This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 User blocked for "you have messages" practical joke banner 1.1 Addtional "new message" opinions 1.2 Arbitrary "new message" break (2nd) 1.3 WP:USER 1.4 Easy solution 2 Even easier solution 3 Easiest solution 3.1 Arbitrary Section Break 1 4 Proposed policy 5 Observation 6 Some different thoughts 7 Non-consensus removal of joke banners 8 yet more observations 9 Vandalism 10 solution 10.1 Notification 11 Before anyone does anything... 12 Crafting intial guidelines about "new message" joke banners 13 New Wikipedia:User page addition

User blocked for "you have messages" practical joke banner

A related discussion is ongoing at WP:VPR#Practical jokes in "new message" boxes.

All of us have encountered the practical joke false "you have messages" banners that a few users have on their pages. Within the past several days there has been discussion on the Village Pump about whether to have a policy or guideline forbidding these. (The discussion actually started with a box that linked to a non-wiki site but has expanded to include all such banners such as those that link to practical joke.) Opinion is divided on the merits of allowing such banners, with the majority opinion but no clear consensus (my summation) leaning toward the view that the banners are annoying and don't add anything encyclopedic so should be either discouraged or a few people would say outright forbidden. The counter-argument can basically be summed up as free expression in userspace. Personally, I'm not sure I'd ban these things by force but I sure wouldn't be upset if I never saw another one.

The userpage of User:Certified.Gangsta has long hosted such a banner and the user has declined to remove it even when asked to do so. A few hours ago, administrator David Levy removed the banner and, after the removal was reverted, stated that he would block Certified.Gangsta if it was restored. Another administrator has opined that there is no basis for objecting to the banner. Certified.Gangsta did restore the banner and David.Levy blocked for one hour. C.G asked me to unblock (I had posted urging that the situation be resolved quietly) and in lieu of acting unilaterally I said I would take the matter to this board. (Update: C.G. has promised not to restore the banner for 24 hours to allow discussion and David Levy has unblocked, but a consensus approach to this situation still needs to be reached.)

Comments are invited with the suggestion that the matter be kept in perspective, as some of us still have unfond memories of the Santa Claus Wheel War on Christmas Eve. There are links to the relevant discussions and the blocking admin's view at User talk:Certified.Gangsta. Newyorkbrad 03:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely hate those fake banners, but I think blocking for them is an overreaction. I do not think that there is an effective way to ban them however, since any applicable definition could be applied very broadly in unintended ways. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you participate in the discussion at WP:VPP—I believe the current proposal is quite specific in defining what is not allowed. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Personally, I feel the block was more pointed than reinstating the banner. Unless an actual policy/guideline/precadent can be presented to justify David's block, I think he owes CG an apology. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[EC] Normally, I'd say leave it be, but looking at CG's recent contribs, they have been quite disruptive over this including a couple of revert wars. We should not tolerate such behaviour. – Chacor 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CG's edits aside, is a practical joke a blockable offense? Especially one that is only viewable on the user's userpage (this would be a different story if he were to place it in an article or elsewhere). Personally, I think not. While I think the banner is silly, I think lots of things around here are silly; that doesn't mean I have the right to block people just because they disagree with me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the banner itself isn't blockable for. Revert-warring to restore it instead of discussion, though, arguably is. – Chacor 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone started removing something from my user space without citing a crystal-clear policy behind it? Pffft, screw them, I'm reverting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with all above. I've fallen for a few, I find them alterantely clever or irritating, depending on the context of my falling for it, and where it leads. I think that blocking them comes off more as stuffy and stiff, than a necessity. They can only be placed on user pages and user talks and last. There's no reason to take all the fun out of Wikipedia. i'd say that if they lead to a potentially offensive article, or off-site, then there might be grounds for asking for a more appropriate link and then Admin intervention, but short of that, who really cares? ThuranX 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The users whose time is wasted (instead of being spent improving the encyclopedia) care. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suppose I'll just repeat the comments I made here a mere two weeks ago:

If there's anything the various incidents over the course of the last year have taught us, it's that selective attempts at enforcing userpage rules simply don't work as intended, and usually result in little beyond getting many people quite upset. This goes double for attempts that dispense with the usual discussion and move straight to the ham-fisted removal.

There is very, very little that an established, good-faith contributor could place on their userpage which would truly need to be removed right now. Everything else doesn't warrant immediate, undiscussed removal; and most likely doesn't really need to be removed at all, unless we're going to make a habit of actually patrolling userpages for "inappropriate" content. A [joke banner] isn't particularly important, in the grand scheme of things; it's rather unlikely to be worth provoking the sort of big, nasty, utterly pointless fight that is certain to result when you try to remove it by force.

Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking may be an overreaction, but allowing him to reinstate the banner is not acceptable either. He's been asked numerous times to remove it and every time responds by reactively lashing out at people in the worst possible faith. The banner is disruptive, his behaviour is disruptive, and both the banner and behaviour need to cease existing. --tjstrf talk 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use this link to directly access the main discussion at the Village Pump. I won't repeat here what I've already argued there. Bishonen | talk 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Seriously? I could only imagine it being even remotely blockable if the joke led to some nasty Goatse.cx style image or some other such nonsense, otherwise blocking'd would be extremely inappropriate. Those practical joke new message things are lame but once you know what it is they are easy to avoid. (→Netscott) 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to various comments above:
This "practical joke" is an attempt to confuse and mislead fellow editors in a manner that interferes with their efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Why should such deliberate disruption be tolerated?
I didn't block the user to make a point or because he/she disagreed with me. I blocked him/her for deliberately disrupting Wikipedia (in violation of this guideline) after being warned not to at the risk of being temporarily blocked. I selected a duration of only one hour and unblocked immediately upon the user's promise to cease the disruption (which I was attempting to offer but kept hitting edit conflicts).
I'll ask those of you who believe that I overreacted to kindly suggest an alternative means of halting the disruption (keeping in mind that I'd already asked repeatedly). —David Levy 03:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy, stop viewing it as disruption. (→Netscott) 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But it is disruption. A horse has four legs, even if someone says it has five. These things are disruptive, even if someone says they're happy fun time. Picaroon 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I also stop viewing phony administrative warnings and block messages as disruption? How about hoax articles? Should we stop enforcing any policy or guideline that upsets disruptive users? —David Levy 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

David Levy forgive me for pointing out the obvious but you violated the principle of "conflict of interest" over the fact that you were engaged in an edit war with this individual and then you blocked him. Very wrong. (→Netscott) 03:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An edit war?! I was enforcing a guideline by reverting deliberately disruptive edits! Should sysops also refrain from blocking the penis vandals with whom they're "edit warring"?

