Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Policy dispute

I think it's obvious that this article is meant to be humourous, but I have to dispute the creation of a policy without any sort of discussion or consensus. If there is a link to the discussion (WP:AN doesn't count), let me know and I'll remove the {{disputedpolicy}} tag. --ais523 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the article meant to be humorous? Wikipedians threatening to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man (or any other comic book character) are jeopardising their lives and the lives of others, and, more importantly, disrupting Wikipedia. Proto///type 11:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Humor seems the most likely reason why a policy page would be suddenly created without drawing attention to it or even listing it on the list of policies. The disruption to Wikipedia by building-climbing is minimal, and anyway could probably be reverted by RC patrollers. Besides, the policy conflicts with the one about revealing personal information (WP:HA), as Reichstag-climbing dressed as Superman is likely to draw media attention, and any attempt to impose sanctions would link the person involved to their Wikipedia username. --ais523 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By RC patrollers, I assume you mean Reichstag Climbing patrollers, right? I did not know we had those. Where can I sign up? Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just like newpage patrol (mentioned at WP:RCP), there is no list due to the vast number of users actively helping. The userbox is probably the better option to let people know that you participate. Due to the current userbox wars, I've placed it in user space as per WP:GUS: {{User:Ais523/User wikipedia/RC patrol (NCR)}} is probably the link you need. --ais523 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But how can you patrol for Reichstag climbers? That's awesome. There must at least be a webcam? I've signed up anyway :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a feed at de:n:Spezial:Recentchanges, which should pick up any Reichstag-climbing incidents quite quickly. In case the RC patrollers miss these, [1] documents all incidents before the last search update. (Hooray for interwiki linking!) --ais523 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are putting themselves in danger that is THEIR choice and it is THEIR life. THEY are the ones who would get the most harm if something goes wrong, NOT Wikipedia. This "policy" is pretty much worthless. Issues of personal safety (remember, if you climb the tower and get hurt you and ONLY YOU get hurt. Wikipedia is not hurt, at least not enough to seriously cause damage (unless perhaps you're Jimbo Wales... :). If they are making threats to do it as some sort of debate tactic, then couldn't that be covered by already-existing WP anti-disruption policy? 74.38.35.171 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously guys, take it from me, I climbed that building and - the bare wall wasn't exactly built for comfort. God. And the Pidgions! Their everyware! I think the moral here is never to climb any Major landmarks dressed up as a fictious cartoon character.

To any one considering climbing the Reichtag Dressed as Spider-Man, don't, seriously. not worth it. Plus you get Bollocked.

Dfrg.msc 06:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Persuant to the results of the straw poll this is now an official policy on Wikipedia. --Cyde↔Weys 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. To which I add: that such an important measure had not already been labelled as the highest standard of Wikipedia political importance boggles the mind and brings serious doubt into the efficiency and intelligence of the Wikipedia bureaucracy. Snoutwood (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have nominated the page for MfD. This page breaches WP:Not which is policy--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Snoutwood would care to enlighten us as to where this page was determined to be policy , ref this edit annotated "(this is established policy!)"--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, here and here, of course. Snoutwood (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up!

Aw come on! This is the best thing in years! The fact that I can threaten to climb the Reichtag, Dress up and do so, become bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, and then have it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia!

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Dfrg.msc 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep

How on Earth are we supposed to remember this rule?

If we get halfway up the Reichstag building, I propose that admins be required to place the following warning on user talk pages before taking any punitive action:

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
You have been spotted climbing the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man. At least one editor has reported this behavior as being in relation to a content dispute. As clearly stated in WP:NCR, you may not climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man in order to campaign over a content dispute. This is your last warning. If you climb any further up, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not erase this warning. Doing so is considered vandalism.

