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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cla68/threat charges[edit]

Looked like nothing but a silly (and obviously unenforceable) game at first, but has now become the beginning of a "shit list", which are not permitted on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:UP#POLEMIC Exok (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No names are retained on the page [1] [2]. The effort has been successful. So far, I have not observed any of the editors who have been jokingly charged for making a threat ever making another one. Again, I will use the mirror analogy. When people see themselves in a mirror while acting rudely, it is effective at influencing them to stop. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...Administrators and others are expected to post warnings on userpages for problematic behavior. If Cla68 thinks such a warning is ill thought out then he is free to discuss this with the editor posting the warning or remove it if he desires. If the frequency of such warnings is great enough that Cla68 believes he must start charging the supposed offender, then perhaps Cla68 should reconsider some of his actions.--MONGO 00:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MONGO, you just hit on how I got the idea for the page. After someone threatened me with a block some time ago, my first reaction was to think, "I wish I had a dime for every time I have been threatened with a block for editing Wikipedia in a way that someone didn't approve of." Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what to tell you.--MONGO 01:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a further discussion on what it is about WP's culture that makes so many editors and admins think it is ok or necessary to threaten other editors, I suggest we take it up on the threat charges' talk page or on Wikipediocracy. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that a period of self-reflection and subsequent work toward self-control is indicated by the presence of so many complaints aimed at you, not an escalation to seek changes in policy. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is seeking a change in policy? I'm seeking a change in culture. You can warn other editors without threatening them. Need any examples? Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The culture you end up with is the one that is fostered by individuals. By hosting a list of perceived flaws of other editors, you have indicated an aspect of the culture you would bring about. I do not think your demonstrated culture is worth fostering. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no account names listed on that page, just examples of behavior. That is not against policy. Like I said above, I have noticed that several editors who used to make threats now longer do so, at least as far as I have seen. The bring up their concerns with other editors without threatening them. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC. No lists of "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we really surprised that crap like this would be used for trolling? There's trololo trolling and then there's trolling that is so obvious one wonders why the editor isn't yet banned.[3] This, of course, falls into the latter. BTW Cla68, according to your own trolling page, you owe me and dozens of other editors 5c each for your trolling of threats only a couple of weeks ago on our talk pages. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"BTW Cla68, according to your own trolling page, you owe me and dozens of other editors 5c each for your trolling of threats only a couple of weeks ago on our talk pages"? Russavia, that is an ad hominem debate tactic. If I had threatened you, why didn't you link to the diff? Because, in fact, I didn't. Here it is. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure where the actual harm is in this page. Unless we are going to delete all conduct noticeboards on the same basis it seems a bit over-the-top to push for its deletion. Anyone can thumb over the revision history of those pages and find out who has been reported, even if no action has been taken against that editor. The only difference is this only results in a silly demand that an editor fork over a dime or a nickel. All that is listed are unattributed quotes that should only be known to those who made the comments. I have seen bad things in userspace, but this is a trifle.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Travis and Russavia --DHeyward (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A crystal-clear violation of the no-shit-lists policy. Raul654 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a shit list by another name. Should have been deleted first time round. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as the material is about the attacks, and not the attackers, then I think it is a proper userspace study of editor interactions. Studies and essays on this sort of thing have value. User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior is an example. Cla68 is working on something more specific.
On the page as it stands, I read no attacks on other editors, but I do see educational value. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:UP#POLEMIC, page is neither a laundry-list of offenses, nor an attack in any way, nor "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia". Keep rationale from previous MFD also stand. Achowat (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do appreciate the humor behind this. But the humor is outweighed, I think, by its divisiveness and selective "enforcement"; clearly some "threats" are OK, or else we'd have to do away with our giant slew of notice templates that explain to people that if they continue to edit war, vandalize, or personally attack people, their account will be blocked. Warning people that they will be blocked if they keep doing something disruptive is, in many cases, preferable to just blocking them, although I notice that Cla68 doesn't appear to charge for blocks without warnings! (Cla68 could make a lot of money from the Uw-vandalism4 templates that come from the recent changes patrollers.) If this were just a userpage for Cla68's own use, I think we would be best served to leave it alone. But the fact that Cla68 links to it in noticeboard discussions and goes to other editors' talk pages to "collect" the charges has to discount the usual deference we offer to people's activity and comments in their own userspace. 28bytes (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is hard to say whether the point of this page has been to provide comedy. There has been no RfC/U on Cla68's conduct, but as others have written it is clear that he has grudges against various users and this is one way that he has chosen to express that. The list is uncollegial and designed to cause offense. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. If Charles wants to keep a list of entitled children who want to bully people, he just needs to link to this page. Man, it's like a veritable Who's Who of passive aggressive ####s.101.118.9.173 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ironic you should say that, since Cla68's "threat charges" page itself seems like a classic exercise in passive-aggressiveness. But it probably also falls under the categories of "mostly harmless" and "not worth the trouble of arguing about". MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as humorous. I think this is meant as a joke against incivility. I think it might make a decent essay if it were just tweaked.--v/r - T P 18:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It started out as humour - but look in the history where he started adding editors names - then is was no longer humour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With some tweaking and a warning, I think it can be returned to humorous. It serves a point. It's like a swear jar. You know, you put a quarter in for every swear word?--v/r - T P 22:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He had a warning with the first nomination. He then went ahead and added a username since. Warnings apparently don't work here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page seems to be intended to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." The way Cla68 uses it goes like this: an editor makes a statement about Cla68 or one of his pals that he interprets as a "threat". He adds that editor's name to his "threat charges" page and posts a notification on the editor's talk page. The editor typically responds by telling him to get lost or deleting Cla68's post unanswered. He then removes the editor's name. He stated his approach in this diff: "I will display those who owe, along with the diff, below for a few days then delete it. Editors who threaten other editors besides me on my talk page will also incur a threat charge." He has so far listed User:Will Beback [4], User:Prioryman [5] and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise [6] With names listed, it is clearly "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws", per WP:UP#POLEMIC. However, he attempts to evade that prohibition by only listing names for a short period of time; thus for most of the time the page does not have any names listed on it. This is a rather transparent effort to obscure the true nature of the page as a vehicle for attacking other editors. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“ This page seems to be intended to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC”