I'd also like to point out that I personally removed these banners from more than 90 pages, and this was the only user to respond by restoring it (so far, anyway). —David Levy 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you've been editing that many people's userpages for no constructive purpose, but only to remove content? You make no mention of ASKING them to volunteer to delete it. That does not seem ethical to me. Frankly, I think you may be lucky no one's sought to bring your actions here, especially given the active discussion at the Pump. just my thoughts on the matter. ThuranX 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was following this guideline, which stated that "fake MediaWiki UI elements may be removed without warning and should not be replaced once removed" (until someone who believes that it's fine and dandy to deliberately confuse and mislead fellow editors excised that text). —David Levy 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GUIDELINE, David, not POLICY. Until it's policy, I suggest you keep your itchy little fingers off of other editors' pages. And to block over a guideline is quite an exaggerated response. I would also point out that if only one editor objected, may I suggest your unilateral, heavy-handed actions as an administrator may have intimidated the others into not reinserting the banner? Don't abuse the trust the community has placed in you by allowing you to act as an admin here. Jeffpw 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're of the belief that users are entitled to ignore guidelines designed to prevent disruption because they feel like it, you're mistaken. —David Levy 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my view on these joke things going back to March 2006, but sheesh... blocking someone over it... particularly when the blocking party is engaged in an edit war about it? Very very wrong. (→Netscott) 04:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of "edit war." —David Levy 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh do I really, let's see here: rv1, rv2, rv3... hmmm looks an awful lot like an edit war. From what you are saying the specific section of the guideline you've cited does not have consensus and yet you are operating as though it does. Again, wrong. (→Netscott) 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I could pull up a similar list of reversions of penis vandalism. Would that also constitute an "edit war"?

2. Clear consensus has been demonstrated for this section of the guideline. The fact that a few users believe that it's okay for people to forge software messages for the purpose of deliberately confusing and misleading fellow editors doesn't change that. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

David, you're going strawman on us here. There's no comparison between harmless "new message" joke alerts and say someone putting up a fictious MediaWiki message for nefarious purposes. I can understand and agree with your concerns in this regard but the "new message" joke alert is an apple and something nefarious is an orange. (→Netscott) 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim that there aren't different levels of severity. My point is that these pranks are harmful, and I removed them as prescribed by a guideline (and blocked a user after he/she repeatedly and deliberately violated said guideline). This was not an edit war, despite the fact that the user didn't add a goatse image to Jimbo's article. —David Levy 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on David; that clause was added yesterday, with very little discussion beforehand (3 and a half hours after it was suggested, to be exact). Editing 90 user pages without requesting their permission first, not to mention blocking someone for violating "policy" that was discussed for less than 1/6th of one day is an incredible overreaction, in my humble opinion. Am I missing some prior discussion or consensus on this? I don't think I disagree with it, largely because of the threat of phishing brought up by someone in that discussion, but it would be much smarter to let consensus be clear and the dust settle a little bit first, no? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bbatsell. This seems questionable at best, distinctly unethical at worst, and probably genuinely in the middle. david, you should know that policy and guidelines are different in enforcability; that immediately jumping into action on a newly discussed, and still debated policy often causes issues, and that where a possible conflict, IE - edit warring, exists, AVOID any appearance of impropriety. that's about it. I think this could've been handled better, and that this is akin to the same sort of draconian UserPage and Usertalk bureaucracy that irritates much of the rank-and-file of Wikipedia, like being told to go wear a uniform and edit, isntead of have that 'I speak Klingon!' userbox. Come on. Very few people last here without taking this project seriously, but that doesn't mean we can't have some of ourselves on our userpages. As long as it doesn't redirect to a porn site, Adult content here on wikipedia (And by that I mean stuff that a parent wouldn't want a 13 to know about), or to any other sort of unethical stuff (like spamming and so on), does it truly hurt the project? I don't think so. ThuranX 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The debate had more-or-less concluded at that point. It only resumed because of this incident, and consensus remains clear. But again, I wasn't edit-warring. I was reverting deliberate disruption. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The consensus is clear, and insertion of "deliberate misinformation" has always been regarded as vandalism. I see no reason why this should apply strictly to articles. Certainly, common sense should be applied (and harmless kidding permitted), but this is far from harmless.

2. I didn't block the user for restoring the banner. I blocked him/her for deliberately causing disruption after being warned not to. I then unblocked as soon as he/she promised to cease said disruption. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• If these ANI sections are any indication David Levy, there's 0 consensus regarding the "new message" alerts (and I would go so far as to say there more support for allowing them). (→Netscott) 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I see more opposition to my "overreaction" than opposition to the underlying principle. Of course, I strongly disagree with this assessment of my actions. I was following a guideline as it existed at that time (regardless of what ends up happening now). —David Levy 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Addtional "new message" opinions

I personally think:

• Maintaining fake "you have new messages" boxes is not, in itself, a blockable offense.
• Refusal to remove the banner when asked, especially if the banner is misleading or in some other way detrimental to the functioning of the encyclopedia, is disruption.
• Disruption is a blockable offense.

Feedback anyone? Yuser31415 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify: asked by whom? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone. I do think, however, that admins blocking users they are engaged in a content dispute with is not the best way of dealing with the situation. Yuser31415 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, this was not a content dispute. This was vandalism reversion. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to doubt you have any clue what vandalism is, David. —freak(talk) 05:33, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the above criticism seriously when you retract your flagrantly false claims about me. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Me, the blocking admin, User:Centrx, probably some others. This isn't the first time he's gotten into a big fight over it. --tjstrf talk 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think spoofing any function of the wiki is disruptive by it's very nature. Much in the same way we don't let people create accounts titled "my talk" or "log out" per username policy we should NOT let this continue. That being said, it realy is a minor issue and I untill some kind of consensus is formed, I don't think a block is warrented. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoofing any function of the wiki is disruptive? Oh dear. We will have to ask one of our most respected editors to cut it out then. [1] Geez, and this was always one of my favourite talk pages. Risker 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, or being warned against climbing the ole' Reichstag buidling. (→Netscott) 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about functions of the metawiki software... I wasn't realy talking about templates. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear consensus was established at WP:VPR and a specific rule against this behavior was added to Wikipedia:User page (not by me). —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's harmless. Being led to the practical joke article is not disruptive. What does it "disrupt" exactly? I think being the manners police is what gives some people a dim view of admins. (I don't mean to point the finger at anyone here, just saying.) IronDuke 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's obnoxious, misleading and deceptive, and is basically being a dick for no reason whatsoever except so that you can gloat "haha I tricked you!". --tjstrf talk 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It forces people to question the validity of software messages and take time out from editing the encyclopedia to deal with something created specifically for the purpose of confusing and misleading them. As noted at WP:VPR, this can consume a non-trivial amount of time for users with dial-up connections. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If half the people who visit the page click on the banner once and 1000 people visit the page while the banner is up, then 500 peoples suffered a 10-15 second disruption. Thats nearly 2 hours of editor-time lost to a stupid banner. No, it's not realy major, but it is disruptive in a very minor but real way. What if I replaced my userpage with a copy of the "you have been blocked from editing" message? Would we even be having this conversation or would I be begging for forgiveness with an {{unblock}} tag? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "User talk:J.smith" tag at the top of the page would give it away. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say as well, they're harmless. Are they linked on top of an article? Sure, remove and block if it keeps happening. On top of a user page? Not even close. Again, if we're going to delete everything that can be remotely construed as a distraction to the encyclopedia, let's delete namespaces 2-101. I do not think that a block was warranted in this case. Let's save the block bit for things that really matter. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd, thank you for your calm voice of reason. (→Netscott) 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it harmless to intentionally confuse and mislead people, thereby impeding their efforts to improve the encyclopedia? That's called deliberate disruption. —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"...Thereby impeding their efforts to improve the encyclopedia" -> Prove it. That's what you haven't done. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. If someone has to stop what they're doing to respond to a phony software message, how are they able to improve the encyclopedia during that time?

