Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:Cla68

Closed - please participate in this rfc instead

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 Keep per Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. This has been taken to ANI twice and closed due to no consensus. Brought up at Jimbo's talk page. And an RfC. This a clear case of Forum Shopping and thus closing this discussion down---which is easily supported by a preponderance of keeps anyways. But with the ongoing RfC and clear lack of consensus here and elsewhere... easy call. ---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cla68 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per WP:PROMO and WP:UP, we do not allow advertisements for services to be located on userpages. Indeed, we often block the editors who continue to bring commercialism to Wikipedia. The userpage is intended to provide info about the user to the community - not to advertise a product or service. Additionally, the specific service being advertised - paid editing of the "free" encyclopedia - is offensive to a great portion of the community. Paid editing is, in fact, seen by many as an affront to the project as a whole. The editor has been asked to remove the offensive "advertising", but has refused to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Just to be clear, is the Miscellany that you want deleted just confined to the promotional material about paid editing, not the whole page? -- Avanu (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jursiprudence says that MFD is the proper place to request the removal of the offensive part of the userpage as well - hence this MFD. The removal has been reverted and the page protected - hence the necessity of this MFD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disclosure of paid editing status is fine: specific advertisement (or just plain trolling) isn't. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no current WP:consensus that such good faith policy driven contributions and or admittance and declaration of such are in violation of anything - Youreallycan 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There's no consensus" has become far too familiar a refrain in these discussions. "No consensus" is not an argument to oppose trying to reach consensus. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, however - this seems to me to be a back door attempt to assert a consensus through a discussion of the userpage and is not the correct location to attempt to create a consensus for wider policy and guideline discussions regarding the community consensus about the broad issue of paid editing. - for which as I said, there is no current community consensus about. Youreallycan 14:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You may think it in violation of those policies, but there certainly is no consensus that that is true.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this not plain and simple advertising? If he decided to advertise his mail order bagel business, it would be removed in a heartbeat. Just because paid editing is heavily discussed doesn't mean that advertisements are allowed on Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if he had a web site called Wikia, and he promoted that, that would be deleted too, right? Oh wait Wikia is promoted on a different users page... Let me see, yes User:Jimbo Wales Woz2 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be preferable to just remove the advertisement. Cardamon (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My reading of wp:UP allows for material that is related to how the user edits Wikipedia. Even if this weren't related to Wikipedia, I would still consider it acceptable: from [1] a brief three sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine. Strictly speaking, this is four sentences, but given Cla68's extensive work, and I consider this acceptable, in proportion to the rest of his user page. Buddy431 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you interpret WP:NOTADVERTISING (a policy, not a guideline like UP) in this case? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors are given broad discretion to use their userspace for Wikipedia related purposes. While some may find paid editing distasteful, it is not currently prohibited, and informing others that you are offerng your services as a paid editors is clearly a permissible Wikipedia related purpose. Monty845 00:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is so obviously meant as a joke/trolling it's a bit embarassing to see so many users taking it seriously. The appropriate response here is to let Cla68 have his fun, he's not hurting anybody by doing so. Anyone who thinks this is a serious ad should read it again and then take a long hard think over whether that's likely. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a joke. Cla68's comments on Wikipediocracy don't indicate humor either. He says, "My statement was intended to stir things up a little by forcing a discussion on the issue of paid editing." His intention was clearly to spark this discussion, albeit in an extremely pointy way. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cla68 has not violated policy with this notice. Whether or not it is WP:POINTy remains for CLA68 only to know in their heart of hearts. Whether he actually means to edit an article and bring it to FA for pay is also obscure. You could view it as an opinion. Or he could mean Monopoly money. Let's have a bit more WP:AGF around here. →StaniStani  01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is related to the direct improvement of Wikipedia, then I do not see an issue with it and view it as an exception to the promotional rules. In fact, considering this ongoing RfC, it seems to me that it really doesn't violate the rules as they are stated now and some editors are trying to get it added to the rules. SilverserenC 01:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe its a joke maybe its making a personal point, but its no better or worse than multiple user pages on Wikipedia. I suspect there are lots of better things to do on Wikipedia than worry about something as insignificant as this is.