Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. The consensus is fairly undeniable here. Most of these "humorous, but also useful as policy" pages live on Meta now, but this one seems to have the wiki-love of the community behind it. Xoloz 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site - how does this page fit in with what wikipedia is? A humour tag is a poor substitute for allowing material to stay that does not fit within any aspect of the wikipedia scope.Delete A Y Arktos\talk 11:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, how exactly is this page a "free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site"? Snoutwood (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Try "what links here" and look at how it is being used. Then tell me how it does fit within wikipedia policy.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not really an answer to how this violates WP:NOT. Could you please just answer my question? Snoutwood (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it as merely social networking and with no other purpose. It is not being invoked to ask editors to calm down over content disputes.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I for one have had it with you pro-climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman editors.  &middot; rodii &middot;  22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Snoutwood (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this in any way a network? The only thing I can think of is someone created a cat for RC patrollers, but it's not being used to network. It's just a silly, yet curiously serious (I won't spill the beans!) page. Hardly a "network". Oh, and there's all of five people in the cat, at least one of which didn't even put himself in it. Snoutwood (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and BJAODN per nom. I believe someone created this in response to what a blocked user said on Administrators' noticeboard. Kimchi.sg 11:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was never blocked! Dfrg.msc 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some evidence to support this suggestion. Where do I file a confession? Just zis Guy you know? 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You could just confess here. :P Kimchi.sg 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and send to Best of BJAODN funny but not useful. TZMT (de:T) 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have PLENTY of otherwise pointless humour pages (e.g. WP:ROUGE). At least this one is actually funny. Cynical 12:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been here long enough that I feel that I'm entitled to my opinion about how this place runs. Here's a brief summary of how I've seen humor work on Wikipedia: Person creates something genuinely funny. People go, "Oh fuck!" and plaster moronic joke tags over the entire damn thing so that no-one ever has to run the risk of being surprised and finding it funny again. Person *fDs the page because it "doesn't match the purpoe of Wikipedia."
 * Lads, let me tell you something (which you surely didn't want to know anyway, but that won't stop me). I like to laugh. I also like to edit Wikipedia. If you think that it's impossible to be of value and have a gutwrenching howl, go wander over to User:Theresa knott and have a cackle. Read this page. See the old April Fool's joke pages. Go read, laugh, and get back to work. This particular page is as good as it gets. It's funny, it's actually a logical extension of real policy, it won't offend anyone, and I saw it, laughed, and thought, "Wikipedia's actually doing pretty O.K. if we still have a sense of humor that'll tolerate this."
 * You help to create the world you live in. Go now, you humorless, and delete each and every funny page, plaster the ones you couldn't with idiotic tags, pretending that somehow moving this content to BJAODN makes it take up less server space or make Wikipedia more fucking serious. Heil prudish Brittanica! Enjoy your dry, brittle, starched-pantie bureaucracy while it's still here, and remember that I said it first: you reap what you sow. Snoutwood (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Usable policy page. Mislabled as "humorous," I believe the consensus was guideline. If you don't like the policy, vote against in it the straw poll, don't try to delete it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hiding Talk 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems like sound policy. Climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman is not behavior we want to be seen as encouraging, at least not as a way of settling content disputes.  &middot; rodii &middot;  13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman is unquestionably grounds for an indefinite block.  Should be formally endorsed as policy, although for this to happen it would clearly need to be expanded to encompass the climbing of any major landmark dressed as any comic book superhero or comparable character. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we should certainly discourage editors from climbing Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman. &#0151; JEREMY 11:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - You can't just delete an established policy page like this! -- Cyde↔Weys  14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Frankly, it's appalling. Snoutwood (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (double edit conflict) Neutral (vote changed: see below). (Note: I created the userbox that goes with this policy, although I do not use it myself.) On one hand, this policy ought to be kept for the humor value and the fact that it almost makes a useful point. It seems to have a lot in common with WP:ROUGE (which is useful for explaining away the behaviour of some admins). However, I have some concerns; it seems to have been the subject of internal talk-page spamming, and its existence possibly violates WP:BEANS. I would ask that if the verdict is to delete, both it and its talk page should be BJAODNd, probably 'Best of' as many Wikipedians (including me) seem to find it funny. --ais523 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Rodii. --Zoz (t) 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Big smile/laugh keep, I agree that Wikipedia should have an occasional humor page like this per Snoutwood's comments and Rodii's comments. Netscott 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kind of funny. But now the joke's done.  Time to delete.  BJAODN if you like.  Rossami (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nervous keep. Keep because it's funny, and yet it's true. Nervous because now a hundred people will think they can create a policy just as funny, and they can't. But it will be worth it, even if I have to delete those hundred policies myself. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Try Uncyclopedia. --Improv 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nacon kantari  14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's just as valid as any other page in Category:Wikipedia humor.  Besides, the Green Goblin might come after someone climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, leaving Wikipedia open to a lawsuit.  --Elkman 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that a legal threat? Careful, Elkman, you're on thin ice here.  &middot; rodii &middot;  16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't making a legal threat -- I was just saying that someone else might sue Wikipedia, citing damages for an attractive nuisance, pain and suffering, and whatever else people sue about. Personally, I'd never climb the Reichstag in a Spider-Man outfit -- I'd climb the IDS Tower in a Batman outfit.  Or maybe I'd just ride the elevator up to the 51st floor, dressed normally.  --Elkman 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no cabal. BJAODN. Computerjoe 's talk 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are some Wikipedia-space articles kept and marked as humour; I don't see why this one can't be kept either (although whether this should be official policy or a humour page is a debate that can be done outside of MfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This one is good advice. There are better methods to settele content disputes. My personal favorite is "The Wrong Version" with recommendations from Jimbo for people who'd like to appeal such cases directly to Jimbo.  -- FloNight   talk  17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. Clearly. --Carnildo 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but tag a little more clearly as humor - replace the green checkmark with a smiley face or something. Made me laugh - and no, I don't see anything wrong with the occasional bit of silliness in the Wikipedia namespace. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Its amusing and makes the point well. --Gibnews
 * Keep, reclassify as wikipedia humor, but (obviously) remove policy banner. FT2 (Talk 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered delete, sadly, for long term good of project -- I was going to say "keep and reclassify as wikipedia humor". It made me laugh. But I'm rethinking, right now. The problem is, humor is essential. But do we want to end up inviting every humorist to use the project namespace for humor? I think sadly, a line needs drawing somewhere, before it really starts getting out of hand. Its not that this is especially good or bad, its just that an arbitrary line'll need drawing somewhere to curtail the trend towards using of WP workspace for editors trivia. Maybe a new namespace, "humor"? Its funny... but its also a good place to start drawing that line..... FT2 (Talk 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I follow FT2 on this one. it was a breath of fresh air actually. Just hope it doesn't become a precedent for an endless proliferation of parody on WP policy. ... Kenosis 00:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment that may interest only me: I just noticed that someone actually protected this page due to an edit war... therefore is someone going to actually climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man regarding this page too? :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected since what "edit war" there was involved admins and protection was to no purpose--A Y Arktos\talk 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As Darth Vader said, "Never underestimate the power of WP:PPOL the dark side of the force". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, this dispute also reminds me of what happened on April Fools Day. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment we are well and truly past April 2.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. BD2412  T 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment' (as apparently all of these should be): The current form of the article oversteps its bounds as a guideline and offers an overly strong punishment (permanatant banning which will result since it is 'absolutely forbidden') in response to vauge transgressions of wikipedia rules (apparently involving edit wars and the like). From what I've seen, policies are often used inappropriately to support at POV and a vauge on makes this easier, essentially allowing editors who use it to paint other editors as emotional extremists who are grandstanding--a difficult allegation to disprove. I guess a simply change to 'strongly discouraged' would do the trick. If wikipedia wants to remain consensus-based then very few actions, if any should be 'absolutely forbidden' and rather taken on a case by case basis. The article is amusing (and borderline uncylopedia in my opinion) and I see how humor can help diffuse the type of situation where it would be used, though that has to be weighed as a catchall complaint tag for 'strong advocates of a position I disagree with'. --Antonrojo 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, mate, it's not meant to be vague: it's meant to mean, quite literally, that if you climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to draw attention to a Wikipedia dispute, you will be permanently banned. Snoutwood (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point you've got so, and if that's what it's really for, then its clear instruction creep. — xaosflux  Talk  02:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless. — Mi r  a  03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep... as BJAODN... so, I guess, delete. We have a place for essays like this.  It's a wonderful, magical place where the Js are B and DN can frolic and play with ODN.  That's where this should be. JDoorj a m     Talk 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Best laugh I've had around here lately. WAS 4.250 04:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of what happens to the page, please place a link to this MfD on BJAODN. Although entirely serious, some of the comments happen to be amusing. --ais523 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dfrg.msc 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong-Super-Mighty-Ultra-Mega-lighting-Jimbo Keep! Why let my efforts go to waste? This is Friggin' Genious! Full credit goes to User: JzG for actualy making it- but I dont see any of you climbing a Major landmark, dressed in a flimsy outfit that could giveway at any time and expose your nakedness and potentialy start an international dispute/conflict, just to prove a stupid point!


