, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)
 * I'll move on quickly, from mentioning that i've pretty much given up on trying to come up with charitable explanations for why anyone might say "...I appreciate that to some Wikipedians, funny = pornographic...". And i'll focus instead on an update, and improvement of access, to my previous post re a statement similar to the one immediately above, "I am sexy has actually contributed some material to articlespace". A catalogue, up to minutes ago, of her 11 edits to the article name-space (among her 132 edits) follows:
 * History of sexuality, 04:26, 2004 Apr 4, Repl of entire 765 wds w/ "I am sexy"
 * Sex, 04:27, 2004 Apr 4, Repl of entire 927 wds w/ "I am very sexy"
 * Human sexuality, 04:27, 2004 Apr 4, Repl of entire 269 wds w/ "I am incredibly sexy"
 * Fuck, 04:28, 2004 Apr 4, Repl of entire 2,401 wds w/ "I am sexy"
 * Bisexuality, 04:29, 2004 Apr 4, Repl of entire 769 wds w/ "I am very very sexy!!!"
 * Sex, 12:52, 2004 Apr 5, Repl of (same, reverted,) entire 269 wds w/"I am sexy"
 * Virtual sex, 21:05, 2004 Apr 6, 61-wd new article (with 4 appropriate & live links); first non-rv art; wikified & expanded to 162 wds, including comments over next 3 days by 5 other editors
 * KISS principle, 22:33, 2004 Apr 6, Addition at end of 105-wd art of hl & "KISS Principle is not a kind kiss."; rv 1 minute later with comment "that should be obvious from the above"
 * Cheek kissing, 22:38, 2004 Apr 6, 58-wd new article (+ 12-wd improvised stub text); 2nd non-rv art; wikified & expanded to 84 wds over next 20 min by 5 editors
 * Public display of affection, 23:03, 2004 Apr 6, addn of 4 unpiped links to 42-wd art (two links satisfied by existing articles or links; one still red; one satisfied by another editor's noun-ification)
 * Hematuria, 23:03, 2004 Apr 7, addn of 6 unpiped links to 30-wd, 1-min-old IP-written, near-dicdef stub (all links satisfied; refinements by 4 others over next 3 hours)
 * Religious prostitution, 00:56, 2004 Apr 8, from 591-wd existing art, rem word "only", which has withstood 37 edits by about 20 editors over the course of 21 months
 * The associated box score:
 * Half of the above edits were undisputable vandalism.
 * Of the remaining 6, two may have been well-intended, but have insignificant value, if any, to the articles involved.
 * Of the remaining 4, two added a total of 10 presumably valuable (tho obvious) links (and no words)
 * In the remaining two, she contributes to WP by identifying two worthwhile titles, and by adding 119 words.
 * The statement
 * I am sexy has actually contributed some material to articlespace.
