Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013/Requests for adminship/Pinkie Pie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. JohnCD (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013/Requests for adminship/Pinkie Pie[edit]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013/Requests for adminship/Pinkie Pie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is clearly inappropriate to retain a joke page on an existing user without the consent of the user in question (who was indefinitely blocked more than a year before the creation of this page). Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to the previous two comments. Yes, it's a joke, and? Jokes made in a public forum at the expense of an individual who is neither a public figure nor in a position to contest those jokes made at his or her expense could easily be considered libelous. In any event, it is clearly discourteous and not at all in keeping with our behavioral guidelines. I suspect that you probably wouldn't consider making such a joke at the expense of an established user. But there is little harm done there, since an established user might publicly object to the joke, and so it would be dealt with accordingly. What about a retired user, who might not check Wikipedia very frequently? Are we exonerated from standard behavioral guidelines in our treatment of such users? Is it different for blocked users? I am confused of where the line is drawn between our behavioral guidelines and "just a joke". For example, can I say that User:X is a sh*thead, if I say later at some point that I am "only joking"? What if User:X is a blocked user? I don't wish to engage in a slippery slope fallacy, but the line between one and another is honestly unclear to me. I would have thought that this was a no-brainer candidate for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we should keep it when there is even a risk of confusion that the user may have been at all involved with the joke RfA. wctaiwan (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The joke RfA was centered around a fictional character from the animated TV series, not the banned sockpuppet. It just happens to be a coincidence that a sockpuppeteer created this account from over a year ago, using that exact same name. Consent would've been completely impossible since the user is indef blocked and the account is locked from editing. —stay (sic)! 13:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but include a note saying that the user with that name was not involved with the joke RfA. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added such a note, but I still don't think it was appropriate in the first place. wctaiwan (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2013 (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/Wikipedia:April_Fools/April_Fools%27_Day_2013/Requests_for_adminship/Pinkie_Pie&oldid=1138702322"