Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Calton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Calton is extremely uncivil in many of his interactions with other Wikipedians. He escalates disputes with sarcastic, caustic and aggressive language, assumes bad faith, and makes personal attacks without ever trying to calm the situation.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Here's my suggestion:

  • Calton takes a massive chill pill, and stops being so uncivil.
  • Calton removes his hostile talk page header.
  • Calton apologizes sincerely to all users he has been uncivil to recently.
  • If the above remedies don't happen, blocks for any future personal attacks he makes.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I second all these suggestions. - SVRTVDude 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My sole experience with this editor is the Peter Roskam article, where he reverts impeccably-sourced additions of legislative efforts by a freshly elected legislator. This includes the authoring of an amendment to a bill that eventually passed 400-3. The amendment is notable in that it creates three new federal alternative fuels programs, spends $10 million but costs the taxpayers nothing. One would think that such legislative efforts by a legislator might be the centerpiece of the biography. Instead, they're reverted while dozens of kilobytes of non-notable partisan criticism against him remain in place. The legislative record is dismissed as "trivial."

To be honest, I have faced so much incivility from a pair of serial abusers in my four weeks here that Calton seems very kind by comparison. I guess I've developed a thick skin. It's the content dispute that I have a problem with. Dino 17:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of Calton's edits are either good -or questionable, and he is sometimes useful in finding problems that others miss, but, Dino, I think he has acted inappropriately MANY times in the past -and I have major concerns with him arbitrarily deleting links that he says are not notable. (He has deleted links to pages I manage, but I am not speaking of them; he has a pattern of deleting useful links, as others have noted herein.) Calton's judgement is not always sound, and his bad attitude is evidence of his lack of self-control and good editorial judgement. Thus, his very bad editing on some occasions compounds an already bitter work environment. To that end, I have endorsed this RfC below.--GordonWatts 10:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description

Calton (talk · contribs) does not respond well to anyone who questions his actions on Wikipedia. In the past several days, he has been incredibly uncivil to many different Wikipedia users, including numerous personal attacks and failures to assume good faith.

On the header of his talk page, Calton shows his hostile approach to Wikipedia: "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that."

When confronted about his unproductive, argumentative style of discussion, Calton responds with more incivility and denies that he is doing anything wrong. Several examples of this are visible in recent threads on his talk page, as well as in the specific diffs listed below.

Although it generally takes two to fight a flame war, many users have gone beyond the call of duty to try to de-escalate their disputes with Calton, and nowhere in Calton's recent comments have I seen him try to do the same for others.

I'd like to clarify that this isn't about an isolated incident. The catalyst for SVRTVDude starting this RfC was a content dispute he had with Calton on KXGN, but I helped complete the RfC because the problem extends far beyond that. The diffs below come from several disputes that Calton has been involved in recently, including a dispute with User:Mangojuice over whether several articles were candidates for speedy deletions, a content dispute with User:GordonWatts over Terri Schiavo, a content dispute with User:JLaTondre over National Freedom Day, an AfD where he picked a fight with two SPAs, and his responses when users including me tried to get him to calm down.

