Have a look at the page history rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. GbT/c10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Calton. You have new messages at Gb's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is something I have highly mixed and conflicted feelings about. On the one hand, I don't like that sort of bigotry aimed at criticism sites like WR and the alleged "trolls" that inhabit it, but on the other hand I'm a strong advocate of free speech, including the right to rant on your own user page, and think attempts to suppress such rants are in the same vein as the BADSITES policy I strongly opposed. On the third hand (I'm a mutant), I dislike the hypocrisy whereby user page rants get suppressed if they run afoul with the views of the dominant clique but are suppported and defended if they're on the "politically correct" side; this goose-and-gander situation could theoretically be resolved either by allowing all rants or suppressing all of them. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problems with userpage rants, I believe I've done it myself a couple of times, except in this type of situation. Our NPA and BLP rules are fairly clear, and justifiably so, that you can't insult people, especially by their real names. I know it's a slippery slope in trying to define the line between what is allowed and what isn't. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be well-advised to mind your own business about things that don't concern you. Admittedly, that obvious principle has never even slowed you down before, but it's worth reiterating. --Calton | Talk09:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of irony to your boasting on your user page of being on a mission of "eliminating spam and MySpaceLight pages disguised as user pages", while objecting vociferously to others removing what they see as objectionable material from your user page. The question, I guess, is who gets to decide what user page material is OK and which is deletion-worthy? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, you are wrong, wrong [1], and wrong [2]. If you don't understand why, I'll try to explain it. But I think the edit summaries and explanations contained in those diffs are explanation enough. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your UAA reports
Hi, Calton. Just a quick note. While all of your UAA reports are acceptable, it would be best if you held back on reporting spam accounts that haven't edited in several weeks or months. This way, the backlog might be suppressed a bit. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know you and you don't know me, and I doubt we've ever offended each other... I was just curious about an editor with which I've had a few run-ins which seems to be an anti-you -- User:NoCal100 (got tipped-off here). Have you ever had any interactions with this user or any manifest socks thereof?
This comment was excessive. I have personally never even looked at Wikipedia Review in my life, but to call another user like Cla68 names like this is WAY over the line. If you continue to persist in this manner, then you should be aware that blocks can be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs16:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not acting on the behalf of any user. I am acting on behalf of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you use the phrase obnoxious busybody again, or any other similar set of incivil words, you may be blocked. If you have concerns that a user is evading his block, or is using multiple accounts in violation of policy, there are proper channels to go through to get them blocked. You are not a new user, you are aware of WP:SPI and checkusers. If you have other concerns about a user's behavior on or off Wikipedia, then there needs to be evidence presented regarding that user's behavior; or if you feel unsafe presenting that evidence, then perhaps Wikipedia is not safe for you. However, you are not excused from violating Wikipedia's civility rules for any of this. Please do not violate these rules again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clear. I want the socks of this banned user blocked. I want people to stop harrassing you in real life because of what happened on Wikipedia. I want people who do that to be strung up with nine-penny nails driven through their testicles and roasted slowly over a spit. I believe everything you have said regarding the troubles you have had with this person. However, I and other administrators are not able to help you if you don't help us help you. I want to block this guys sock accounts. Show me the evidence. Give me a reason to block it. Start a sockpuppet report, list all of his accounts, show difs, give us something to go on. However, it is also entirely possible to do everyone of those things, and not violate WP:CIVIL. It's not about using words. You could have called him a "very bad person" or you could have called him a "fucknut". It wouldn't matter. Its not the specific words you chose, its the act of attacking someone else. And if it was this one person, this one time, and you did not have a long history of incivility towards many editors, most of whom were not harassing you, then this would be overlooked. It is understandable that you are frustrated with someone harrassing you in real life. However, you put me and other administrators in a tough situation. You make it hard to hear your legitimate concerns, because you have spent so much of your history at Wikipedia burning through your social capital by being generally ascerbic, rude, and outright WP:INCIVIL. Give us a chance to help you here. Give us the evidence rationally, provide a report at WP:SPI or WP:ANI. Present evidence so that we can act on it. If all you do is call this guy names and be rude to him, then he doesn't look any different from all of the other, non-harassing, good-faith editors you have behaved similarly to in the past. When you do this, people's first raction is "This is just Calton being Calton" and it is easy to dismiss your legitimate and justified concerns. So be different this time. Do it the right way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD
First the context: it wouldn't bother me if Wikipedians decided to delete much more or much less as spam than is currently customary. I moved into CSD work from RFA, where people were routinely being criticized for CSD work that other people thought was fine. I'm looking for more consensus and more openness in the discussion about how CSD works. Now for the particular case: what policy justifies speedy-deleting User:Bcs2011/Purple States, LLC? Recent discussions at WT:UP are, if anything, more lenient than the policy on the page, and here's what I see on the page:
"You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup."