 * is absolutely true. However, IMO
 * Ias's net contribution to articles is negative,
 * the idea that her article contributions are significant in the question at hand is (even if the vandalism were to be ignored, and even though i doubt it's useful to set any contribution quotas) laughable in light of the details, and
 * raising her article contributions in the context of defending her is misleading and (at best) negligent. --Jerzy(t) 07:00, 2004 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not hurting anybody. Pictures of Wikipedians take up more space than this. Besides, it's hysterical! -- Seth Ilys 15:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to add one last argument in favour of keeping the page.I have been on Wikipedia for a long time now, during that time I have been involved in a number of conflicts, some minor, some that really get my goat. Now I'm sure that many of you have on occasion allowed your tempers to rise, especially the admins who have to cope with a daily barrage of trouble makers, trolls, people trying to insert links to their own webpages,people from nigeria begging for cash to "get an education", POV vandals, the list goes on and on, and the problems are likely to get worse in the future. Now it may very well be that User:I am sexy came here as one of those trouble makers, I don't know. I do think she expected every admin here to come down on her like a freight train. Well that didn't happen, and perhaps that is why she hasn't returned after her ban. I don't know. What I do know though is that I have had such a laugh editing the page. Trying to think of titillating, funny, clever things to say has taken my mind off things. I find myself totally relaxed and happy and able to deal with the likes of insert your most hated problem user here calmly and with a renewed sense of vigor. Now any page that helps prevent admin burnout has got to be a good thing hasn't it? If we moved it to meta, would that be acceptable? I am Hot! 07:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a chatroom, and whoever uses it as such wastes our bandwidth as well as our attention. Kosebamse 08:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to allow my friend to join Wikipedia for the purpose of playing against me in WikiChess, I really would. However, I would also like for him to start contributing. I signed on and dove right in working on Geek Code. Look what I am sexy dove into... - Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 23:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete Danny 14:04, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:47, 13 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 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 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
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 | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 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|&#167; 01:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Bensaccount 01:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) As per lengthy discussion of Vfd
 * 7) R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  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 &#8597; 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. &#8212; 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) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 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)
 * 3) *A warning eh? How about three or four? Yeah that'll help. - Hephaestos|&#167; 02:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) **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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Has been doing a good job of linking articles. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * 7) This feels like a witch hunt. Secretlondon 08:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) silsor 09:28, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Witch hunt --Dittaeva 12:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) * I don't see any policy prohibiting such user pages. &#8212; Jor (Talk) 13:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment
 * I have contributed useful articles like virtual sex. I am not a troll and I just want to socialize with fellows while building an encyclopedia. I'm innocent. I am sexy 01:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some evidence? &rarr;Raul654 01:49, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Check my contribs. I'm innocent... Schande!!! I can't understand why some fellows are so fanatic with blockings. I am sexy 01:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's the full list for easy reference: Special:Contributions/I am sexy -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 01:59, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes Brian, I'm well aware of how to get a list of her contributions. Allow me to clarify - from spot checking Sexy's contributions, and I haven't really seen anything worthy of banning. Unless someone shows me evidence of trolling, I'm inclined to vote against a ban. &rarr;Raul654 02:02, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * This whole issue has me laughing my ass off. Wikipedians are such stereotypical geeks: one chick walks in the door and starts making eyes, and everyone goes nuts&mdash;half wanting to nail her right then and there on the floor, the other half wanting to push her back out the door. Good grief. Mkweise 02:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I resent that blunt characterization. Like I've said before, if you were in a library and somebody loudly exclaimed that they wanted to have sex, I think you'd annoy/offend a lot of people.  Some of us have no problem with "making eyes" but consider anybody who claims to require virtual sex to make friends with people to either be a troll or have some real problems with their sexuality. ;) --Wirehead 14:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * To carry your analogy a bit further...if you had someone arrested for talking loudly about sex in a library and took them to court over it, I'd say you were overreacting. There was no malicious intent, nor any real harm done, after all. Mkweise 15:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * But (s)he's not being arrested, just being kicked out of the library, which is exactly what would happen. :) R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  15:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The point is that User:I am sexy is using Wikipedia as a chat-room. I will change my vote if User: I am sexy stops and uses Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Also, Mkweise, this is not the best place to look for cybersex, but there are many porn sites out there if you are looking. Bensaccount 02:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, and apparently there's a widespread notion that a little chatting is such a terrible threat to Wikipedia that the fire department needs to be called in right away. Meanwhile, everyone's gotten so used to the likes of Wik and Nico, that hardly anyone seems to notice their behavior anymore.