i.e. This page does not strictly fall under WP:UP:POLEMIC

“The editor typically responds by telling him to get lost or deleting Cla68's post unanswered. He then removes the editor's name.”

This reads as Cla68 attempting to use mild humour to resolve a recent conflict, and where it obviously failures with poor grace by the other, he acts appropriately.

“However, he attempts to evade that prohibition by only listing names for a short period of time; thus for most of the time the page does not have any names listed on it. This is a rather transparent effort to obscure the true nature of the page as a vehicle for attacking other editors.”

Listing current issues only for a short time is actually the intent of the original version of the current WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is damaging to a community if past grievances are permanently memorialised. Past grievances should be resolved, brought to a timely head, or forgotten. With the removal of names after a short time, Cla68 is entirely compliant with the recommendation.

If someone has a specific issue with Cla68’s behaviour here, it would be helpful if it were raised specifically.

On Cla68’s part, I do suggest that he stop adding names explicitly, even for a short time, and that he rename the page to something innocuous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether it is intended as humorous, but whether the recipients see it as such. I can assure you that they do not. It comes across as antagonistic and needless trolling. Prioryman (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(To SmokeyJoe) I have no problem with removing the reporting section of the page, which is what I will probably be doing if this particular page gets deleted. Prioryman did ban me from his talk page some time ago. I think banning someone from your talk page is not supported by policy. Cla68 (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Humorous" per se, doesn't carry much weight. We don't keep insults because they are funny. The question is whether these records carry any educational value, or whether this record keeping might contibute to something worthwhile.