The issue is not whether he is "right" in these disputes, though. If your opponent is wrong and you respond with a personal attack, that doesn't make you right, that makes you both wrong.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Personal attack: "You really, really need to mind your own business, Lumbergh." (linked to Bill Lumbergh)
  2. Incivility: "I'm glad you regret leaving your smug nonsense on my talk page."
  3. Incivility: "You know, the First Law of Holes is that when you find yourself in one, you stop digging." This was part of a long, uncivil thread after Mangojuice made a suggestion in good faith.
  4. Assuming bad faith: "You are, by enabling and tacitly supporting abusive sockpuppetry."
  5. Assuming bad faith: "Apparently you feel being dishonest in a cause you believe is okay"
  6. Personal attack: "Given your peculiar little obsession with TV station trivia, you are pretty much the last person on Earth who should be giving such advice, and your advice was, in fact, worthless. ..."
  7. Incivility: frankly I've had enough of your nonsense: any further comments on my Talk page by you will be reverted immediately or disemvowelled without notice."
  8. Biting newbies and unnecessarily inflaming an AfD. The single-purpose accounts were already tagged as such, but Calton directed a paragraph of invective at them and insisted on restoring a one-off comment by someone else that labeled them as "socks". His edit comment on his second revert was the uncivil "Restore. Not your place, bucky."
  9. Incivility: "No, as far as I was concerned you were confusing the plain English meanings of a term and offering up a sanctimoniuous lecture to wash it down with, but your apology is accepted."
  10. Incivility: "Nice little stunt you pulled at WP:AN, but if you're looking for some edge in intimidating me, it's not going to work. You add that schedule back to the TV station article and I'm taking it out."
  11. Incivility/Personal Attack: "You don't know what you're doing, you don't understand when people correct you, and you misinterpret basic policies, procedures, guidelines, editorial roles, and norms of encyclopedia writing, and frankly I've had enough of your nonsense." (Contrary to Calton's hasty assertion below, this one was listed by SVRTVDude, not by rspeer.)
  12. Personal attack: "You really really need to try a little education, it'll do you wonders."
  13. Personal attack: "Enabling the immature. Smart move, that. Pout much?"
  14. Continuing posts: The simplest -- and most obvious -- explanation for the guy's reverts is...well, "stalking" is far too grandious, so let's call it "childish pique". Note that if tries it again, I will not hesitate to escalate matters rather than just making the reversions, including necessary warnings on his Talk page -- his thin skin be damned -- and notification of whatever admin happens to be handy. Also, if he makes out-of-policy edits that I come across, I will not hesitate to reverse those, either: I'm not looking for problems nor do I have the slightest interest in educating him on the basics -- he seems unreachable -- but I refuse to be intimidated by either him or his enabler.
  15. Personal attack: Edit summary: "(Gordon, if you don't understand how categories work, DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH THEM)"
  16. Continued Incivility: congratulations on signing up with another: your cosigners include one editor under suspension (though perhaps its expired now), another at ArbCom due to extreme Wikilawyering, and one whom I've nominated for a community ban (currently leaning toward yes, but not unambiguously). Not good company.
  17. Incivility/Attack: Coward
  18. Arguing/Incivility: Link Q: The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour? A: "No......"

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:AGF
  4. WP:BITE

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. by rspeer
  2. by Firsfron
  3. by Grutness
  4. by SVRTVDude (Orangemonster2k1)
  5. by DeanHinnen "Dino"
  6. by GordonWatts (I asked him to show how certain deleted links were worse than those he ignored, and he refused to address the issues -as shown in this diff -and makes rude "plugging my ears" comments in his 00:44, 13 February 2007 post to my talk page.)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Incidentally, I endorse based on diffs #1-10 and 13. I feel that the others are off topic and are diluting the point. Please stop posting a new diff every time Calton says anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. SVRTVDude | Talk to Me
  3. Dino 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. GordonWatts 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Calton is persistently uncivil to an intolerable degree. On multiple occasions (stretching back two years or more) he has come at me with an uncivil attitude bizarrely out of proportion to the situation and has not moderated himself at all when I've tried to talk calmly with him. In all honesty, I cannot recall ever seeing him make a purely civil comment. It is time for a strong message to be sent that his behavior in this regard is completely unacceptable and can't continue. Everyking 12:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Calton very frequently makes sensible points, but his approach in debates is often needlessly confrontational. Also I will attest to that he responds poorly to criticism when called on it, the one time I did so (disclaimer: over a year ago), I found his response evasive and insulting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I tried and failed to resolve a different dispute: Calton's frequent stretching of speedy deletion requests beyond their intended boundaries. His extremely aggressive response there made it impossible to address an actual issue. Mangojuicetalk 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. General examples of Calton's behaviour are exhibited in the Terri Schiavo talk pages; For a specific example, look here for an objective 3rd-party response. I don't edit much now days, and I don't have time for all this heat and incivility; however, I am a long-time editor in good standing, who makes occasional contributions to some of the Schiavo pages, on which I have some expertise, as a litigant in that case. I regretfully endorse that summary: Even when he makes good sense, which is not always the case, he seems to be so bitter. (I have known Calton from Wikipedia for a long time, and he seems to have always been this way.)--GordonWatts 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Endorse. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I fully, whole heartedly endorse. Calton needs to be placed on probation. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Endorse He treated me as an atagonist after I noted on his talk page that his reversions were inappropriate. He treated me as if I was out to get him. I wanted to avoid administrative action in this area. I would have prefered getting through to him by communicating what my concerns were. That seems unlikely, and I abandonned further communication with Calton to avoid unnecessary disruption. i kan reed 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. A ferociously unpleasant user. Surprised he hasn't been adminned yet. Grace Note 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The phrase "complete waste of time and space" comes immediately to mind. We have, in effect, a vendetta driven by a relative newcomer with maturity problems, peculiar obsessions, and WP:OWN issues (that would be User:Orangemonster2k1, or, as he signs himself, "SVRTVDude"), enabled by someone who, in dealings with me, has not bothered to familiarize himself with the basics and seems to be hypersensitive to being gainsayed (that would be User:Rspeer). But let's run through the so-called evidence:

1) In response to an unsolicited lecture by User:Rspeer regarding an issue with which he was utterly uninvolved, "You really, really need to be civil". If he wants to act like Bill Lumbergh, he should be expected to be treated like Bill Lumbergh.
2) This was in response to another Rspeer lecture for considering abusive sockpuppets at an AFD to be, well, abusive sockpuppets, instead of tender young newbies who just happened to wander into the discussion. I'm not big on having my intelligence insulted, and even less on those who enable it.
3) Perhaps he could have quoted the whole thing, a long thread in which Mangojuice comes up with ever more absurd rationales for removing a speedy tag from an article. The part he left out, and why the comment was apt: ...An online game isn't "web-based content"? That bit of wikilawyering doesn't pass the giggle test, no matter how you spin it with assertions of "pushing it"...So you're lecturing me for putting a tag on an article about web-based content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, based on -- well, what?, since it is, in fact, an article about web-based content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject?
4) See number 2. That's not bad-faith, that's an accurate description of his actions.
5) Ah, bringing in long-time POV warrior GordonWatts (talk · contribs) as a character witness, just after a long series of backdoor attempts by him to sneak in -- under a variety of guises -- a link to a crackpot's blog as if it were a "major writer on Terri Schiavo". Something he still hasn't given up on, I notice. Those of you unfamiliar with Gordon can take a quick skim of his spectacularly unsuccessful adminship bid for a taste of the intellectual honesty and firm grasp of ethics he brings to the table and which helped fill 40-odd Talk Page archives at Terri Schiavo and related articles. Note especially his backdoor attempt in his adminship bid to get the job by appealing directly to Jimbo. My comments? Perhaps Rspeer has forgotten the guideline is "Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary -- but perhaps he (again) missed the metric buttload of evidence to the contrary in his haste to dig up whatever dirt he could.
6) An accurate statement: a smarmy lecture about how I need to turn off the computer and walk away, coming from someone utterly unwilling to give up his pet obsession is, to put it mildly, little rich.
7) That's not incivility, that's simply calling his bluff: given his proclaiming "Am trying my damnedest to stay away from User:Calton but he continues to make attempts at picking a fight" while simultaneously peppering my Talk page with messages (in other words, lying), I was telling him, explicitly, that I refused to deal with his nonsense any more. Naturally, it didn't stop him from trying -- odd behavior, don't you think, for someone "trying [his] damnedest to stay away", don't you think? Funny how telling someone you refuse to let them continue escalating counts as incivility.
8) Newbies, huh? Well, on that score, reality varies. And that's not invective, that's a statement of what's required to keep an article at AFD. If you want to see the quality of arguments offered up by the "newbies", take a skim of the AFD for yourself. WP:ILIKEIT still doesn't cut it as an argument at AFD.
9) Ah, this was where someone decided, against common sense, common meaning, and common practice, that any day (or other period) proclaimed as an observance by the President of the United States (like Pan American Aviation Day or National Catfish Day) is a "holiday", and was willing to revert war over this at National Freedom Day and lecture me on it. Stronger than I should have said, in retrospect, but not wrong.
10) Nope, just what I meant: calling him on his attempt -- like this RFC -- to intimidate me and assert his ownership of his pet articles. No one -- and I do mean no one -- says that his peculiar attempt to insert a complete TV station schedule into a particular article is appropriate, and I'm just saying that I'm one of them. If Rspeer is claiming that to say that promises to remove the inappropriate is somehow uncivil, he's the wrong man to be doing any kind of spam or vandalism patrolling.
11) Statement of fact. Short, succinct, accurate. If Rspeer is unwilling to do the minimal research to establish the history of the obsessive he's enabling, perhaps he ought not to leap in with whatever half-baked stuff he can dredge up.