(olive (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. The paragraph which seems to have everyone in such a lather is the sort of disclosure we should have from anyone editing out of any interest, whether financial or otherwise. And the only disruption is caused by the opponents who are shopping every forum on Wikipedia in the hopes they get a result that their prior attempts have not. Kablammo (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...is it a joke, trolling or serious...none of that matters since it IS a violation of policy to advertise that you'll edit and bring an article to FA level for a monetary award. If Cla68 won't take the banner down, then the page should at least have the most recent (before the edit war over the banner) history deleted.--MONGO 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why punish the honest ones? Anyway, there is only one legitimate way to judge a user's edits, and that's not by motivation, but on their merits. If his edits are NPOV, no one should question his motivation, whether it be money, fame, or wiki addiction. Be——Critical 06:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the Advert. When someone posts a spam then we revert it or delete it. So delete the ad.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a completely different scenario from your run-of-the-mill spam which we've deleted consistently, because it links to improvement of enwiki. Joke or not, I couldn't care less if someone was daft enough to pay Cla $1000 if it meant we got another featured article; it would certainly be more valid content than 50% of the "content" that people add to this "encyclopedia". If it conflicts with WP:PROMO / WP:SOAP, then we need to change them. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sorta. Except the other way around. The policy needs to be changed first, then we can allow these kinds of advertisements. As it stands, this is a violation of current policy. Feel free to start an RfC on rewording WP:NOTADVERTISING. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As there is no agreement as to whether the policy applies (and if Cla is seriously advertising), I do not think a it could be validly deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cardamon above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First: Personally, I have no problem with paid editing. More power to him. However, you're not allowed to advertise for personal gain on Wikipedia. Second: Cla68's clients would be companies or people outside of Wikipedia, not Wikipedia's editors. IOW, he's advertising to the wrong people. This makes me wonder whether Cla68 is being pointy or is simply trolling. Third, and perhaps more important, the ad is disruptive. It has already generated two lengthy threads at ANI and another at Jimbo's talk page, and now this MfD. This is time and energy that could have been spent improving the encyclopedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good argument for summarily closing and deleting this MfD, not Cla68's user page. Nobody is forcing anyone else to be an idiot and waste time over a couple of sentences on a user page. Kelly hi! 15:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The ad is the source of the disruption, not the MfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-It looks like a joke to me, but even if it's not, deletion is still absurd. At the most, the advert should just be removed. The notion of deleting an an entire page of legitimate content for three offending lines is one of the most laughable things I've ever seen in an XfD.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should Cla68 actually get business from this, it directly benefits Wikipedia. Should he not, it doesn't really matter. Anyone who is not here to improve the encyclopedia should find another hobby. Anyone who thinks that editors receiving pay to reach FA status (which, btw cannot be done unless all of our policies are fulfilled, including NPOV, etc.) should get to work crafting a draft policy that forbids paid editing of all types, and the find community consensus to make it a real policy (word to the wise: people have tried before, and there was generally a majority against said suggestion, but, hey, consensus can change). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page, or at least the advertisement. Our policy prohibiting advertising is one of the most central and straightforward principles we have. Closing admin should note the policy-based arguments presented by Kevin, Orenem, and others; many of the "keep" !votes amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. There may be grey areas in the area of user page use and paid editing, but this page is not in one of them; it's a clear policy violation. The first words on the page, in bold, are "I am available as a paid editor," followed by a rate. Advertisement pure and simple. -Pete (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: many of the "keep" !votes don't engage with the substance of the nomination. The problem is not what is being advertised (paid editing), but that the note constitutes an advertisement for a commercial service. No consensus about paid editing is required, to identify this as an advertisement.