2. I didn't invent the consensus or add the rule to the guideline page. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Time is NOT a fungible resource on wikipedia. What if someone sees it and gets the joke, enjoys wikipedia more and spends more time editing? What if the person who placed it there is able to spend more time on wikipedia because he's not forced to act like a mindless content-generating automaton? If CG or any of the other 90-whatever users you've done this to leaves the site because of this, thus no longer devoting _any_ time to improving the encyclopedia, how has that helped anything? --Random832(tc) 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You're debating the appropriateness of the rule. That's fine, but at the time, there was clear consensus that this behavior is harmful and a guideline explicitly prohibiting it; I didn't take it upon myself to outlaw a practice that I unilaterally deemed bad.

2. One could make the same argument about any type of editing. There are users who are offended when their article vandalism ("all in good fun") is reverted, and they probably would spent more time on Wikipedia (performing valid edits too) if this were tolerated.

3. It really bugs me when people divide this situation into two choices: allow users to do anything that they want on their user pages or ban user pages completely. There's a heck of a lot in between, and disallowing the insertion of phony software messages deliberately designed to deceive people is not remotely similar to forcing someone to be a "mindless content-generating automaton." User pages exist for the purpose of assisting in the construction of the encyclopedia, but the community is willing to tolerate just about any content that causes no harm (which includes most silly jokes). —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And this isn't? Holy shit. —freak(talk) 05:25, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I would never deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. Disagreeing with you (as several others did) is not an example of such an act. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree, then, that a shoe tends to fit differently on the other foot? —freak(talk) 06:28, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

I've never disputed the fact that two users acting in good faith can honestly perceive a situation differently. In Phil's case, I've never denied that he was acting in good faith. —David Levy 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Add me to the chorus of voices saying that viewing these things as blockable disruption is ridiculous. Look, what if I were to post a funny joke on my user page, and of the people who read it, 20% chuckled for a few seconds. That was a few seconds they could have been editing! If 10,000 people chuckle, we are losing hours of productivity. Please. Get a grip, get some perspective, get off the power trips. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are users deceived into reading those jokes and loading another page? Is there a guideline against such jokes? —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• How has this turned into some sort of panic situation? As annoying as the banners are, they're certainly not blockable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Annoying banners may not be blockable, but disruption surely is. PeaceNT 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Since when is deliberate disruption not a block-worthy offense? —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  An excellent point; since nobody has blocked you for what many have considered a disruptive block, I'd say... since right now. Seriously, unilateral enforcement of a dubiously-amended policy can just as easily be seen as disruption. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wow, EVula, I couldn't have put that better myself. (→Netscott) 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Do you honestly believe that my intention was to create disruption? Do you believe that the banner in question serves a purpose other than to confuse and mislead users? —David Levy 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Your intentions I can only guess at, but are ultimately irrelevant. As for your second question; yes, it serves to amuse the editor who had it only on his userpage and nowhere in the encyclopedia (a fact that I think bears emphasis). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Right there with EVula. You cannot necessarily be intending to be disruptive (at least in your mind) and yet still be in the grand scheme of things. I'd also agree with EVula the "new message" joke servers as a, "aw darn it! he/she got me!" followed by a smile or a big laugh and a friendly message left on the jokester's page saying so with a winky smile ;-) ... it's only lame after the first few times of being "gotten". (→Netscott) 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Amen. I found the banner funny twice, and then I wised up and stopped clicking orange banners on other people's user pages without hovering my mouse for a second to check. The idea that the intent behind the banner is to "confuse and mislead users" strikes me as quite a failure to assume good faith. I find it much easier to suppose that people with these banners are sharing a joke than to believe they're being somehow malicious. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Malicious? No. I'm sure that it's merely intended to be funny. That doesn't change the fact that this is accomplished by deliberately confusing and misleading users. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see it as "deliberately confusing and misleading users". I mean, you could see it that way, but you certainly don't have to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Is the intent not to trick the user into believing that he/she has new messages on his/her talk page? —David Levy 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  You're missing my point, which is that you don't have to think of it that way. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are ways to be right that generate less friction than the way you're currently being "right". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know of any way to think of these messages other than as deliberate attempts to trick users into believing that they have new messages on their talk pages. I realize that this is regarded by the perpetrators as a joke, but that doesn't make it okay. I've seen users become offended when their jokes were removed from articles. ("Where's your sense of humor?!") The fact that article vandalism is worse doesn't mean that this is perfectly fine. —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Sure, they're deliberate attempts to make you think you've got a talk page message, but depending on your priorities, you don't necessarily focus on that. I just see the banner, check whether it's for real, and then click or not accordingly. There's a million accurate ways to see anything; you seem to be choosing a way that apparently not only bothers you, but generates more friction than you expected. You're welcome to do that, of course, but you also wouldn't be wrong to see it another way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion, but I honestly don't understand your point. I'm sorry. —David Levy 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Eh, perhaps I wasn't being particularly clear. We Discordians sometimes just come across as insane, especially when we start breaking the law of excluded middle in mixed company. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  I've edited on dial-up. Have you? I have an escape key that works fairly well, and the majority of Wikipedia is text, which takes very little time to load. Holy shit, you know what's taking a while to load? This page. On cable Internet. Even if it's dial-up, the time taken is trivial. Response to your highly inappropriate block, however, has taken many times more than your prank message time loss estimation.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. Yes, I have edited on dial-up.

  2. I never claimed that these messages were earth-shattering. I merely attempted to enforce clear (at the time) consensus that they're harmful.