 * And&mdash;I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I might be interested in cybersex, but am mildly offended by the implication that I wouldn't know how to find it if I were. :-) Mkweise 03:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * User:I am Hot! is a sock puppet of this user. Or perhaps "imaginary friend" would be a better term. -- Tim Starling 02:13, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I love it when technology can confirm the fairly obvious. ;)  - Hephaestos|&#167; 02:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not &amp;quot;I am hot&amp;quot;. she is another girl. I dont know het. I am sexy 02:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to step in here. I am certainly not the same person as "I am sexy" .I am a much better writer for starters. Sorry sexy, but it's true. I am Hot! 02:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You just put a space in front of a period... - Woodrow 02:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * So I did! What does this mean? I am Hot! 02:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Using Sock puppets in this manner is prohibited. Dori | Talk 02:27, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not a sockpuppet. please dont accusse me of thing i didnot. es ist nicht angemessen I am sexy 02:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the logs. I confused the 00:47 edit to User talk:I am sexy/archive1 with the 00:48 edit to User talk:I am sexy, which occurred 12 seconds later. Apologies to both of you. -- Tim Starling 04:39, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Despite all this, she does seem to have talent for writing porn. If this could somehow be applied to improving the project instead of abusing it. How about creating example sections for the various porn pages. Bensaccount 02:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You right and I apologise. The comment at VfD said that no pornography was actually taking place only chat, as a defence. So I wanted to see if Sexy would actually go very far. As you can see, she didn't even use a swear word. She didn't go as far as I did, and I never went far at all. But you are right. Sockpuppet accounts are bad. I am happy for mine to be deleted, though i won't do it myself cos I'm too chicken. It's me that wrote the good stuff btwI am Hot! 02:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Further clarifying my vote above: I am not arguing that this user has been useful so far.  I think she would probably be better off somewhere else.  However, while she's not here to build an encyclopedia, she's also not here to deliberately damage Wikipedia.**That's an important distinction, IMO, since I think that Please do not bite the newcomers applies to all non-malicious users.  If a user is deliberately damaging Wikipedia, then I support banning ASAP.  If a user is simply misguided and cantankerous, then they should have one (and only one) chance to comply with an official ultimatum before being banned.  Isomorphic 07:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Iamsexy came back last night as 141.76.1.121, which I immediately blocked as a violation of her 24 hour blocking. RickK 14:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * All she did was make one edit to Tim Starling's talk page, to ask him to check the logs again to prove that she and I are not the same person.She said shw would respect the ban so there wasn't rewally any need to block her again.I am Hot! 14:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * She violated the block. It's a standard action in such cases.  RickK 01:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that I am sexy should not be put in the same category as vandals because she is a nice warm person. Comrade Nick
 * Moved from oppose due to newness of voter.moink 05:36, 9 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

 * 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)
 * Block log, 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)
 * 3) *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)
 * 4) moink 21:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ugen64 21:53, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) Catherine 00:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) till we *) 12:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) *Looks like a visitor from the de: Wikipedia rather than a sockpuppet. Mkweise 22:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) That user is clearly a vandal,       How many edits does it take? Dori | Talk 21:59, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *&quot;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 &quot;vandalism spree&quot; should be given an emergency temporary ban.&quot; (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)
 * 5) *Please note I am a she and feminist :-) I am sexy 22:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) **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)
 * 7) *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)
 * 8) **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)
 * 9) ***Sex is relaxive too and keeps everyone happy. I am sexy 00:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) ***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)
 * 11) Danny 22:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) silsor 22:02, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Nico 22:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) 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)
 * 15) Oppose. Let's have a quickpoll on giving quickpolls a 24 hour time out! 172 22:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose (although awarding a medal to Ed might be in order). - Hephaestos|&#167; 22:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) This is ridiculous. Maximus Rex 22:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) I commend Ed for taking this action in this circumstance. Kingturtle 22:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) 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)
 * 20) 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)
 * 21) Support warning only. anthony (see warning) 22:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Taku 23:41, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC) This has got to be ridiculous, the ridiculousest thing I have ever known.
 * 23) 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)
 * 24) Conover 00:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) I agree -- no need for discipline, this was the right thing to do in this case.