    • Also, "WikiProject ads" do not set a precedent that applies here. They are clearly an exception, and they are designed to promote collaboration on the site, not to feed a private business interest. -Pete (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because WP:ILIKEIT and also because it's allowed by our userpage content guidelines. I'm not buying the argument that this is somehow spam, it's directly related to Wikipedia editing. No worse than the Wikiproject ads that pop up around the project. Kelly hi! 15:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:UP & WP:SPAM, as the 'service' is improving the website. Take it up on the talk page of the user.--Otterathome (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The ad goes towards improving Wikipedia's articles. If the ad results in more featured articles or better articles, then we permit it to exist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per {{wikipedia ads}}
    Wikipedia ad for Template:Wikipedia ads
    Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #174
    This is simply the flip side of Wikipedia:Reward_board since the advertised goal isn't to whitewash an unfavorable article but to bring it up to peer reviewed featured article standards. Posting a "willing to sell" offer price for a service is no different from posting a "willing to buy" price on the reward board. Woz2 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid comparison. {{wikipedia ads}} are not advertisements for products or services, nor is any money involved, nor are they even trying to sell anything. They're basically graphic recruitment announcements. Comparing that to a blatant advertisement to sell labor for money is like comparing apples and oranges. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tepid response to your proposal at the COI RfC was less to do with merits and more to do with fora. I think it just wasn't dealing with the thrust of the RfC. Mind you I would entirely support an MfD for the reward board (it should probably be kept distinct from the bounty board, which is less problematic). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, MfD is the only process to delete even a part of a userpage. I'm certainly not voting to delete the page entirely. I don't see how this is "an abhorent misuse of MfD" and I don't see what the reward and bounty boards (which I'm also not a huge fan of) have to do with it. WP:NOT is clear. Someone needs to rewrite the policy if this type of notice is deemed to not be a problem... --Onorem♠Dil 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This kind of foolishness is supposed to be restricted to April 1st. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The bottom of the userpage has extensive invaluable information about improving articles. I don't think this is the right venue for trying to get the ad removed, if that is the sole objection to this page -- there are other venues for that. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Paid editing is clearly a thing to be watched as it can easily stray into a Conflict of Interest, but there's no clear evidence presented that there is disruption. To the contrary, with the list of FA articles already, I think this may be beneficial to the project so long as Cla68 is careful. Jesse V. (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't approve of paid editing, but there's no rule against it as long as it's done in good faith. People who are either employed as paid editors or are prospective paid editors should note this prominently on their user page, and I don't see anything wrong with stating what you're charging is as part of this - it's obviously better than keeping this secret or advertising off-Wiki. I'd be all for a rule against paid advertising, but that doesn't exist at present and Cla's user page is fine under our current rules and guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as trolling William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know it is trolling and not sincere? Cla himself said that, while it was partly done to get a reaction, it was also meant to be an actual statement and he would be willing to follow it if he got a client. SilverserenC 08:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we use to say on Usenet, YHBT HAND and I'll save people a google search and say it stands for "you have been trolled, have a nice day". Cla68, you got us, good one. Don't ever frakking do it again. Now let's just revert the page in question back to this version and move on. However, on the outside chance that you are serious, your terms are unrealistic. Seriously, $1000 bucks for a FA? I seriously doubt that any company who would pay to have an article created/edited gives an ats rass about GA/FA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revision Delete and Remove Advert: Remove ad then delete past revisions. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Wikipedia has really reached the point where an editor gets to invent a non-existent rule (have any of the people quoting WP:UP actually read it?), and then sanction users retrospectively for breaching said rule, Wikipedia is in an even sorrier state than I imagined. – iridescent 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UP is a guideline. WP:NOTADVERTISING is a policy, which specifically applies to user pages. Have you read it? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless advertising is removed. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising. The closing admin must consider that, despite how popular this discussion is because of the paid editing debate (or because Cla68 has a lot of wiki-friends and/or wikipediocracy.com cohorts who came out to support him), this user page is in violation of Wikipedia policy. No one has (or can) adequately refute that argument. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 16:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful what you wish for, Scottywong, you might get it. And the unintended consequences of banning all paid COI declarations (even those without a price list) on user pages, and the subsequent loss of transparency. Woz2 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the transparency argument at all. None of this is about transparency, it's about advertisements. No one is telling Cla68 that he can't disclose that he's a paid editor in a neutral and non-spammy way. He's not trying to be transparent, he's trying to sell something. And I'm trying not to assume bad faith, but if someone actually did pay Cla68 to write an FA for $1000, I seriously doubt he would disclose that to anyone. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single piece of the page violates policy (and that's debatable). Would you delete an entire article because it had an unsourced statement?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has refused to remove the part of the page which violates policy. Either we forcibly remove that part, or we delete the entire page. I'm not aware of a procedure to forcibly remove part of a user's userpage (apart from just removing it and threatening to block him if he restores it), so the alternative is to delete the entire page. Note that my !vote above includes a contigency for if the policy-violating section is removed. Also, this is not an article with an unsourced statement, it's a userpage with a policy violation. I don't think it's debatable, WP:NOTADVERTISING is crystal clear that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertisement, which is exactly what this is. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. It seems to me that the information is very relevant. Woz2 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look a little bit higher on the same page. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Just because it's related to Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not an advertisement. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a volunteer, and is willing to write and maintain encyclopedia articles for free.

‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a Wikipedian that supports paid editing and its contributions to Wikipedia.

SilverserenC 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The last part of the sentence is a joke that i'm going to change in a little bit. :P SilverserenC 18:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it curious that you are insulted by the notion of volunteer editors who write articles without pay. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because the template has an insulting "holier than thou" tone to it... Anyway I put both in my user box and now I'm getting a huge flux of gamma rays. Can someone write a a policy on WP:MATTERANTIMATTERANNIHILATION ? Woz2 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, i've gone ahead and removed the joke and added the actual language I wanted in it. SilverserenC 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I got quite a buzz off of the gamma rays, but I'm sure they weren't good for my health.Woz2 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

random section break

  • Keep - I shouldn't be, but I'm shocked to see a user's page up for deletion - basically per John Vandenberg and Iridescent. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove A statement that one has edited for pay is informative. A statement including the price that one charges is advertising. This is advertising and a disgrace to the project. A claim that one can get an article to FA status casts doubt on every FA the editor is associated with. A claim that one can do it for only $1000 is a claim to either supernatural abilities or special influence. It is, in fact, such advertising, which is in the process of changing my view on paid editing from "Let's get decent articles ,even if people pay to have them written", to that view that it is inherently pernicious in a basically amateur project. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent of WP:BOUNTY. --NYKevin @856, i.e. 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep basically per John Vandenberg and Iridescent. Sad to see so many people I respect on what I regard as the wrong side of this debate. Sad to see so much time being wasted on it in general. Yes, I have read all the relevant policies people have quoted in the various discussions. No I don't think this statement breaches them. The closest I see to a reason to enact sanctions or enforce deletion is POINT, but I don't think this will fly in this case. Let it stay, the point has been made anyway. Most of us think the traditional latitude allowed on user pages, Cla's record of good contributions, and the advantages of knowing who is and isn't editing for pay, outweigh the arguments of NOTADVERTISING, SOAP and POINT. So be it. --John (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE It shouldn't come to this. WE have a policy already in place that prohibits advertisement, and we have sysops that are charged with maintaing and when needed, enforcing those same policies, yet, certain sysops are insistent that we jump through hoops, when a policy already exists (BTW - for those who scream "no consensus", take a long look at ]]WP:SOAP | SOAP]] your consensus is ALREADY there. Advertisments are not permitted. ).

yeah, delete this and salt it. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:NOTAVOTE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No but as there is really no consensus about any of this there is unlikely to be one formed here over Cla's thought provoking userpage detail - and after over two days of posting - imo - we could close this now as no consensus - there is no consensus about paid editing - many users support it if done within policy - and there is no suggestion that Cla has done any policy violating contributing. - Youreallycan 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the editor for an appropriate time frame - I'm thinking a month at least - for this flagrant violation of WP:POINT. This is pretty typical, pointed, and completely cynical and disruptive conduct by this editor, which is an recurrent and incorrigible conduct that should not be tolerated by the community. Fladrif (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Based on some of the above discussion, it may be worth a review of Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 5#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?. The idea of an MfD consensus mandating a removal of specific content without deleting the entire page is not without precedent. That may be the best-case ending here.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Controversial? Yes. Do I think the ad should be allowed? No. Against current policy? No. Worthy of deletion? Of course not. This deletion nomination is a bigger violation of WP:POINT than the actual page is, if you think about it... Carrite (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paid writing is one area where Wikipedia policy says one thing, but some people are trying to impose an unwritten policy which says something else. Trying to delete something that complies with the written policy but not the unwritten one is very much POINT-y. Furthermore, it's obvious that this is not a genuine attempt to become a paid editor; it's a Wiki-political statement.