  3. Had I realized that my actions were to be met with this level of controversy, I obviously wouldn't have proceeded in that manner (given the fact that my intent was to prevent disruption. Without doubt, I'm guilty of failing to anticipate the resultant response. —David Levy 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  But it impedes the efforts of users who are editing the encyclopedia. That this "amuses" some people is not valid justification. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Query: if someone is editing the encyclopedia (specifically), why are they on a user's page? EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  That can happen in perfectly reasonable ways. Let's say I need to talk to someone about an edit, so I click on their signature, which just contains a link to their user page, so I have to pass through that (or do something more awkward) to get to their talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, I realize; if it seems like my response was silly, that's because there's only so much I can do with such a puzzling attitude. Unless someone is on dialup and loading a page is a major concern for them, simply clicking on Practical joke is hardly the end-of-the-world event that David is making it out to be. Hell, the argument could be made that this whole shitstorm has impeded the efforts of everyone involved much more so than any stupid userpage-based practical joke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Some users are on dial-up connections. I don't believe that this is an "end-of-the-world event," but that doesn't mean that it isn't harmful and disruptive. —David Levy 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that there are worse things out there to worry about, and this is a huge deal over nothing. If you don't like the joke, don't fall for it again, simple as that. Isn't that what popups are for? riana_dzasta 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  It's not even necessary to have popups. Just hover over this link, and the vast majority of browsers will show you the destination page in the status bar on the bottom. And worse than that; most modern browsers will also show you a tooltip showing the destination page, as that's the default intended behavior in MediaWiki. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  So...it's the prank victims' fault for not being diligent enough to thwart the deliberate attempts to confuse and mislead them? —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Who said anything about "fault"? The idea that one can hover one's mouse for a second before clicking on a banner isn't an indictment, it's just a suggestion, and not a bad one, either. I haven't fallen for one of those joke banners after the first two times or so, and it's not like I'm taking any extra time because of it. Unless you're just blindly clicking every time you see orange, I don't get what the disruption is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Why should it be the responsibility of users to take measures to counter the deliberate attempts to confuse and mislead them? —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I don't believe I said that. I would certainly avoid ideas like "should" and "responsibility" in this context. All I'm saying is that I'm not disrupted by it, and I'm not sure why others are, once they've seen it once or twice. There's no talk there of moral responsibility or anything like that, just a practical observation. I also look both ways before crossing a street, even when I have right-of-way. I think taking an extra precaution is better than being "in the right", and dead. YMMV.

  You have two choices: try to stop all practical jokes of a certain variety, or accept that they happen, and pay a little more attention to what you click on. If you choose the first option, I think that's Quixotic and silly. Apparently you want to characterize the second option as somehow related to "blame" and "responsibility" and all these heavy moral concepts, but it's not at all necessary to think that way. You could just look before you click, and you'll find that you're no longer disrupted by joke banners. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that this is a good idea. I'm saying that it shouldn't be necessary (or should be necessary as little as possible). The two solutions are not mutually exclusive, just as looking both ways before crossing the street and following traffic laws aren't. —David Levy 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe it "shouldn't" be necessary, whatever that means, but I live in this world, where you can't ban mostly harmless practical jokes, and if you try to, you generate a lot more disruption in the form of drama than the jokes ever could cause. Practically speaking, it's far easier to ignore them than it is to ban them. If that bothers you, then human nature bothers you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. I disagree that this joke is "mostly harmless."

  2. We disallow all sorts of things (including jokes) on Wikipedia. It would be much easier to let people post whatever they want in articles, but users have no such right. They also aren't entitled to post whatever they want on their user pages. If something interferes with our ability to construct the encyclopedia, it's prohibited. I'm not bothered by human nature; I'm bothered by the belief that we're powerless to mitigate its impact. —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Any user who's paying attention will be tricked no more than once or twice by this joke. I consider that "mostly harmless", but I guess I can see how you might disagree. It's certainly not leaving bruises, or taking food out of anyone's mouth. As for your second point, I would suggest that choosing your battles is important, and that this just isn't worth the trouble. I'm not saying we're "powerless to mitigate its impact," and I hope you don't imagine I'm saying that. I'm saying it has a small impact, and we've all got bigger fish to fry. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  I obviously had no idea that the matter would escalate to this level (and I've apologized for that), but all of this controversy stemmed from a single user's refusal to abide by a guideline (because he believes that only policies carry any weight). Almost all of the dozens of users simply went about their business. Certainly, you wouldn't argue that the loss of this banner is a big deal, would you? —David Levy 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  No, I don't think it's a great loss either way, at which point the path of least resistance seems like a good idea. In this case, that would be not worrying about the banners, and getting back to working on the encyclopedia. I realize that you didn't expect the level of controversy you found, and I certainly don't blame you for doing what seemed right and uncontroversial. We can't always predict how people will react. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'm glad that some users realize that I was acting in good faith (even if I was 100% wrong). —David Levy 19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  If we don't like deliberate disruption, we should simply ignore it? —David Levy 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  To simply ignore deliberate disruptions isn't a good way to deal with them, to prevent them is better. PeaceNT 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  ...which is why I repeatedly asked the user to cease his/her deliberate disruption. —David Levy 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) So, isn't it an exaggeration to call them "victims", as if something wrong had actually been done? I didn't want to pursue this further, but give me a break. The blocking tool is not a toy; after you press "Block this user" in Special:Blockip, there's no going back. You cannot remove the block from the log; the only ones who can do so, developers, explicitly refuse to do so.

  Besides, the warning in the blocking policy is quite clear: "Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only (emphasis mine) be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia."

  The measuring stick for disruption isn't "I don't like it" or "It annoys me". True disruption is impossible to mistake or confuse, and the fact that many highly-respected users have already said that you're doing Much Ado About Nothing should at least ring a bell that perhaps what you did was a disproportionate and draconian punishment for an offense that others don't even think happened. It's your prerogative to demonstrate that the disruption that you allege occurred actually happened, and you simply have done it quite unsatisfactorily. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Deliberately tricking people into stopping to read their nonexistent new messages (which can result in a non-trivial delay for users with slow connections) makes it difficult for them to contribute to Wikipedia. There was overwhelming consensus for this (and a corresponding guideline). The fact that this very incident spawned previously unexpressed opposition doesn't change that. (I'm not clairvoyant.) If anything approaching this level of disagreement had existed at the time, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Um, is the fake new message banner shown on ?action=edit on the main namespace? Or is it shown in the user space, where people go to get an idea about who they are interacting with? If a user is browsing the non-encyclopedic User namespace, then he or she is simply not editing at the time. This isn't a divisive userbox, it's a joke, for Pete's sake, and having a few users (because it was a few users, it wasn't an overwhelming consensus, as you assert) agree that jokes are not acceptable does not mean it is so. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. If someone is participating in an article discussion and clicks on a participant's username or talk page link (keeping in mind that there are also placed on talk pages) to ask him/her a question or make a comment pertaining to the article, this doesn't temporarily stop him/her from improving the encyclopedia?