Otherwise, this is just another way for the admins to blow off steam at us well-intentioned editors who can't remember whether we've climbed the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man three or four times in the past day. Bah! PDParker 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Berlin admin

Although I must discourage anyone from climbing the Reichstag (right now you would be jeopardized by the fans of the Football Worldcup), I would be quite willing to implement a personal block (as in: give about 30min advance warning, and I'll be at the Reichstag personally to block anyone to attempt this). Lectonar 08:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is good to know. Fearless defenders of the Wiki are always at a premium. I have added the reichstag climbing patroller userbox to your user page, in recognition of this service. Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I have one of those? I've never actually been to Germany but they look cool. Malangthon 05:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't even get admins to give 30 minutes warning before blocking for 3RR, so good luck on that. Publicola 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for my late reaction; I've been hanging around the Reichstag this morning to see if someone would climb it, to minimize the reaction time needed for the block, but no one in a spidey costume turned up...Lectonar 07:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest we make efforts for proper video surveillance towards these ends? Preferrably a web-cam type so that admins can properly be aware of impending attempts to controvene this policy. :-) Netscott 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Being a participant at WP:COMICS, I'm obliged to point out it's Spider-Man. I'd lose my credibility if I didn't, sorry. Hiding Talk 15:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you dare scale the Reichstag to publicise this. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. But we should either rename the page, or create a redirect from Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. --Elkman 15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect created. --ais523 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Page tag

There seems to be an ongoing edit war about

• which tag should be included at the top of the page
• which category this page should be in.

I suggest [2] as my favoured tag. We should try to sort this out here, though; a 3RR violation on this page would be a tragedy. Feel free to leave your opinions and ignore mine. --ais523 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, but my position is less than neutral since I helped craft that version. But I imagine we'd all agree that it is funnier. :-) Netscott 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Happy whatever. I substed the policy template (and took it out of the policy cat) so we can do what we like. But I prefer to keep it understated if possible - it's funnier that way to my British eyes. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Understated? This is policy, you know. Snoutwood (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate to rain on anyone's parade here but with the Policy category on this page I'm inclined to switch my MfD vote to the BJAODN.. I'm not too keen to belitte policies that for the most part have been hard-won. Netscott 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do what you think is best for the encyclopedia. Snoutwood (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed the category a number of times. I'm not going to do so again... I'm cognizant of the fact that I have edit warred previously on other Wikipedia pages and I am also cognizant of the fact that that needs to stop. Netscott 21:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I meant voting on the MfD — but fair enough. I should too, but the temptation to get myself desysopped after edit warring over a page as silly as this is immense. Hopefully I haven't utterly GONE OVER THE BRINK! Snoutwood (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

• Since there is so much interest in this nonsense, others want to note that I have tagged Image:ReichstagClimb.jpg as unsourced - "self-made" seems a little disingenuous.--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Replaced with a preexisting GFDL Reichstag photo. The photo has no Spider-Man on because I couldn't find a non-fair-use source. --ais523 09:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Surely a wikipedian could acquire somehow such a costume and pose? We must have some wikipedians who would not frighten the horses in such a costume.

Noting that images are not my forte, I created an image of a notable wikipedian demonstrating responsible behaviour - it is not encyclopaedic though :-) . Some of us "pro-climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man editors" would like to be in the antipodes where it is summer - but I am scared of heights :-(. A Y Arktos\^talk 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey! Your mergining is almost worse than mine! Great job! Dfrg.msc 09:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

However, here in Canberra, our very own Reichstag has been built for climbing and gambolling on. Perhaps we could promote conflict as being safe for wikipedians in Australia.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i think it needs to be pointed out that a y is being deliberately and/or malisciou... um, badly misleading. in the present climate of 'war of error' hysteria in canberra climbing this reichstag, though to a tourist it may seem like a nice comfortable stroll, could well get you shot. please bear this in mind. whether it should also get you banned possibly needs further discussion...   ⇒ bsnowball  10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The image you used may have been sourced but it not necessarily free. Images have to be released as free or else, in general, they are copyright and not free. Anything used on Commons should be free - try Commons:Reichstag--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your from Canberra? talk Its an small world mate! Im here too, in Florey. Yeah, I could do a Spider-Man/Parliament House image but Greenpeace got there first. Image:ReichstagClimb.jpg is sourced now - and "self-made" is a little disingenuous, but what else could I label it?

Im working on another Reichstag Climbing image, but how do you tell if an image is non-copyright?

Dfrg.msc 09:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• The image you used may have now been sourced but it not necessarily free. Images have to be released as free or else, in general, they are copyright and not free - see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Anything used on Commons should be free - try Commons:Reichstag. Spider-Man is more problematic, but hire a costume, have a friend take a photo and no problem :-) Nobody will ban you from Wikipedia if the photo is taken in Canberra, as long as you don't climb the flagpole!--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Spider-Man in San Francisco.jpg

From Commons: GFDL image at Image:Spider-Man in San Francisco.jpg.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

File:SpideyNCR.jpg

?