 * 25) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 00:53, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC) Ed acted correctly. I'll also note this mailing list post from Jimbo  with the subject header "Deliberate chain-yanking"
 * 26) From what I've read above, Ed definitely did the right thing. &rarr;Raul654 02:05, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) As much as I hate having support Ed, he did the right thing. Ambivalenthysteria 02:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Cyan 02:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Flockmeal 03:39, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) 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)
 * 31) 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)
 * 32) Oppose. Arguments above. Ruhrjung 06:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) Fred Bauder 12:30, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) Exploding Boy 13:24, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. To use the word of the day: "witch hunt". &#8212; Jor (Talk) 13:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose. -- llywrch 01:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 38) 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


 * Support. I am sexy 22:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Removed. Ineligible to vote with # of contribs, etc.
 * See my note at Possible abuse of User namespace&mdash;we do not currently have a consensus policy as to which uses of one's user space are acceptable or not. Blocking and deleting a user with no policy to back up such an action was a very bad call. Mkweise 21:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * As it was mentioned that I had previously tempbanned this user, I feel I should point out that all of her edits at the time were simple vandalism . She had been warned twice by Meeler and Maximus Rex and was listed on vandalism in progress. I think this was a totally justified block, and should not used to argue whether or not the block made by Ed Poor was justified. Angela. 22:15, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I deserved somewhat better treatment than blocking and user page deletion. isn't this a free wiki? I am sexy 22:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is not a free wiki. But hey, you can make a wiki yourself. It's actually fairly painless if you have some slight skill with computers already. see: http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/ . Have fun! Kim Bruning 00:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki to build a free encyclopedia. Not the same thing.  fabiform | talk 23:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * But your sysops seem to ignore the policy too often. You have succeedd in creating a free encyclopedia, but your community isn't yet. A free community has policies which guarantee the freedoms of each member. But in Wikipedia I have experiences discrimination, name calling (troll), censorship (deletion of user pages) and such things. If this is your ideal of a wiki community, then very soon you should start to experience the pain of drop outs and forks. How will you feel after a fork will become more succesful than Wikipedia because of its free community and good policies? I am sexy 23:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I for one would actively encourage such forks, built on that philosophy. In fact I think there already are several. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you introduce me to these forks? I am sexy 23:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * McFly springs immediately to mind. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * (Not voting) Then we'll get users who sign up just to muck around with the Wiki concept and not contribute anything. How would that help improve our content? Dysprosia 23:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I contributed articles and I continue editing. I am sexy 23:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you though - I'm talking about others who may come, and exploit this possible permissivity. The Wikipedia's built for making an encyclopedia, not for socializing - if I want to socialize or whatever online, I usually take it somewhere else... Dysprosia 23:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * But you tolerate WikiChess, lotteries and such things when done by old members. It isn't fair to discriminate against newcomers. I am sexy 23:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Noone is discriminating against newcomers; we're discriminating against users who are here primarilly to do something other than work on an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 00:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * In fact, the ability to fork is a powerful part of the "open" development process that the Wikipedia has been using. There is no fear of fork, in fact, the GFDL intentionally reserves you that right.  The problem is, saying that you want to form a Wikipedia fork that reserves your right to have WikiSex whenever you want is not really much of a reason for all of the other users of the Wikipedia to want to join your fork. --Wirehead 23:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I find your community unfriendly but perhaps I can find a home in some wiki fork. Please can you introduce me to some of the wikipedia forks where I can edit articles, meet people, etc? I am sexy 23:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Make your own fork if it's that important to you. For less than $10 the other night, with 30 minutes of my time, I installed Mediawiki at .  If it's important to you then you should do it yourself instead of demanding somebody cater to your whims. Jdavidb 18:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I recommend this fork for all your "I am sexy" needs - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 23:57, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * damn its server is slow. I am sexy 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to donate money for a new server. :) anthony (see warning) 00:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * See http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising . Kingturtle 00:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't believe no has mention wikinfo yet. That's where users such as yourself are welcomed. Dori | Talk 00:22, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but No Thanks. Fred Bauder 12:33, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfriendly is a funny word. If you walked into a real library and announced that you wanted to have sex with random people right there in the library, near the encyclopedias, are they unfriendly or did you merely cross an unwritten social line and offend people?  You are not being persecuted, you have a persecution complex.  The Wikipedia itself lists forks at Mirrors and forks --Wirehead 00:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If we do, do we finally get to see those naked pictures of you that you mention on your user page? Mkweise
 * OK you'll have to be quick, because, someone is bound to edit it out but user:Woodrow replaced a perfectly innocent picture that I posted of user:lucinda in bunny ears, with a picture of her completely naked! Lucinda and I have both demanded that he is punished for this.I am Hot! 16:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vfd Mark Two

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

Article 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.
