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

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