More Can we use these? Where? Dfrg.msc 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

File:BerlinAdmin.jpg

• Where did you get the picture of Spider-Man? I believe if you're editing a picture together, both of the source images have to be licensed under the GFDL if you want to make a derivative work that's free under the GFDL. In general, I don't think anything published by Marvel Comics is ever going to be published under a free license. Also, in Image:BerlinAdmin.jpg, Spider-Man is too big -- he's about as tall as 1 1/2 stories of the building, which means he'd never fit into it. I had to learn these things when I was doing Photoshop contests at Fark. (Which reminds me, I should probably go back and do more of them, instead of spending all my time on Wikipedia... nah.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

K, so the picture of Spidey isnt actualty a picture, its a model which someone took a picture of. Also in Image:BerlinAdmin.jpg he was supposed to be that big - kinda like King Kong. How the heck can you afford Photoshop?

Dfrg.msc 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This page has been protected due to an edit war. If this is to be an official policy, then edit warring over it is certainly not to be tolerated. If this is meant to be a joke, apparently not everyone gets it (yet?). There is ALWAYS some sort of compromise available, that meets consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You didn't protect it on MY version! Snoutwood (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

N.B. I always protect the wrong version. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Procedural question. Can this be entered in the lamest edit wars ever while it's still ongoing? I'm sure the readers of that page would enjoy the spectacle. David | Talk 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about lame... it's DEFINITELY very silly, though. I, myself, would be honored if you would. Plus, it'd be fun to have an audience. Snoutwood (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have unprotected - it was admins editing and protection had no value.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Escalation to wheel war! Nice! Snoutwood (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As Darth Vader said, "Never underestimate the power of WP:PPOL#Editing protected pages the dark side of the force". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The protection policy certainly pertains to editing by admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • "Pages are only protected in certain rare circumstances" - I did not see that there was sufficient "edit warring" to justify protection, no matter who the editors are. Note at Wikipedia:Protection policy the statement "These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful." There have been less that 50 edits in the last 24 hours, the very great majority of those could not be termed edit warring.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point that there may not have been enough edit warring to warrant protection as a reason to unprotect, although unprotecting based on who the editors are was a bit much. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I apologise - I should have made my rationale clearer earlier - not much edit warring visible. I appreciate that the admins would of course have not edited while the page was protected but they should not be warring anyway and I don't actually think they are - could be seen more as a robust discussion and no imminent breaches of 3RR - in fact some discussion as to how not to breach that policy.--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
          • It's all good, I certainly wasn't about to start spinning the wheel about it! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Silliness aside...

O.K., mates, in all seriousness now. I've been terribly silly, sorry about that. Anyhow, let's talk this one out a bit.

I really do think this page has some real merit. I'll admit that it very much appeals to my love of surrealism and dry humor, but I can honestly say that I think that there's a perfectly decent reason to have a page like this policy. I'll list them here:

1. Edit wars and fights over articles are silly. Calm down and work it out — don't kill yourself to protest some stupid Wikipedia page.
2. Laughter helps people work. Fun environments are easier to work in than stuffy ones. Wikipedia should be fun!
3. It's be great to be able to say, rather than "Hey! WP:POINT!", "Don't climb the Reichstag, mate, or you'll be in trouble".

I admit that I don't really believe that this page is being MfDed because it violates WP:NOT. I'm curious: why is it? Maybe you could explain to me why you want to delete the page, it'd help. Because it's silly? Because you disagree with my points and think that there's no real value to it? Come on, really, this isn't hurting the encyclopedia. It's not divisive, it's funny, it doesn't take up much server space, I believe that it even helps the encyclopedia. Talk to me, lads. Snoutwood (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• As the MfDer I have been talking! I would rather be editing but feel I have an obligation to respond to issues raised at MfD. I think if this page was like WP:Beans, I could see the point. I don't see it being used like that at present and I don't forsee it being used like that. Regards - your humourless Australian who actually needs to disappear into the real world now so can't continue this conversation at present - sorry.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mate, it's two days old! Give it some time! (Have fun in meatspace... see you later.) Snoutwood (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I foresee using it; in fact I foresee citing it more often than I would like. (I have therefore added a link I can remember; WP:SPIDER.) Septentrionalis 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the best thing in years! The fact that I can threaten to climb the Reichstag, Dress up and do so, become bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, and then have it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!.