 * Delete! - This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And if I was someone going to WP looking around, reading articles and came over this, I would leave and never come back thinking that WP was a really silly place and why should I use an encyclopedia I couldn't take seriously. Havok (T/C/c) 08:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So it will scare off humourless people? And that's a delete vote?  Perhapos we should all be concentrating on serious things like Nintendo or WoW ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What do my edits have anything to do with this matter? Stuff like this belongs on uncyclopedia.org, not Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 10:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't think that arguing for seriousness when you spend most of your time editing popular culture articles weakens your case just the teensiest bit? And did you spot the winkie? Just zis Guy you know? 11:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Atleast I argue my case by being constructive. Havok (T/C/c) 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! Look at your vote above - you think that's constructive?  Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's frickin' funny and promotes humor in a constructive manner. I think everyone needs more humor, quite honestly. Not harming anything, I don't think. Grand  master  ka  09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - posted from the 3rd floor cornice above Angela Merkel's office where I've set up base camp for the night - oops, too much information, don't block me... -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just being curious here: did you climb the Bundeskanzleramt? If yes, in what costume? Lectonar 10:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, I'm still on the ascent. Once I've finished my freeze dried Frosties I'll pack up base camp, change out of my pyjamas into my Spiderman Wonder Woman outfit and continue to the summit. Weather forecast good, should make it by nightfall. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But then you're on the wrong page here (see above:....Reichstag...), and climbing the Bundeskanzleramt isn't a blockable offense till now (I can't be everywhere). :)))) Lectonar 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The intent of the policy is quite clear: the climbing of any public building dressed as any comic book character is verboten. Wikilawyering is only going to make it worse for you... Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously very few people know of Merkel's secret bunker office in the Reichstag, I am on the correct building, approaching the glass dome. And surely cross-dressing comic book chracter outfits are exempt from this policy. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok Cactus.man before I slap one of these ungodly and unremoveable things on your talk page there's this bit, " Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself." Netscott 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJOADN, pointless, nonsense, funny, but this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent changes to the page, which is now not only humorous but potentially useful. I am a bit concerned about the precedent we are setting here; anyone care to write Wikipedia:Don't let WP:NCR be a precedent? --ais523 12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's my kind of policy :-D Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I don't like the page as it is, but the idea behind it is reasonable enough for me to vote keep. There is nothing wrong with guidelines whose absurd titles help reinforce a point, but this one right now seems to be lacking in substance. I'll vote keep and request that we work to clarify what it's supposed to say (which, from what what I gather, is don't go over the top in a content dispute). joturn e r 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete . It's spider-man, not spiderman. Two words, joined by a hyphen. –Dicty (T/C) 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The page was renamed to No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man; the title at the top of the MfD is now just a redirect. (This, presumably, is why the MfD tag warns against moving the page during the debate.) --ais523 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an unexpected twist.  &middot; rodii &middot;  14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. In that case, I change my vote to Neutral. –Dicty (T/C) 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BEANS . (Just kidding, keep of course.  A little humor never hurt anyone.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep + block the nominator from wikipedia per WP:NFB (new policy: no Ferret Face. ackoz [[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.svg|20px]] 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. Pretty funny. :) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not understand this humour. Iola k ana |T  16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Either Wikipedia is a serious project to spread information and knowledge around the world, or it is a failed joke allowing sad, unfunny, tacky MySpace ripoffs like this. There is no need for this rubbish in Wiki at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, get this nonsense out of my sight – Gurch 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is rather humorous and lighthearted, and does not cause any harm. Yamaguchi先生 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Move it to a subpage of BJAODN. Note, move it. Then might as well delete the redirect. For those calling to "delete and move", keep in mind that we have to maintain the edit history for legal reasons. Bryan 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion. Considering the existence of the two joke policies in Lubaf's comment below, keep this one too and label it appropriately. Bryan 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Funny, and in the spirit of Assume bad faith and Adminitis. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I hereby declare this poll over and the consensus is to label it like Adminitis - keep as a humor piece. Since I don't know how to do this right, help is welcomed. WAS 4.250 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've restored the MFD notice on this page; MfD is generally a 5-8 day process. — xaosflux  Talk  04:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it seems to be an okay parody/humor article. I'd rather err on keeping than deleting. --Kaze0010 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Surely this article/policy/whatever violates basic policy because it has no encyclopedic content whatever? It adds nothing to existing policy, is in my personal opinion just a sarcastic copy of the existing WP:POINT rules, and offers evidence to the anti-Wiki groups that the project cannot be trusted as a relaiable, serious source of information? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It difuses,tenshions,among users.So,yes,it is improving, wikipedia, by helping to resolve disputes,and in that sence,it is folowing the rules.It can't hurt,thats for sure.Peopol,are not robots,they need to relax,to increase productivity.No i'm not registered,but,please concider this in that point of vue.