 * A waste of wikipedia resources. Its presence means that it has bypassed the grounds by which it was defeated. Arno 12:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, Arno... I was just wondering... do you know what BJAODN is for? Yes. It's for crap that has been deleted but which was thought by some to be at least mildly funny or nonsensical.Node

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:
 * Completely within the frameworks of the whole BJAODN page. Keep, a piece of Wikihistory. &#9999; Sverdrup 13:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arno this page went through VfD and the result was that there was no consensus to delete. The choice therefore was either to move to BJAODN or to leave it where it was. theresa knott 13:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- till we *) 21:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, entirely appropriate for BJAODN. It's funny. --Jiang 00:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is BJAODN. It is now as it was when I moved it to BJAODN. I'll go ahead and delete the redirect from User talk:I am Sexy:Archive1 if that is what is necessary, but if we want to delete this as "useless" then why not delete all of BJAODN? Philwelch 22:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Come on! What is wrong with you people? BJAODN is BJAODN!!! Were it still at WikiSex, that would perhaps warrant controversy, but it has since been moved to BJAODN (not "bjoadn"... is that some sort of czech toadn?), and it is very stupid to get yourselves in a tizzy about it now. Geez. BJAODN shouldn't be ALLOWED to be deleted...Node

Delete:
 * Delete. I'd say "keep" if BJAODN pages were protected, but this page is still active, which misses the point of putting it in BJAODN. -Sean 00:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, nothing has been added since I moved it. Philwelch 22:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keeping this is as-is seems to me to be an outright insult to a substantial number of WP users. I agree with Sean above. Jeeves 01:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * An outright insult? Those are very strong words! Exactly what is on the page that is insulting? It was never my intention to insult anyone. I was trying to be funny I am Hot! 19:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - I never voted on the original deletion, partly because I thought deletion was going to happen, and partly because I didn't want to get involved in the discussion about it. That this page is still being used after archiving shows bad faith on the part of the participants. Wikisex either needs to be rolled back to the archived version and protected or deleted outright. I'd prefer the latter. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:30, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * The page is not "being used" as you put it. It is being copyedited.I am Hot! 19:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought the page had been sent to BJAODN sooner than it had, so I was using real edits made before the move in my "still being used" statement. That said, a page that has been archived still should not be edited beyond noting the circumstances of its archiving. My vote stands. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:22, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * why not just protect it then? That can't be hard. --Jiang 02:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you support that? Who would object? It's not provided for by Protection_policy that I can see. But the policy can be changed. Andrewa 03:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I would support it. Philwelch 22:51, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not getting used. Check the edits. People are just tidying it up, wikifying links, correcting spelling and the like. No new content as such. theresa knott 05:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete it before, as did most people, and it was not deleted. Since some(one) continue(s) to edit it, they apparently haven't gotten the message. I agree with Andrew and Cyrius. Hello! This wikipedia a collaborative online project to build an encyclopedia, I'm sure there are more appropriate outlets for those with an interest for adult humor and role-playing. Please remove this from wikipedia. Maximus Rex 05:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * What message is we are supposed to have "failed to get"? The page was never deleted in the first place because there was no consensus to delete. Look I can't speak for Martin here although I expect his reasoning for editing the page are very similar to mine. When I first put something on the page, it had already appeared on VfD. I fully expected it to be deleted, and was just having a little fun in the meantime.It was a talkpage, i was careless with my spelling, grammar etc. After the five days or what ever, there was a bit of discussion as to what to do, because loads of people had voted to keep. (it's all in the talk page if you want to check). It was