Interested parties may also wish to examine Orangemonster2k1/SVRTVDude's last several article edits before opining. Note especially the several pointless reversions of article edits I've made -- including his (multiple and repeated) removal of {{ifd}} tags and the readdition of spam links. Note the falsity of Orangemonster2k1's claim about him supposedly leaving me alone. "Good faith" don't describe this RFC. "Vendetta" does, or possibly "tantrum".

And finally, a word about endorser Everyking, below: ...he has come at me with an uncivil attitude bizarrely out of proportion to the situation and has not moderated himself at all. Given that's a good pocket description of the editing behavior on Ashlee Simpson and on the Admin boards which led to three ArbCom cases and his complete banning from commenting at all on admin actions, I'd say that there's a bit of projection at work. Also, his only officially approved channel for his invective, at this point.

Yeah, this is a childish waste of time -- I've already wasted enough time on this -- so this is my last word here. I'm going to bed. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing: as my User Page says, at the top, "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that." --Calton | Talk 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

[edit] Outside View by Elaragirl

I've had several less than pleasant interactions with this user over the past few months. However, no matter how incivil he is, civility for the sake of civility remains and will always be meaningless. Could Calton use a more ... calm tone? Yes. Has it gotten to the point where he disrupts Wikipedia? No. I think this RfC is made by those frustrated by Calton's own frustration over the KXGN article.. The users who filed the RfC didn't help matters with edits like this. Calton responds to Firsfron , a notably level headed admin here in a way that indicates he is frustrated. (Further and more recent posts show some disturbing edit-war type issues over a misunderstanding of what should be in the KXGN article. While Calton gets a bit old and needs a new repetoire of comments, or at least a snarky swear word or two, I cannot find anywhere in al of this where he is acting in bad faith. And trust me, review my and his history and you'll see I'm the last person likely to take up for him. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sensible user? check. Frequently rude bastard? check. No question of good faith, this incident not RfC-worthy? check. - brenneman 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --MONGO 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by anetode

Calton doesn't suffer fools gladly. His comments may be caustic and abrasive, but they are also reasoned and often insightful. Put simply, he sometimes comes off like a jerk, but a fair-minded jerk given more to dismissal than vendetta. The catalyst for this RfC was not really the content dispute between SVRTVDude and Calton, it was a series of uncivil comments that escalated into a clash of personalities. During the initial exchange[1][2] Calton's replies were aggressive and unfriendly, but each user made an honest attempt to discuss the issue. SVRTVDude's actions following this exchange were acrimonious and uncalled for. While his choice to solicit sanctions against Calton at AN/I could be dismissed as some misdirected attempt to vent frustration, his prodding of Calton by continually reverting Calton's innocuous mainspace contributions (removing ifd tags, re-instating dubious external links, check contribs for others) does nothing to foster any impression of good faith. This incident can no longer be considered a content dispute nor can it be resolved by a third party. I urge both Calton and SVRTVDude to moderate their behavior and keep personal dislike from contaminating the project. Further, I support advising Calton to chill, to let some things go - however this RfC has no authority to demand apologies or punitive blocks. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. El_C 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mangojuicetalk 19:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. "Doesn't suffer fools gladly." Took the words right out of my mouth. JChap2007 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sums it up pretty well. Behind the polemic is a generally responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Endorse good adive. Cooling down is what's needed not sanctions. Eluchil404 12:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. You have to weigh the merit of his contribution here against the incivility of some of his comments and i would say at this point the good outweighs the bad. That said, Calton should take a deep breath before he responds sometimes.--Isotope23 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Agreed. Regardless of how anyone may personally react to his tone, the guy is straight up. In this case I think he was purposefully baited by several users. When he reacted, they tried to get him in trouble. I don't know about Calton's mainspace edits or whether he needs to chill out, but at least you know where he's coming from and I don't think the current allegations are fair. --Tractorkingsfan 10:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Calton doesn't suffer fools gladly but maybe it's time for him to realize that witty retorts, as fun as they may be to write, are a selfish pleasure. Pascal.Tesson 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I'm surprised it took this long to come along, honestly. I can't find the exact diff currently, but my first experience with Calton was at AfD, where I eventually was led to a comment where he said "And as for User:Badlydrawnjeff -- jeezus, I do NOT know what his major malfunction is, but insulting my intelligence with obvious nonsense is the surest way to get MY goat." Certainly having to do with some AfD discussion he disagreed with me on, it's been consistent and problematic the entire time. Not to say that diffs like these ([3] [4] [5] [6]) are any better, but those are all from 10 months ago, and his behavior has not gotten any better, but mostly worse. His civility issues alone are worth a great deal of pause, but there's plenty more beyond the scope of what this RfC is equipped to handle, not that it's going to handle anything anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by JChap2007 (talk · contribs)

