Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68

So much silliness! --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * and you've never fed into any "silliness" here? Not that I disagree ... I'm just sayin MZM. :) .. so how ya doin? — Ched : ?  21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well... that's fair.
 * I'm doing all right. It didn't rain today, so I can't really complain. How're you? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's silly, no denying it, but Jimbo had it right when he described Cla68's actions as trolling. And you know what they say about feeding trolls... Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm good. got a shower or two here ... but all good.  Question for ya: When ya gonna quit pissin off the arbs?  You're damn good - how's come you play the "prove a point" shit?  — Ched :  ?  00:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm universally adored.
 * Balloonman made the right call. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not whatsoever. Calling it "forum shopping" is a direct insult to me, and the processes we have in place.  It has been clearly explained elsewhere that it's unrelated to the current RFC.  Many of those "keeps" stated to keep the page/delete the sentences OR were clearly unaware that MFD could be used to remove just the statements.  Possibly the worst close in the history of Wikipedia. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Miscellany for deletion. Says so right there in the page title. Largest text on the page.
 * This is not a constitutional debate; jurisprudence really isn't relevant. MFD is generally considered a venue of last resort. Given the numerous other discussions elsewhere on the subject, trying to force the community's hand like this obviously wasn't going to work. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's about being pragmatic and reasonable. The only thing to come of this deletion nomination was a "keep" result. I can't imagine that was what you wanted, but given your actions, I'm not sure how you possibly expected any other result. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... but seriously, how is it not forumshopping? Two ANI reports and a discussion at Jimbo's page and an RfC and now this?  Are the results at any of those pages leaning towards supporting the view to delete this page?  Are the results at any of those pages calling for Cla's head?  No, its clear that the desired outcome was not going to happen at any of the three preceding pages, so let's try MFD.  Sorry BWilks I usually respect your stance/position, but that is the definition of ForumShopping.  Once the community reached the point where an RfC was required due to this, then the subject superceded the need for yet another discussion on the subject.  The only way that this MfD would have been warranted would have been if the RfC was clearly going in favor of condemning this type of editing/offer and we used the RfC as a basis to delete this page.  But we weren't, the RfC is (currently) more accepting of paid editing/open COI, thus this MfD is a fourth forum to get a desired result.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also note, that RfC's are generally only called upon when issues are too controversial and smaller forums such as this (Ani and Jimbos page) have failed to reach a consensus and are unlikely to do so. RfCs are started when the subject is sufficeintly controversial that it warrants wider community involvement.  The activity on this page is NOT an indicator of how well watched MFD is, but for the most part, is nothing more than a spill over of the same exact voices that have chimed in elsewhere.  This MfD is forcing the same or similar conversation that have been stated elsewhere 3+ times... then it is forumshopping.  I'm sorry if you are insulted by my calling it that, but I don't see it as anything other than forum shopping.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was unaware of the RFC when this was opened ... even now, I have heard of it, but have not viewed it. I saw a discussion on Jimbo's page, and as it was not the correct location to formally ask for the removal of two lines from the page, I opened the MFD, as per SOP.  Even my understanding is that the RFC is generic in nature, whereas the MFD is specific - as such, it was 100% valid to launch.  As comments were still ongoing, and the consensus certainly was nowhere close to keep (there were an awful lot of "keep but delete the passage" comments), closure was both improper and out of process. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was strategically unwise to propose that the whole page be deleted. That might have turned off editors who'd have swung behind the delete-the-ad-only view. This was misconceived from the start, I think. Tony   (talk)  09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When the editor returns the portion that is deleted, then MFD is the place to go, as per jurisprudence. MFD is NOT just for deleting the whole page.  We just did the exact same thing with Cla68 with another portion of it the same way. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a little like hyperbole to say stuff like "worst close in the history of Wikipedia", and its pretty obviously related to the RfC, even if you don't admit a direct connection, they were both triggered by Cla68's ad on his page, and are both essentially trying to determine whether it was ok to do. Funny thing is, with WP:IAR, you could theoretically have discretion to allow ads on anyone's page while simultaneously having a general ban. Maybe WP:IAR is the worst rule in the history of Wikipedia... um... no.
 * I would like to know why this is such a big deal. There has to be an underlying unstated mindset about why some people are getting so bent on this. What surprises me is that for decades, centuries even, we had paid encyclopedia writers making annals, encyclopedias, guides, manuals, etc. Yet somehow this community acts like you can't make a quality product or its integrity is at risk if you actually use money as an incentive instead of the mere joy of the work being the incentive. Like Jimbo often points out, whether a person is editing ethically is the most important consideration. This other stuff that people go on about just strikes me as jealousy or just petty envy or WP:OWNERSHIP. "So-and-so is getting paid to complete an article but really I, Mr.-Unpaid-Toiler-Faux-Humble, should have gotten the credit (and the money), and besides that editor is a sellout for not being as humble and purely dedicated to the mission as I." Hey, maybe I'm misinterpreting the attitudes entirely, but it sure feels like this. -- Avanu (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I predict that once there is a dramatic increase in the number of paid editors, and that time is coming very soon, that you will all see an equally dramatic increase in the general quality of the articles in this project, as well as a general improvement in decorum among editors and admins. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, having Wikipedia become a website where people or organizations can pay to have their opinions presented as fact would not be compatible with the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, are you claiming that the great for  profit encylcoppedias either got their income by taking money from the people and organizations that they wrote about, or allowed their employees to take money on the side from the people or organizations they wrote about? If so, I'd like to see some references supporting that. Cardamon (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the number of paid editors dramatically increases and is seen as "acceptable", I predict that there will be a mass exodous of experienced editors who are not shills and without their support, creation and maintainance of articles, the overall quality Wikipedia will quickly drop to the point that no one actually considers it an encyclopedia, but rather a free blog. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would become just another web forum taken over by spammers and marketeers, unfortunately. I note that Cla68 is an administrator on an off-wiki forum set up by a marketeer who was banned from Wikipedia for attempting to use it as a profit-making vehicle. You have to wonder what agenda - or perhaps I should say whose - is being advanced here. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, if you are referring to Wikipediocracy.com, you have made a few errors. Of course, you have probably never visited our site, so I'll just correct you. Cla68 is not an administrator there. I am. If you are insinuating that Gregory Kohs set up the site, you are wrong as well. He bought the domain name. That will be soon owned by a non-profit. He isn't even a moderator on the site. He has a voice, to be sure. He is not the Big Boss. He is respected by most, but not all of the members. It's a site run by an informal group of moderators, admins, and regular members. We'd even listen to you if you joined. If you're going to spout off about an organization, it would be best to get your facts straight.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; I have more self-respect than to pal around with bottom-feeding trolls, harassers, cranks and banned users. It's regrettable that Cla68, who has a decent record as a contributor on Wikipedia, has chosen to take up such company. I'm sure there's a backstory that we're not being told about why he's apparently embarked on a campaign to turn Wikipedia into a vehicle for marketeers and spammers. I wonder if this is just a more subtle way of trying to undermine it? Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot to include these categories of Wikipediocracy.com members: Wikipedia Administrators, Wikipedia Arbitrators, and Wikipedia Co-founders. Well, I pointed out your errors, and you did not strike them out. When I make errors of fact, I try to correct them. It's encyclopediac to do so. Perhaps you should avoid contributing in a venue where you fail on accuracy, especially with easily-confirmed facts.  &rarr;  Stani Stani  23:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review
For those so interested, my close of this MFD has been taken to Drv--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)