  2. I'm not ignoring the new opposition, but I had no means of divining that it would suddenly arise. —David Levy 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI really isn't the place to discuss whether these should be allowed. We've got parallel discussions going on here. --Random832(tc) 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a review of admin actions going on, so AN/I does have "jurisdiction", for lack of a better word. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415 said "Refusal to remove the banner when asked, especially if the banner is misleading or in some other way detrimental to the functioning of the encyclopedia, is disruption." - It's David Levy's contention that such banners are _inherently_ misleading and detrimental. Do you agree with that? Also, David Levy, you said "Again, this was not a content dispute. This was vandalism reversion.". I'd like to note that it is a _hallmark_ of an edit war (edit wars are disruptive, and using administrative powers in furtherance of one is inexcusable) for one party to claim that the other party's version is vandalism. --Random832(tc) 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. While such banners are inherently misleading and detrimental, I realize that most of the users who have inserted them have done so merely to perpetrate a silly joke. Nonetheless, they are misleading and detrimental, and it's quite disruptive to repeatedly reinsert such a message after a guideline explaining this had been brought to one's attention.

2. You could apply that "wrong version" argument to the reversion of penis vandalism if you like. I was reverting the disruptive edits of a user who's stated that he believes that he's under no obligation to follow guidelines. —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Levy stepped way out of line on this. Calling others edits as vandalism when he's in the middle of a edit war (aka userspace harassment capaign) is disruptive. If anyone's being disruptive, it's David Levy himself. IT's unacceptable. The banner definitely is NOT misleading or detrimental. It really depends on the individual's opinion. The funny thing is Levy doesn't even think it was an edit war or content dispute, and just because he follows his own rule doesn't give him the right to harass other user's userspace or block them to circumvent 3RR. These admin conducts should not, should NEVER, be tolerated.--Certified.Gangsta 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I did not invent the rule. There was clear consensus in its favor. Enforcing a guideline is not "harassment," even when a user dislikes the guideline and believes that he's entitled to disregard it (and remove warning messages from his talk page) because it isn't a policy. —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary "new message" break (2nd)

[edit conflict]My two cents: I don't think blocking was appropriate yet in this case. However, I do think that prohibiting spoofing the UI is a valid, narrow prohibition that does not intrude upon people's ability to express themselves on the user pages. The banner itself is clearly not a blockable offense. I think that refusal to remove such spoofing and continued replacement of the banner is, at some point blockable. Given that the changes in the guideline are brand new, and still under discussion, I think blocking in this case was inappropriate. However, that doesn't mean that once a clear community consensus has been determined that a user should be allowed to go against it. This would be the same if the user had other content on their page, such as a resumé or promotion of a personal commercial site, that was removed. They would not be allowed to continue replacing the content and would be subject to being blocked. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[five edit conflicts and seven cigarettes later]This is an mind-numbingly stupid discussion. Everybody remembers my old userpage, and nobody gave a fuck about it until I ran for arbcom. Of course, it was summer, I was busting my ass for this site, editing around the clock, and most people (myself included) felt like I was doing something useful, so nobody cared. These days I find it more interesting to stare at the ceiling or out the window. Editing this site has clearly lost all of its recreational value for me. I don't think I'm alone in my sentiment. And it gets worse, every time some a critical mass of limp-dicked busybodies assembles to write their life-saving new rules, not because there is any real problem to be addressed, oh no, but because they have a biological need something for something easier to enforce. You're already in their crosshairs, they've just been fabricating a good enough reason to fire. To anybody reading this, if you feel like I'm describing you, please unplug your computer, box it up and take it back to Wal-Mart. You'll thank yourself for it and I will too. —freak(talk) 05:25, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, someone could write a thousand words and not make that point clearer. Administering Wikipedia has become an end rather then the means for many. RxS 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for taking the time to give out these feedbacks. Clearly, David Levy stepped way out of line in this dispute and it really comes down to a matter of userspace harassment. It is worth noting that David Levy intentionally blocked me after making the 3rd revert on my userpage, which is obviously an abuse of administrative priviledges (circumvent 3RR). Moreover, blocking me for a dispute he is involved in is also a definitely no-no for administrators. What is even more discouraging is the misleading notes on my block and subsequent unblock. David Levy is following his own rules and unilaterally edited the guideline without clear community consensus. Then unilaterally blocked me when discussion is still going on in village pump. If David Levy refuses to acknowledge his mistake, I believe desysopping (maybe a bit too melodramatic) is always a possibility if the community request him to do so. On another note, an admin had just protected my userpage, could somebody please unprotect it??--Certified.Gangsta 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. There was overwhelming consensus.

2. I didn't author the guideline addition.

3. I reverted your deliberately disruptive, guideline-violating edits. This was not a content dispute. —David Levy 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Bishonen | talk 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

First I'm going to again agree with EVula in a comment he made earlier... User:Certified.Gangsta deserves an apology and second he should be able to show the "new message" joke banner until such time as a clear and unmistakeable consensus against that is established. (→Netscott) 05:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I should apologize for blocking an editor after he/she repeatedly and deliberately violated a guideline that he/she knew existed to prevent disruption, was warned to stop (at the risk of being blocked), and removed said warning?

I certainly have no intention of pressing the issue until the new dispute is resolved, but you seem to be retroactively applying said dispute to actions from before it existed. There was clear and unmistakable consensus at the time, and comments made after the fact can't change that. I'm not dismissing anyone's viewpoints, but I wasn't able to consider them before they were expressed. —David Levy 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, face it, you jumped the gun and hopped on the block button with excess haste in this circumstance and were too heavy handed. Not only that, you did so counter to this specific clause of WP:BLOCK. In your reversions you claimed exemptions but on this talk on Bishonen's talk page she clearly demonstrated that you were in the wrong. As far as your warnings in this case that can be considered tantamount to user space harassment considering the history behind your actions and reasoning behind it. (→Netscott) 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. I regret (and sincerely apologize for) having acted in a manner met with some users' disapproval, but I truly believe that I followed the standard procedure for dealing with disruptive guideline violations.