And no, Cla68 is not himself violating POINT. His page would cause no disruption at all if it wasn't for people trying to impose unwritten rules--that is, if it wasn't for rule violators. And rule violators are always responsible for their own disruption. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: others have tried to get rid of the annoying part, and it gets re-added. Jurisprudence is that we can MFD in order to keep that part deleted (especially considering the more recent MFD on this same page) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page doesn't meet CSD G11. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove People here are missing the point... It is the advertising that is the problem, not the paid editing. Assume that Cla68 gets this through - then i can put up an add for my computer-company on my userpage, with the rationale that i help people get their computer in shape, so that they can edit Wikipedia, along with what i charge. Is that Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MFD is about deleting the entire page, not about deleting the ad. Deleting the ad is a content issue, not a MFD issue. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
minor point... Jimbo actually was referring to the action as a troll, not the person. Perhaps we need an alternative mythical creature for the act, maybe a jabberwock? -- Avanu (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

broken signature above

  • Keep There is a seperate RFC on the content issue - MFD is not the venue to sort that issue. Being trolled is no excuse for going against policy yourself. Agathoclea (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. It depresses me that there are people who will defend this kind of stuff, which is totally contrary to what Wikipedia is about. I would have speedy-deleted, without wasting everybody's time here: it is unambiguous advertising or promotion, and that's all there is to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is against Wikipedia policy to use Userspace as a place to promote a product or service. It is also good if we have on-wiki notification of who the Paid Editors are. There is a fine line between "I am a paid editor. Email me at the link on the left" and "I am a paid editor, email me for details." The former is acceptable disclosure of Wikipedia activities, the latter is promotion. It's a very, very fine line that I'm glad I don't have to draw. But the most important part of this discussion is that we all need to recognize that MFD is probably not the best venue to have a discussion about such a fundamental Foundational issue. A wider venue should be sought, and Cla68 should not have to be the sacrificial lamb to the competing sides of this discussion. Achowat (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no clear violation of current policy. Instead, we should encourage editors to use Userspace to promote improvements to Wikipedia, because any article that makes it through FA would clearly benefit Wikipedia. An article by Cla68 that was even remotely biased or promotional would not make it through FA, especially because of his transparency in declaring what he is doing. I personally hope that some organization that provides grants or support for public endeavors like Wikipedia will pay Cla68 for improving Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only the top advertising section The rest of the page's content is perfectly acceptable, but we do not allow advertising or promotion, and that is enforceable by admins—in fact, I don't see why the offending revisions haven't been done under G11 already. Cla68 gets no pass on flogging his services just because he contributes good articles, we don't allow advertising from anyone for anything, and we shouldn't make any exceptions. He's welcome, like anyone, to go buy banner ads/Google ads/whatever he wants on sites that allow ads, but this site doesn't, and "userspace latitude" doesn't extend to using one's userpage as a billboard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Specifically regarding the argument that "at least he's honest" or "we know to more closely monitor WP:NPOV violations since he's honest", consensus is a critical core principle for Wikipedia. This could be quickly destroyed by someone forming a company to sell Wikipedia editing. Advertising on their own website that they know Wikipedia rules and have many editors in their pocket. Advertising that white washing articles costs extra but can easily be done for the right price. This company could hire Wiki editors and admins, paying out sums like hundreds or even thousands of dollars to admins to block editors of their choosing. If an ad like on Cla68's page is allowed to stand it makes it extremely easy and less risky for company like this to secretly contact Wiki editors and admins. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Coefficient of Friction on the slope in this argument is one of the lowest I've ever seen. Achowat (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per the policy WP:SOAP. While at some points and times there may be a subtle line between what can be seen as "an advertisement", the content on this page is not anywhere near that line. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Declaring your COI is not promotional, it's a statement of fact. COI editing happens, there is nothing that can be done to stop that. Whether they're open about it or not, we can do something about. We shouldn't be hounding editors who are open about it. - hahnchen 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the advert (though keep the page of course). In principle this is no different to, for instance, advertising your car or your house for sale or offering real estate services on a user page. We would certainly delete an advertisement for physical goods or commercial services, and long-standing policy and practice holds that such advertisements are not suitable content for user pages. Thought exercise: if Cla68 was promoting his real-estate dealership or his home-decorating services on his user page, would anyone vote to keep it? Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Counter-thought exercise - If he was offering to take on promoting an article to FA for a series of Barnstars or a donation to WMF, would anyone vote to delete it? Achowat (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cui bono? If he made such an offer the benefit would be intangible (i.e. merely kudos) or would directly help Wikimedia. An advertisement for his own personal enrichment is, I suggest, a very different kettle of fish. Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His real-estate dealership has nothing to do with his Wikipedia editing, that disclosure offers nothing. Disclosing that you edit for money directly impacts his activity on Wikipedia. You're asking him to delete the most obvious piece of COI disclosure. Or do you just want that low low promotional price of $1000 removed? - hahnchen 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Offering his services out for money is much different than a disclosure that he's an employee of Acme Corp., and part of his job duties for Acme include watching Acme's article and notifying editors of updates needed to the article on its talk page. Imagine if he does spend a significant amount of time writing and editing an FA, and right before the nomination, his client comes to him and says "Look, that whole product-liability lawsuit was a few years ago, and it's just now starting to go away. We really aren't prepared to make the payment if that stays in—it would've been better to leave the article the way it was. Think you can tone that down some? We're even willing to offer some extra compensation for the extra effort on it, if you'd like to discuss terms." Paid editors should not touch articles (except perhaps to revert blatant "penis" type vandalism, etc.), and we should be wary of allowing them even to join discussions. That puts Cla in a significant conflict of interest situation—if he accepts money from someone to edit an article, he should not then edit it, because then his client would have an undue sway over his edits. Even if he somehow remains neutral, he'd give the appearance of being biased, and that can be just as bad. We may not in reality be able to stop all shills from editing, but that doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and give up on the problem. That aside, it would also worsen the systemic bias problem—those who could and would pay would have better content than anyone else. Those are real problems that would occur with allowing this, and so we cannot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it would actually alleviate the WP:BIAS issue, anyone who has ever tried to find business information on Wikipedia knows this to be true. When the paid editing first came up in 2006, I argued in favour of it because of this issue. In 2006, Megatokyo was a featured article, and Arch Coal was a red link, the old DRV can be found here. Our business coverage is poor, because people care more about their favourite indie band than the constituents of the S&P 500. - hahnchen 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit - that is very well stated, and very persuasive. — Ched :  ?  20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but it's not strictly germane to this discussion; the question of whether paid editing should be allowed (it currently isn't) is separate from whether monetary advertising should be allowed on user pages (it never has been). There's been no attempt, as far as I know, to change policy regarding user page advertising, so this discussion should focus on whether Cla68's advert violates that long-standing prohibition. It's hard to argue it doesn't. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All true, except paid editing is not prohibited. Achowat (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But advertising is...paid editing is still red herring, but is still divisive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, it would be more accurate to say that it's very strongly discouraged (WP:COI#Financial). It's striking that, as far as I can see, the editors here aren't attempting to change that guideline, they're effectively arguing that it should be ignored. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. Get the guideline changed, then allow or disallow Cla68's advert - not the other way round. Prioryman (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the editors here are attempting to delete his one piece of disclosure. - hahnchen 23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the policy violating text - Blatant case of advertising not allowed by policy. I don't think deleting the whole page is necessary though.--Rockfang (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cla68&oldid=1091466275"