decided that BJOADN was the best home. Once it was moved myself and martin made loads of edits. If it's going to stay forever, it should be free of typos, spelling mistakes and the like. The point is though, no new material has been added. To say that the page is "being used", to imply that doing the housework, is somehow sordid, offensive or bad form is IMO completely silly. Please please please check the actual edits that have been made. Also Please "get the message" yourselves. You failed to get it deleted before. Leave it to rest in peace now. Incidentally once all the typos etc are fixed I am completely happy for the page to be permenantly protected.I am Hot! 19:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The message is that your behaviour is not appropriate at Wikipedia and should not be rewarded by keeping that page. Maximus Rex 19:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * In you opinion Maximus. Not everyone in wikipedia has no sense of humour. You failed to get the page deleted before. I am Hot! 19:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nunh-huh 19:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is a fine distinction between being an amusing parody of online erotica and a dismal imitation of it. This one blew past that distinction a while ago, and I see no sign that leaving it as is will dissuade it from becoming more of an embarassing private joke.  Not everything need live at BJAODN, and this deserves a swift and merciful end. Jwrosenzweig 19:23, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia.  RickK 22:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not delete all of BJAODN on the same grounds?
 * Delete. Agreed w/ RickK and Maximus Rex. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why not delete all the BJAODN pages? They have nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Theyve been "deleted". That's what the D stands for. --Jiang 09:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ditto what Jwrosenzweig said. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 18:15, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Graham :) | Talk 21:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that everyone has had their fun with the page now, and there is little reason to immortalize it, since it is not particularly effective writing either as parody or as erotica. And it is exactly the sort of thing a reporter might dig up when trying to write about the "dark side" of the project.  Let's not make our enemies' jobs easier. UninvitedCompany 08:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't object to harmless fun, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And how many times are we going to have to vote on this nonsense, anyway? Cribcage 01:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Samuel J. Howard 08:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I gave the first time I voted to delete this and also because BJAODN should not be used as a way of evading deletion. Angela. 18:02, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Everything at BJAODN has presumably been deleted from the article namespace. I don't see what's so evasive about this. --Jiang 20:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Angela; you are a sysop yes? OK look at the original votes. Let's ignore new user votes, and ignore conditional votes {i.e. keep unless). That leaves 11 keep votes out of 39. I make that 28% keep and 72% delete. Now would you as a sysop, take 72% as a consensus to delete. If you would, then why didn't you? But if you wouldn't can you see why the move to BJAODN was suggested by Phil? Can you also see that based on our policies of a rough consensus for deletion and the figure of 80% being the usual guide that moving to BJAODN was not to evade deletion, but was to evade keeping the article at the talk page? I really don't mind if you feel the page should be deleted because of its contents, That's fair enough. But let's call a spade a spade and stop pretending that moving it to BJAODN was wrong. I am Hot! 21:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it. *Sigh*  Not nearly entertaining enough for BJAODN.  Neither entertainingly erotic, nor an entertaining parody of erotic.  --Wirehead 22:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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:


 * Keep (13): Secretlondon, Sam Spade, I am sexy, I am Hot!, Jiang, Tillwe, Node_ue, Bensaccount, Phil Welch, Everyking, Dwindrum, Seth Ilys, Guaka(?)
 * Keep unless WikiChess is deleted (2): Eloquence, 257.47b.9½.-19
 * Delete (28): Timwi, Andy, Angela, Evercat, Maximus Rex, Jerzy, Kowloonese, Dori, Meelar, Arno, Bryan, Wirehead, UtherSRG, Fabiform, Jeeves, Andris, Nunh-huh, Isomorphic, Ambivalenthysteria, Mikkalai, PrimordialChaos, Exploding Boy, Texture, DJ Clayworth, RadicalBender, Kosebamse, Danny, Hephaestos

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.  I'm tempted to dream up a suitable punishment for you two, but it probably won't be appreciated.

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