You're entitled to your opinion that I was hasty and overreacted, but I certainly had no intention of blocking a user with whom I was engaged in a legitimate content dispute. Right or wrong, I honestly perceived this as clear-cut, deliberate disruption on Certified.Gangsta's part. —David Levy 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do away with anything that impersonates a real function of Wikipedia software. This is a waste that robs editors of useful time. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've long used newmessages.js to change the appearance of those fake "new messages" tags. But the proper technical solution would be to just change the appearance of the real "new messages" message in a way that can't be immitated via wiki markup, for example by moving it to a different location on the html page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 05:39Z

Quarl, while that is a sensible idea it probably isn't entirely workable considering that with CSS code you can pretty much do whatever. (→Netscott) 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then we should propose the abolition of userpages since it is a waste of time to introduce yourself to the community.--Certified.Gangsta 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the new addition to the guideline was added just over a day ago, and here I see that David Levy has been reverting attempts to change or even soften this policy. Then we see Levy applying this recently made up guideline (less than 24 hours after it was added, need I mention it's clearly not yet finalized), and then getting in a revert war over this (again, just recently made up) guideline, on a user page which bears little, if any, possible threat to the project. It's worth pointing out that he stopped at the electric fence of three reverts inside 24 hours, but also worth noting that these edits are not in any way, shape, or form, vandalism -- vandalism is a giant penis in an article, vandalism is floating an invisible link to goatse over your entire userpage, vandalism is not anything which is not obviously intended to do active harm to the project. Is this discussion worth having? Yes, very much so. If this sort of thing gets really solid community consensus and can be appropriately applied without drawing too much blood, then by all means, go for it. But this is one case where I'm crying foul: the use of a block to win a dispute and intimidate a user who bore no immediate threat to the project into submission is, to me, a graver problem than these stupid little joke boxes. Can't we all find something far more important to deal with? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocking for the joke boxes was not a good idea. The joke boxes are useless, but harmless. While Certified.Gangsta's edits are generally problematic, the problem does not come from his userspace edits, but from his nonsensical reverts on China-related pages. Kusma (討論) 07:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Double indeed, Luna Santin's got a spot on analysis of the unfolding of these events and this makes it even clearer of the inappropriateness of his actions. (→Netscott) 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

At the time, there was clear consensus that these pranks are harmful. I don't understand why people are faulting me for failing to consider opinions expressed after the fact. —David Levy 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Regardless of sentiment that arose after the fact, Certified.Gangsta was clearly violating a guideline that existed to prevent disruption. How does that not constitute vandalism (or something tantamount to vandalism)? I don't believe that Certified.Gangsta intended to upset people by displaying the banner, but I don't see how he/she could have viewed its reinsertion (in violation of a guideline) as anything other than disruptive.

2. I reverted a unilateral alteration to an addition made per clear consensus at WP:VPR, which I perceived as an introduction of ambiguity. (The intent was to prohibit such messages, not merely to discourage them.)

3. If there's a rule that guidelines should not be applied until after a certain duration has elapsed, I clearly erred in this instance and humbly apologize to Certified.Gangsta and to the community for doing so. I had no knowledge of such a rule, however, so I will not apologize for any intentional wrongdoing (because I committed none). —David Levy 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize our moral values differ significantly, David, but I'm trying to be objective and philosophical about this. To me it seems quite impossible to vandalize his own user page as you've paradoxically put it, just as it would be impossible for one to rape oneself (even if given a clear and unambiguous invitation to do so). —freak(talk) 08:52, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's impossible to commit vandalism on one's own user page? —David Levy 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —freak(talk) 23:35, Feb. 14, 2007 (UTC)

So...if someone goes to his/her user page and posts another editor's and name, address and telephone number along with claims that the other editor is a murderer and a pedophile, that isn't vandalism? —David Levy 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, you might want to peruse a definition of the word. What you are talking about is attacks/harassment/defamation. (→Netscott) 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." —David Levy 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear, the example that I cited transcends "harassment or personal attacks." As you said, it's downright defamatory. —David Levy 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[EC]I'm not experienced with this, so I am asking: At what point do admins risk desysoping? Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thoughts and feedbacks. Is it possible that punitive actions (such as desysopping at the request of the community) could be carry out against David Levy due to so many instances of violations/abuse of power? Cheers--Certified.Gangsta 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with David Levy's actions, I feel calling for desysopping is going too far in this case, especially since he did believe he was enforcing policy. Heimstern Läufer 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually the main problem. He is refusing to acknowledge that he made a mistake. In any case, I think he should at least tries to re-confirm the community's confidence in him as an admin, especially after so many instances of violation all in several hours.--Certified.Gangsta 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that I made a mistake. I obviously had a very different idea of how to go about enforcing this guideline than other users had. I do apologize for this misestimation. I will not apologize for any deliberate wrongdoing, as I honestly believed (and still believe, despite taking contrary viewpoints very seriously) that I was doing the right thing. —David Levy 08:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um what? How about a big no. He made a decision about enforcing a new policy. He shouldn't have. No one was harmed and we have no prior examples of him misusing the tools. This has to be one of the silliest reasons I have ever heard of to desysop someone. This entire incident belongs on WP:LAME. JoshuaZ 07:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added it. If I may add my two cents: If a banner that simply links to practical joke takes away from contributing to the encyclopedia, then we should eliminate userpages altogether. Grandmasterka 08:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Very few types of user page content deliberately confuse and mislead people. —David Levy 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It may not be horribly civil of me, but if this is going on WP:LAME, I think David Levy needs to be named WP:LAME Queen, complete with tiara. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that was rather uncivil. —David Levy 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, but it was so true. I don't think I would have even bothered posting it if you could consider other peoples' opinions and actually take a moment to step back and laugh at yourself. Yes, no matter how much we think we're correct, I think it's a very admirable character trait to be able to laugh at oneself. If you can't do that, how stuffy and boring can you get? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, it's not a policy, it's a guideline (quoting above). Yes, someone was harmed. Me. The block log follows me forever and David is not going to admit he was wrong despite strong consensus. Lol but I do agree the whole incident should definitely be included in WP:Lame in the future. A recent example was User:CrzRussian's recall, unfortunately, I don't think David is eligible to be recalled. Nevertheless, I do think admins should be held at a higher standard. (daaamn why can't every admin be like bish) A brief scan from the above discussion clearly points out the abuse of power David committed.--Certified.Gangsta 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my above replies? I take the community's opinions very seriously, and I acknowledge that I made a mistake in believing that my actions would be uncontroversial. For this, I've sincerely apologized to the community. I've also apologized to you if I was mistaken in believing that guidelines are to be enforced immediately (for which I had no knowledge to the contrary). I merely refuse to lie by stating that I set out to commit wrongdoing. —David Levy 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay David, your arguments doesn't make sense. Bish and Brad already told you NOT to act unilaterally by blocking me. You refused to listen to their better judgments. Now you're acting as if no one tried to stop your one-sided judgment. Anyway, I think it's time for you and other joke-banner hater to actually do something constructive on the project instead of going around messing/harassing other people's userspace. I will also appreciate if you post a note on my block log noting the previous 1 hr block was unjustified, mistaken, or stuff like that.--Certified.Gangsta 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Huh?! I read no comments regarding the block until after it was applied.