Much of the complaint in this RfC is, quite frankly, exaggerated. Terseness is labelled "incivility" and incivility is labelled a "personal attack." I've seen Calton around, mostly at AfD and he invariably makes good points. But, as anetode points out, he doesn't suffer fools gladly and is quicker to call a spade a spade than most. Part of civility is suffering fools gladly and part of assuming good faith is hesitating to call a spade a spade until it is beyond obvious.

Only two things really trouble me in the materials submitted above. First, in his interaction with mangojuice, both need to realize that in the criteria for speedy deletion asserts notability is poorly defined and means different things to different editors and admins. Each of Calton and mangojuice assumed it had only one possible interpretation: his. In retrospect, simply stepping back and realizing the other party may have been interpreting speedy deletion differently could have prevented the problem. I also do not think his comment about badlydrawnjeff was accurate or appropriate. Jeff is the good inclusionist: he keeps us honest and his comments are rarely "nonsense."

I don't think any corrective action as such is needed here, except to suggest that Calton read WP:DENSE, as well as the article on Hanlon's razor. In dealing with linkspammers, cruftateers, POV-pushers and the like, as Calton spends much of his time here doing, I've found that it's actually an advantage to assume good faith. If you are uncivil or accuse them of improper motives, they simply use it as an excuse to not hear what you have to say.

Of course, to assume good faith, you often have to assume that the other person is either completely ignorant of WP policy or that xe has read that policy but does not understand it. Rather than refuting what xe is trying to say point-by-point, it's often better to simply say some variation of the following, "I'm sorry, but that won't work. Please read WP:APPLICABLEPOLICY carefully." Slight condescension usually works better than hostility in those situations: the linkspammers know they are trying to get away with something, but hostility merely emboldens them. JChap2007 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'll admit my and KVRTVDude's descriptions of "incivility" and "personal attacks" may have been measured on the wrong scale, and as a whole this view is quite insightful about all the issues involved. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. amazing how "personal attack" becomes a meaningless pc term for any disagreeable comment ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agreed, and especially agreed with anetode's comment as well. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:JzG

Maybe Calton should be a bit less blunt. Maybe some other people should be a bit less provocative. Maybe this is a teapot tempest. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Will Beback · † · 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Shimeru 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Maybe Guy is right. Eluchil404 12:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Ideogram 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Summed up perfectly. Seraphimblade 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. meh ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Abso-F-ing-lutely. --BenBurch 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Yes. Gamaliel 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. And Guy does it again. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Struck - dishonesty from O2k1 is no longer demonstrative of teapotness. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. True.--Isotope23 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. After failing to be as clever as Guy, I'll just sign. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by crud3w4re

I support the freedom to say what you want. Why bicker over someone's personality? You're here to edit, not to sing and dance. I take the Libertarian approach, reform Wikipedia! Crud3w4re 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:Hipocrite

I wasn't going to spend a lot of time on this, but this comment is fundamentally dishonest. Calton's response to the question was not "No...." It was "No, the actual issue I actually raised was "Wikipedia is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby" -- which I notice that you didn't actually address." He never answered if he can edit without the agressive behavior. He certainly didn't say he could not do so. Such fundamental and transparent bad-faith dishonesty is anathema to consensus.

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.