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia!

Dfrg.msc 07:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Silliness aside. If you want to take the piss out of someone who is pathologically PC and grotesquely (sp?) self-absorbed (self-absorbent?) then over the top humour is a lethal weapon in the war against the overly-inflated and this definitely qualifies. I say leave it be and and leave the serious to the dull and boring side of Wikipedia into which we pour so much of our mispent energy. Malangthon 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User box?

Can we get a Userbox made up to spread the hilarity? Is hilarity a word? If so, am I spelling it correctly? Im so confused and alone!

I will award anyone who makes a userbox a biscuit. [User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.msc]] 09:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I already made one ({{User:Ais523/User wikipedia/RC patrol (NCR)}}); see above. However, please don't spam my user/user talk page, neither with biscuits, nor with badly edited Reichstag photos, nor with anything else. --ais523 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cool baby! Dfrg.msc 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Essay potential?

I could actually see this becoming something like WP:TIGERS if a "moral to the story" can be worked out... it could be a good way to defuse tensions in a humorous way when content disputes do in fact arise. Thoughts? Netscott 09:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty much the point, yes. Just zis Guy you know? 09:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps I'm stating the obvious... but a good "moral of the policy" section might be worthwhile. Netscott 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we're going places. :-) Netscott 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is in pressing need of Uncyclopedia's {{British}} tag :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Too many shaded pastel boxes?!!

Holy crap that is freaking HILARIOUS!!! Netscott 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I shamelessly stole the idea from User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes. That is, the tag was his idea (it was my idea to add it to the policydecree). --ais523 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oho! Now prodded, as well... Just zis Guy you know? 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 4 July 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 15:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NB: The fact that a representative of the Cabal is currently holding a gun to head played no role whatever in my closure of this debate. Xoloz 15:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note I was going to close this after a few more days as well, but not as delete either. The MFD was bordering between keep and no consensus in my book, but either would have been a keep. It looks like the primary reason this ended up on MFD in the first place wasn't due to it's content, but due to it being tagged as an official policy. This page may be useful, and consensus at this point seems to be that this should be an informal page. New policies should always be brought up at WP:VPP. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Were free! -Dfrg.msc 09:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Joke Alert

I think this page should have the Joke alert template.

Micoolio101 10:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101

Greetings, did you add the {{humour}} template because you had difficulty establishing that the page was humourous yourself? (→Netscott) 12:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it isn't actually funny explains the difficulty. gohlkus 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we simply agree that this is very serious humour? Malangthon 05:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite. gohlkus 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives

Well, then next time I come near the Reichstag building intending to promote my personal Wikipedia agenda I may climb up there dressed up as, say Jimbo Wales or Angela Merkel, maybe with some kind of banner like those Greenpeace-guys, saying in huge letters something like "I want my deleted article back" or "xy must not become admin" or something like that. That would surely not be forbidden by this decree, would it? I read only about comic characters there. --Proofreader 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but I daresay you might not be in a position to do any editing at all afterwards (not for being blocked by some Admin, but, let's say, because you collided with rules and regulations outside the wikipedia (as unconceivable as real life may be for a wikipedian). Also, your comment could (and will) be seen as wikilawyering. :)) Lectonar 12:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, perfect example of wikilawyering. You'd probably still be liable to sanction but the sanction wouldn't be as severe. (→Netscott) 13:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How would you climb and hold a baner? Dfrg.msc 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How did this Start?

How did this meme start? Was there any particular reason the Reichstag and Spider-Man were chosen? Is this page in blatant violation of WP:BEANS? Andjam 03:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It was just a bit of larking about that snowballed a bit, caused a little controversy and eventually took on a slightly (slightly) more serious tone. If WP:BEANS (which is, after all, just an essay) really comes into play I imagine we will have to take another look at it.· rodii · 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Beautifuly summarzied. But for a completelty bias but more detailed and consise account which reqires an edit, see: NCR: A History Dfrg.msc 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)