2. Out of curiosity, could you please explain how these banners are "constructive"?

3. I would gladly add a notation that the block was not met with community consensus, but I'm not sure that this is possible without blocking you again (which I obviously have no intention of doing). —David Levy 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Bishonen, a highly-respected admin, posted on my page [2] telling me that there are ongoing discussion, which means you made a poor choice by blocking me. I never said banners are constructive. My point is rather than removing banners from my userpage and get into useless arguments because of it, we're actually wasting more time than clicking into the practical joke article. As for the notice on my block log saying the block is one-sided, a 1-second block with thorough explanation will do.--Certified.Gangsta 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You claimed that "Bish and Brad already told [me] NOT to act unilaterally by blocking [you]." I've seen no such pre-emptive message.

2. I do agree that this discussion has used up a ridiculous amount of time, and I've apologized for triggering it. I only hope that something constructive comes of this.

3. I shall perform the requested one-second block. —David Levy 09:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled on this huge fight after I notice the practical joke banner was removed from Gangsta's user page. I've been the victim of the joke banner for about two whole times, before it got kind of old. However, no matter how annoying users might get over it, it's hardly a blockable offense for refusal to remove the banner. It's not on an article page intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. It's on a private user page to get a few laughs. I don't understand how clicking the joke banner is disruptive to Wikipedia for wasting time that could otherwise be spent editing. If that was the case, then why are there user pages in the first place?!? Doesn't it waste precious minutes (maybe even 10-15 minutes!?!) reading a user page and learning about a user, since that's "wasting" time that could also otherwise be spent editing Wikipedia? Clicking that link and hitting backspace must take up like 10 whole seconds of your life. This huge discussion over the stupid little joke banner is a bigger disruption to Wikipedia (but people like arguing) than a joke banner.
Furthermore, the joke banner links to the practical joke...not to some shock site. If the link was inappropriate, then by all rights, remove it. However, learning about practical jokes isn't that offensive to most people. The only damage the joke banner can potentially cause is a wounded pride, as with all practical jokes. I'm guessing that main issue with the joke banner is that it emulates a Wikipedia notice function (or whatever it's called), thus eroding the trust in the new message banner. However, most humans learn by the third time to not click on the joke banner when the practical joke URL pops up at the bottom of the browser (at least for Firefox) when the mouse hovers over the link. Emulating Wiki functions only becomes a problem when users leave indef block notices on user pages as a joke or something.
I believe David Levy made a minor mistake in getting to involved after Gandsta refused to remove the banner. However, it hardly calls for desysopping, since Levy probably learned his (I'm assuming David is a dude) lesson after the volume of outcry. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying it's ok, because it will only confuse new editors? Really? Proto::► 09:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a practical joke. Come on. Seriously...a practical joke. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have hit the bandwagon tipping point. Here's where it stands, as I see it: David agrees he oops'ed by radically enforcing the new guideline, and shouldn't have. Only a couple people seem to think Desys'ing is even worth spelling out the full word here. Most want David to apologize and move on. Most want the joke banner to stay available. I think that suggests consensus is probably: up with joke banners, down with desysopping David, and david, say sorry, go buy a nice Marble Frosted donut for yerself and get back to Doing the things that got you admin status to begin with, like editing articles into good articles, and supporting the project's community. The rest of you, break's over, back to work, that salt doesn't mine itself! <me runs and hides.>ThuranX 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I've already apologized.

2. What leads you to believe that "most want the joke banner to stay available"? —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug Bell has the right attitude here. This block itself was perhaps premature (though Gangsta's behavior since then has been antagonistic), and the issue is one of disruption rather than vandalism. Having noticed the joke banner, ask someone to remove it. If they refuse/have left the project, edit it for them as against the userpage guidelines (just because there's no consensus for adding specific language about spoofing the UI doesn't mean there is consensus that spoofing the UI is not disruptive). If they revert and get pissy about it, engage in dialogue. If they continue to not see your way, then and only then should additional actions be considered. -- nae'blis 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to engage in dialogue when the user in question is removing such posts from his/her talk page. —David Levy 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER

I fail to see what the discussion is about. See WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This specifically mentions:

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia,"

This is even more the case if some users find something annoying. I've already removed a false message box and would have moved to blocking if the user had not been co-operative (which he was).

Tyrenius 08:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The onus of figuring out whether a banner is valid or not should not be on the reader, and it does not help the encyclopedia in any way. Ral315 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That rule was taken out of context.

Wouldn't that mean a page dedicated to a game or something non-notable as a way or avoiding the notability requirement for pages?!? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not going to argue this any further. If you've got time to spend on this instead of building an encyclopedia, I really think you should question why you're here in the first place. Wikilawyering over violation of communication aids indicates a distinct distortion of priorities. Tyrenius 09:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow...are you suggesting I leave Wikipedia?!? That's hardly something to tell users if you are in fact trying to make Wikipedia a better place. And yes, I do have time to spend on this because I believe I'm voicing my opinion on a potential Wikipedia policy. Please don't blow-off my comments without even a discussion. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with cheese. Discussion is one of the things that makes wikipedia so great.--Certified.Gangsta 09:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of wikilawyering and editor non-production seem a theme of Tyrenius today. He has done that to me on two occasions this morning. My personal opinion is that it's frustration at not having a legitimate argument to rebut your lucid comments. The guidelines about user space are clear, and the (I admit, annoying) joke message bar is not currently prohibited. Wikipedia is not yet a totalitarian state. When it becomes one I will be evacuating to other internet safe-havens. Jeffpw 10:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather melodramatic. You have put the argument with admirable succintness. These boxes are "annoying". Doing something in innocence does not merit censure. Repetition once its undesirability has been communicated is a different matter. People who do things when they know they are annoying other users are likely to be sanctioned. Tyrenius 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing of it is, Tyrenius, is that the response on David's part was so disproportionate to the transgression. With so many truly hateful userpages out there, pages which advocate nuking countries the user dislikes, pages which seem to approve of ethnic cleansing, and pages which ridicule nationalities and religions, patrolling pages and blocking users over a joke bar is the Wiki equivalent of jailing somebody for littering or jaywalking...even worse, actually, since those infractions are clearly proscribed by law, and the joke message bar is not. Now I do have better things to do than debate this issue, and I have made all the points I need to make, so I am leaving it here. The issue itself does not affect me (I don't have it on my page); the principle does. Jeffpw 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased that we are in agreement that there was a transgression. The extent of the sanction is a separate argument, which I have not so far examined, but of course if an individual persists in littering, they are likely to end up in jail, when other remedies fail. I believe the attention to minor offences in New York was a successful venture in leading to a reduction of more significant ones also. Let us hope that if we can establish the principle of cleaning up user pages over the small-scale abuses, the principle can then be applied more easily to the large-scale ones. I am in full agreement with you that there is at times gross misuse of talk pages. Unfortunately, I have found that admin attempts to address this tend to rebound on them. I am sure that most of the hoax message users are "good" people (to use Jimbo's term) and would also be appalled at some of the user pages in existence. What they do not realise is that the opposition to the admin action in this admittedly relatively trivial case undermines admin confidence to tackle even seriously controversial abuses. I hope, once this is understood, it will be seen that David Levy has set a valuable precedent and, even if it was considered that he was heavy-handed in enforcement (I don't know, as I haven't studied it properly) his actions will lead onto a greater good. The bottom line is that the hoax messages are annoying and this is a form of disruptive behaviour. Once when I was in the middle of an intense series of messages with multiple users, I inadvertently made several hits on hoax ones, and it was the last thing I needed. I was relying on these messages to orientate through a tricky situation. It is the busiest users who are likely to find them the most disruptive, and that can't be right. Users want admins to help them out when there are vandals ruining things, multiple reverts against them and other forms of harassment. It cuts both ways. Sometimes admins do things they don't like and sometimes (provided of course they are not clearly admin abuse) these things should be accepted. There is an argument that hoax messages aren't a big deal so they can be left alone. I suggest if they are not a big deal (and they are known to annoy some people) that users should not make a fuss when they are removed. As it happens, there has been a massive discussion, intensely arguing for them, as if it's a huge deal. There have even been calls for David Levy to be de-sysopped. The end result of this is to demoralise admins. Then when it comes to addressing users with much stronger violation on their user pages and no doubt even stronger opposition to having it removed, an admin is likely to think, "hey, there was all this trouble over hoax messages. What kind of trouble am I going to get if I try to tackle all this heavier stuff?" And they won't. So you have to make up your mind how effective you want admins to be, and if you're prepared to endorse them when they act with the right intent, rather than give them humungous grief.