 * Strong Keep Absolutely. Werdna (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy BJAODN. My eyes are bleedy at the copyright infringement and utter lunacy present on this page. [ælfəks] 13:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The copyvio has now been sorted (at the cost of a small amount of impact). --ais523 09:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment Delete just to spite JzG because he's such a deletionista and always comments delete on stuff I like but it's a good policy (if you're a policy wonk like me), despite the WP:BEANS issues it raises, and I think it adds value to the encyclopedia. People that don't get the humor won't get it but that's no reason to delete. As for WP:ROUGE hands off! KEEP of oourse.  + +Lar: t/c 14:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to BJAODN. This definitely does NOT "difuses,tenshions,among users".  It creates tension by accusing Wikipedians of performing dangerously stupid stunts.  Every place that I've seen it used, it's been used offensively and not in a friendly way.--M @ r ē ino 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep It took me a minute but I figured out what this page is about, and it is not just for BJAODN. Ashibaka tock 23:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wonder is the salt of the earth! - Martius Cornelius Escher

SO FRIGGIN KEEP IT! Dfrg.msc 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - troll magnet. Ian ¹³  /t  10:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to some confusion from one editor - let me clarify - "troll magnet" does not mean the creator is a troll, nor that anyone/everyone who views or edits (or supports) the article is a troll. It just means that in my view it is an unnessary addition to the encyclopedia which is more likely to cause problems than it is to solve any. Ian ¹³  /t  13:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's funny- very funny- but I think it deserves to stay around (as opposed to moving to BJAODN) because it actually does state an important message about WP. -- Kicking222 12:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep One of many humorous wiki related essays. To point out one I found today: WP:ARGH! Viridae Talk 14:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong DELETE &mddash; Is this really compatible with being taken seriiously as en encyclopedia? And if this is allowed, why can't everyone have their own humor entry? Additional opinion: It's not funny. It's sophomoric. -- Tenebrae 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like you have some work to do... Just zis Guy you know? 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; leave it alone. It punctures a different form of wiki-pomposity than any other humor page I've seen. It will probably be cited in debates, and better than having the same point done badly at length. Septentrionalis 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So if I want to put across a point in a discussion, do I refer to WP:POINT or this one, which is essentially the same thing written in heavy sarcasm? Keeping this kind of article muddies the waters. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's easy to answer, if the situation calls for a formal response send folks to WP:POINT if a less formal more "ice-breaking" response is called for send them to WP:NCTRDAS (or both optimally). Netscott 14:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I read this as specifically directed at needless policy, which often does not fall into the quite narrow range of WP:POINT; a policy proposal can be WP:SPIDER and still represent concerns genuinely held by the proposers. Septentrionalis 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The point is made humorously, but there is a real need to lighten up on Wikipedia, and I think this expresses it well.  Maybe I am just sick of disputes' escalating until neither side can see good faith in the other.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, WP isn't for the funny, but I see this kinda page as an Easter Egg - it's extremely unlikely to be seen by the majority of users, but the few who do will have a good laugh then move on. Satan&#39;s Rubber Duck 01:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.