I do admit that I don't understand what Cla68 expects from this page. I don't think it is meant to antagonistic or troll. Do you really? When BWilkins wrote above "but look in the history where he started adding editors names - then is was no longer humour", I am starting to see that at least a stern warning is required. Cla68 needs to ot record usernames. They should not be used in the edit summaries. The page should not, for example with "Check the history of this page to see what I mean" allude to user information to be found in the history. I'm starting to think that maybe this page should be deleted to remove the username information in the history, but allow Cla68 to recreate a similar page without specific username information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He could create it as an essay, with actual humour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny for observers, but obviously not funny for those who get caught making a threat, because it makes them look at themselves in a mirror, and, speaking from personal experience, that isn't a fun experience when it gets pointed out that one could have handled things a little better. Otherwise, there is no threat here to the people "charged" for threat-making. There is no threat of dispute resolution, no threat of any further action, no threat that the debt will be pursued, it simply reminds them that there is a better way of doing things, and the absurdity of being fined 5-10 cents hopefully influences some self-reflection from the affected parties. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must owe 15 cents ... after all, I'm threatening to delete a page that you continue to argue is fine. One person's threat is another person's warning, and you don't seem to understand the line (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the page makes it clear that the qualifying threats are those that threaten, either implicitly or explicitly, a block or a ban. Cla68 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page didn't make that clear, but I will change that. Cla68 (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of our warning templates explicitly "warn" that a block or ban can be forthcoming ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those templates are usually used for obvious vandalism, aren't they? Think about it, does someone who is engaging in obvious vandalism really care about being blocked? Probably not. So, threatening them with a block is a waste of time. It seems that the only reason to do so is so the blocking admin can justify the block by saying, "Well, they were warned about what would happen." All that is required is to link to the policy when giving a warning. If the editor checks the policy, they will see that a block or ban is a potential result. Thus, there is no reason for us to threaten editors with blocks or bans when giving a warning. From what I have observed, in almost every instance where an established editor or admin gives another editor a block threat, they are simply trying to break the other editor's will. That is a form of bullying. That's not the way we should be doing things. Cla68 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What alternative to a warning do you suggest is necessary to get an editor to abide by policies?--MONGO 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning an editor that they may be blocked if they continue to vandalise is no more "bullying" than posting a sign saying that you may be fined if you litter. It's simply a way of notifying a person of consequences if they continue to behave adversely, and giving them a chance to change their behaviour without jumping straight to a block. Prioryman (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you were doing with this comment? Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, request snowball close - I think it is rather clear that this is not acceptable under policy and should be deleted. As it stands, counting my vote, eleven editors support deletion and only three support keeping it. That's 79% in support of deletion and 21% opposed. I'm requesting a snowball close as clearly the vast majority of editors support deleting this page. Toa Nidhiki05 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A SNOW close would not be appropriate here. 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Cla68's pleasure, essentially per SmokeyJoe's response to Prioryman. While I don't see much benefit to this page, I also don't see how UP#POLEMIC applies. I fail to see how this page and how it is being used is any more divisive than Cla68 giving people direct feedback in situ that he feels they are threatening him unnecessarily. Bottom line is that I don't see why any user or the culture of the Wiki would be more negatively affected - in the short term or in the long term - by his/her remark being listed on this page, compared to other responses Cla68 might reasonably be expected to take. Accordingly I am happy to take Cla68 as his word that some are more positively affected - and leave it to his editorial discretion whether he wants to spend his time maintaining it. Martinp (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC). (BTW, have not interacted with Cla68 for years, so I have no axe to grind with him or with his habitual interlocutors.)[reply]

Speaking of which, it seems to me at least half the delete votes above are from people with a personal axe to grind against Cla. I fail to see how this page is different from a noticeboard. I could easily dig up dirt on any editor just by typing in that editor's username to the search bar on said noticeboards.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 saving the material to a different page[edit]

