Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges

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

The result of the discussion was  a clear consensus to keep. JohnCD (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cla68/threat charges


This article was created as an attack page, violates WP:UP, and has no legitimate purpose in building the encyclopedia.  Will Beback   talk    07:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as attack page. Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no useful utility to building the encyclopedia. I would be interested in hearing Cla68 state what his intentions in creating such a page. It won't make me change my argument for deletion but hopefully clear the air. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as humorous or sarcastic, though I recommend that specific editors not be named. Jehochman Talk 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously meant as a humorous page in userspace. Not seeing the harm to anyone. Kelly  hi! 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Good grief. Meant as humorous. Does any one here think charging 10 cents is threatening or even plausible. Does Cla take credit cards. Pretty tedious/funny to try and mail in a dime for your infraction. (olive (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
 * keep Nom seems threatened by Cla's humours attempt at pointing out the constant threats 'non-incrowd' users get.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not worth the fuss. All parties need to lighten up and let go. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep not the best use of a userpage, but wide latitude should be provided for wiki-related commentary. Editors should not be named though. jorgenev 22:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is a personal opinion about Wikipedia with no members mentioned and best of all, it is done with a good sense of humor. I am happy to see an established Wikipedia editor that has a sense of humor. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and a WP:TROUT for editors who have completely lost their sense of humor ;-).This nomination "has no legitimate purpose in building the encyclopedia"--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where is the humor in this page?   Will Beback    talk    01:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Humor is subjective. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By humor, it should be obvious that it refers to the creator finding this funny (humorous). Joking about charging editors' money equals humorous. It does not equal serious. By humorous in respects to Wikireader41 and I, it is obvious to us that this was meant as something funny as in not serious which equals humorous. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tripping people to make them fall flat on their face can be humorous, unless you're the butt of the joke.   Will Beback    talk    01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He did not name any editors. Since I reported a member for telling a disruptive editor to f off and admins on ANI said that it was a wrong thing for me to do because the editor was disruptive, this should definitely be allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What purpose does this page serve? How does making jokes about other editors help create a collegial atmosphere or build the encyclopedia?    Will Beback    talk    01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am personally fine with it and no one knows who those editors are. I compare this page to inclusionists complaining about deletionists or deletionists complaining about inclusionists in their userspace. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To prevent the appearance that it's an attack article, I've deleted the text where he quoted me as an example of an explicit threat.   Will Beback    talk    02:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect. I wonder if any of these !votes can be discounted in the final result since some of the editors are related to an an arbcom case involving you and Cla68. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The party list of that case is a strange collection of people, some of whom have little or no reason for being named. I don't think that's really a significant factor. But it is interesting to see who has participated here.   Will Beback    talk    02:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: As humor. It doesn't name names so no harm done. It should also be noted that since Cla68 and Will are involved in an arb case, so there is a COI here. 112.140.185.250 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why creating a page that attacks me was inappropriate. He did eventually delete my name, but left the quote, implicitly accusing me of making threats. As for COI, user:Kelly, who has also voted here, is also involved in this dispute and at least several other editors here are parties to the ArbCom case.   Will Beback    talk    02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The attack was borderline at best, and seems to have been created with the purpose of needling you. It succeeded. I voted "keep" because I think that users should have wide latitude in creating subpages, but I think that Cla68 has proven his WP:POINT and should voluntarily blank it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as humour, although I recommend substituting references to real currency to some wiki-pseudo-currency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. Will Beback:


 * Our records indicate that your account as of 07:50, 12 August 2011 incurred a charge of T3.50 for the deletion proposal described by you on this page, which payment is now overdue.


 * If you have already submitted payment, please disregard this notice.


 * In the event that you have not paid this account, we would appreciate receiving your remittance or being advised of your repayment plans as soon as possible.


 * You should pay T3.50 to User:Cla68 who, I'm sure, would accept PayPal. In the meantime, please read UP, WP:HOUND and everything in WP:HUMOR while eating T sushi.


 * Sincerely BE——Critical __Talk 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me with a fine?   Will Beback    talk    03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep (: BE——Critical __Talk 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then add yourself to the list.   Will Beback    talk    04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what list? BE——Critical __Talk 04:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, is this what you meant? BE——Critical __Talk 04:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You found it. Now, in the "humorous" words of Cla68, "it would be a good idea if you stopped threatening other editors".   Will Beback    talk    05:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL BE——Critical __Talk 06:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Current version with names removed is not violating any policies. There's lots of other useless blather in userspace in general. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe the threat charges page may, hopefully, have already influenced at least two editors not to threaten other editors anymore.  My sister, who used to work for one, told me that car rental agencies are notorious for having grouchy, rude customers.  She said the fix was easy.  Her agency installed full-length mirrors on the walls behind the customer service counters.  The amount of customer rudeness dropped, according to her, by about 90%.  The customers just couldn't treat their fellow human beings rudely while gazing at themselves in the mirror.  The same appears to hold true for Wikipedia editors:   . Cla68 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The wiki equivalent of the mirror analogy is that the anonymity of the Internet permits people to treat their fellow humans like crap because no one knows who they are and even if they do know their names, they're still a faceless nobody. We've all seen people treated disgustingly on wiki and all too often there's a crowd rallying to support such despicable behavior, for a varying of reasons I usually don't understand. This page is a humor piece and no longer names names. As for the arb case and Cla and Will being part of it, they both have a COI. 'Nuf said. I see nothing wrong with this page and if it led some users to treat people better, all the better. Pumpkin Sky  talk  12:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "Attack page"? At this point? ROFL!  I would make a rash assertion that those who feel "attacked" are lacking a sense of humour.  Collect (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- clearly a humour page. That's one of the few things that are still allowed in user space. Reyk  YO!  20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but note that Cla68 should make his text compatible with this official policy. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an attack page; Cla68 doesn't do humour. Prioryman (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine - Keep the page and fine WB $1.57 for the deletion threat waste of time. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.