Tyrenius 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I'm seeing the "not as bad as x" defense. That the display of this banner is not as bad as adding goatse images to Jimbo's article doesn't mean that it isn't harmful or that it's to be tolerated.

Please try to see this from my perspective. At the time, the guideline addition had received near-unanimous support. It was on this basis that I removed these banners from numerous pages (citing the applicable guideline section in my edit summaries). One user responded by restoring banners via summary-free edits labeled "minor" [3]/[4]. I responded by once again removing the banners (citing the guideline), and the user once again restored the banners without summaries (with one of the two edits labeled "minor") [5]/[6]. I responded by rolling back these deliberate guideline violations and posting a block warning on the user's talk page [7]. The user responded by once again restoring the banners (this time citing the very discussion in which clear consensus had been established) and removing my warning from his talk page (with the edit summary "remove threat and unjustified accusation") [8].

Is it your honest belief that this sort of behavior on Certified.Gangsta's part is non-disruptive and should be tolerated?

Certified.Gangsta has claimed above that it was okay for him to violate the rule because "it's not a policy, it's a guideline." He hasn't cited any valid justification for ignoring the rule (and acknowledged that his use of the banners was not constructive). He simply believes that guidelines are essentially meaningless and may be disregarded by anyone who doesn't feel like following them for any reason. Is that really the message that we should be sending? —David Levy 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooo...very well argued. My main beef with the whole situation is that users jumped the gun regarding the policy and started warning and blocking other users for a policy still under debate. I guess the moral is to make sure a rule is in fact a rule before acting on it. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But the guideline wasn't "under debate" at the time. It already existed. On the guideline page. There was discussion and near-unanimous support. I don't understand why people fault me for failing to consider opposition that didn't exist yet. —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad that we can all discuss this a bit more calmly, now. First, let me say I don't think David should be desyopped over this. I haven't a doubt that he is a hard-working admin who was acting in good faith to make Wikipedia a better place for all of us. I should also state that I once had the joke message bar on my page, decided it was childish, and removed it myself...after which I received a chorus of thank yous from other members of the community. I didn't realize how many found it irritating. That said, I think the opposition that david experienced today is precisely because of it's triviality. I don't think that he (or any other admin) would experience this sort of backlash were he to delete from a userpage or block a user for displaying racist, anti-semitic, or nationalistic propaganda on their page. To me, it seems much more the Wikipedian way to proceed as we now seem to be doing: discussing here, and on the village pump, until a consensus is formed. Once that occurs, no matter what the outcome, admins can certainly count on my support (or at least lack of opposition) if they enforce the rules. Jeffpw 12:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But there was discussion, and a rule against these messages was added to a guideline page (before I even became involved in said discussion). I didn't take it upon myself to eradicate something that I unilaterally deemed harmful. I was enforcing an existent guideline in dealing with a user who believes that he's under absolutely no obligation to follow guidelines (because they aren't policies). —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to learn that although David previously apologized for his poor judgments, apparently, he will not learn from this mistake. A lot of users are missing the minor deatils here. David intentionally blocked me after reverting my userpage for the 3rd time so he can avoid 3RR and then only unblocked me when I promised not to revert for 24hrs (as a cooling off period). Is this acceptable conduct we expect from an admin? Not to mention blocking me for 24hrs when he is personally involved in an edit war (or should i say harassment campaign?) with me. A thorough read through this whole page will give you a sense that he is essentially abusing his power to intimidate users without sysop priviledges. Not to mention he was in numerous edit war when the policy discussion was still going on. It's a definitely no-no for admins and persoanlly I interpret this as harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even counting my reversions. Yes, I unblocked you when you promised to cease the guideline-violating disruption for which I blocked you. (You added the 24-hour stipulation afterward.) This is standard procedure, as blocks are not punitive in nature. Despite your false belief that guidelines are entirely optional and may be disregarded by anyone on a whim (because they aren't policies), asking a user to follow one is not a "harassment campaign," nor is the reversion of deliberately disruptive edits (often labeled "minor" without a summary) a content dispute. I don't know what "numerous edit wars" you believe existed. —David Levy 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy solution

Okay, it seems most people here believe the joke behind those fake message boxes has fallen flat several years ago, and it also seems most people here believe blocking users for such is excessive. Of course we have an easy other alternative: page protection. If some user insists upon revert warring to reinsert such a joke message box, protect the page until they get the clue that the box is undesirable. I'd estimate that shouldn't take too long. How's that? >Radiant< 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory. Interfering. Humiliating for users who are invested in their small piece of defiance. Patronizing. Extending admin authority to deciding which jokes are funny and which are flat. Provocative. Pushing a "you'll-do-as-you're-told-because-I-say-so" mentality in the user's face. Intrusive. Unnecessary. Widening the gulf between admins and "ordinary" users. Liable to lead to wheel wars. Overweening. Arrogant. Bishzilla don't like it. Otherwise ok. Bishonen | talk 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Is "undesirable"? Why stop with the "new message" joke messages? I'm sure that for a number of people there a number of various "undesirable" things that could be removed from user pages with subsequent page protection (or users themselves for that matter). I can only guess that this is a tongue-in-cheek suggestion considering how wrong this concept is relative to