Looks the material is being saved to Cla68's user page here. I thought that I was helping to determine whether the material would be kept rather than determining whether a (now redundant) page called "threat charges" would be deleted. There ought to be a guideline against this. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a guideline against it (a policy, actually), but only if it's deleted. If it's kept he can make as many copies as he likes. 28bytes (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's user page should be deleted once this page is. He is blatantly and admittedly dodging the consensus of the deletion, which is that the content of the page, not the page itself, is the problem. Toa Nidhiki05 02:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The closing admin will determine the consensus; this discussion is still open. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the content of the current page, or the history? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the comments above, the parts of the page which were objectionable were the sections for reporting editors for making threats, and the reference to the page history where people could see the editor's names. By moving the comments to my user page, if the page is deleted, all links to the names of the editors who made the threats will disappear. Thus, the content will clearly fall within policy. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree the history of warnings naming particular editors is a problem and that deletion would solve this problem, could you request deletion of the page yourself by tagging it with the db-userreq template? That would mean nobody else has to spend time on this issue. Exok (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's a problem. I'm just acknowledging that that is what appears to be the concern of other editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, does seem like Cla responded to the concerns of other editors with those changes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noting the delete !votes did not note the change. Collect (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I !voted Keep above). Revisiting this dialogue after a few days, the issue seems to be the pattern of behavior and tone of interaction between Cla68 and a number of others. The content of the page in question seems hardly worth the fuss, though I think we all recognize that the mutually dysfunctional interaction pattern needs fixing. We can't solve this at MFD, so I would recommend a close of "That's enough! Take it to dispute resolution (e.g., user conduct RFC)" delivered while threateningly holding a large trout. I fail to see how closing this skirmish (I hesitate to call it a deletion *discussion*) as either "Keep" or "Delete" will advance the encyclopedia. Martinp (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC) (Proposed threat charge: $1.70 per kilo of trout)[reply]
Delete, not because it's silly and childish (although it is) but because it's being used for trolling[7] [8] in a pointless, divisive, inflammatory and counter-productive way. It's hard to imagine that Cla68 is trying to de-escalate situations. If he is, the page should be deleted because it's obviously not having the desired effect. People are just annoyed.[9][10] And there's also the shit-list aspect. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I like the idea of recording threats, especially misplaced threats, for educational purposes, I think there is solid evidence here that Cla68's method of approaching alleged threateners is not a good practice. There is pleanty of theory and evidence that unwarranted threats are best ignored (until a pattern emerges). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then what? Anyone who can't see the pattern here has their head so far up their arse they could shave with a dental mirror, and yet the threats and attacks are allowed to continue and continue and continue -- so long as those making the threats remain members of various entitled cliques. Now, normally, this is what happens in a childrens' playground - until an adult steps in to stop it. Unfortunately, when the playground is being run by children... well, that's when you get wikipedia.101.118.46.102 (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it clear that my purpose is to force abusive editors to look at themselves in a mirror. Not suprisingly, many, if not most, of them don't find it to be very funny. If so, good. Threatening other editors isn't funny and it needs to stop. Guys, this is your life. You only have one. Live it right. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the core of the problem. You acknowledge that you are using it in a confrontational way to "force" editors to do what you want. The page is being used to extend conflicts between editors, even in cases where you have no direct involvement. You acknowledge that the editors "named and shamed" on your page don't like it. It doesn't reduce the temperature, it increases it and provoke unneeded drama. Your definition of an "abusive editor" is also very idiosyncratic - in practice it has meant a small number of people who have disagreed with you or your pals from Wikipedia Review. The page contributes nothing to Wikipedia's body of knowledge, and serves only to promote your apparent wish for unnecessary confrontation with other editors. You should read WP:BATTLE some time, as your page serves simply as a tool to further a battleground mentality: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." It is worth noting that you have previously been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for battleground conduct. [11] This is just more of the same and it's regrettable that you haven't learned your lesson. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 3 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.