"While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia."
"As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit."
"If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it."
As User:DGG points out at Wikipedia_talk:UP#Question to consider here:, people at XfD like to have the option of asking people to move stuff to userspace; sometimes it's the only way to get consensus. And I often see speedy taggers asking contributors to move things to userspace that seem more offensive to me than some of the stuff you're tagging for deletion; if we ask people to move stuff, then delete it when they do, we're going to lose contributors.
Anyway ... since it's not up to me or you to decide, I think pulling more people into specific discussions would be good, so I'm going to move this page and maybe some of the others you're tagging to XfD to try to see where consensus lies. Again, I'm not taking a side, I'm just trying to get people to talk things out so that we can give a consistent message to taggers, so that taggers don't wind up feeling burned, especially at RFA. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y Touring Theatre Company
Hi Calton,
Just dropping you a little note about an article I did a liitle bit of work on Y Touring Theatre Company
Just found an article about their play in the british daily Telegraph [3]
I put it in as a reference. Don't know if this counts as notability. what do you think? I would feel bad if they got deleted as they're a charity and do good work. What do you think?
I notice you made a large number of username reports today. Generally, if an editor edited only once or twice weeks or months ago, deleting their spammy contributions is sufficient. If they have not been active for a while, they probably aren't coming back, but if they do they can always be blocked then. The reason I mention this is that you have single-handedly created an enormous backlog at UAA today, that will take some time to get sorted out, and probably a lot of the accounts will not end up being blocked, for the reasons I have stated above. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to give a friendly note, but noticed a few prior notices regarding this same issue. I'd like to reiterate to be cautious of reports made to UAA. Names of a company itself is not a blatant violation of the user name policy. Edits to their userspace are also typically not controversial enough to warrant indefinite blocking. Personally I'd welcome them and alert them of the policy on spam, and possibly advise them to consider changing their name via their talk page.
Please consider that sending a mass of reports to UAA is counter-productive for admins who are trying to clear backlogs. This is a strong friendly warning to use care in the future when sending reports to UAA. Cheers. Nja24715:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthCrusader
Hello! I'm afraid that most of the users you filed today haven't even edited yet! I'm sure the administrators will gladly ban them...but more evidence is required. Thanks for your participation! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remember that administrators are just volunteers like yourself. Comments such as "do your job" are not an acceptable way to address other editors. Also, if someone removes one of your reports from UAA, you should not re-add it. Thanks, –xeno (talk)23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Maverick House publishers←
Dear Calton.
We have respected all the guidelines considering the wikipedia pages. Please contact us to give us further information on where we broke the rules, so that changes can be made. Thank you, Susanne from Maverick House Publishers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeditress (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wandering if I could have my User Page undeleted, as I am going to try again with the article that I was writing, after about 7 months. "Blatant advertising" was given as the reason, which is fair enough, but I'm going to change it...Paddyaling88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddyaling88 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent notice appears to be malformed. If you could take a look, I'm not sure which username you were trying to report. Best, TNXMan03:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to unravel a bit of a mystery and was wondering if I was reading your comment here correct. Is TruthCrusader and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz the same person? If so aren't they evading a block? -- Banjeboi08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this seems to be escalating, can you respond to my questions as this may help in this situation if this user is actually a blocked user. -- Banjeboi22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... fantastic work, and lots of it, but you know me, I have to complain about something. I declined the db-spam on User:Musicmagic1 because it's possible it was written by a fan rather than by someone trying to promote the band. News archive hits suggest the band is notable. Same thing goes (sometimes) for any form of entertainment; sometimes the problem is {{peacock}} language and fanboy-ism rather than advertising or promotion. It's a tough call, because db-spam includes articles written by fans who are just kind of mindlessly and automatically repeating promotional materials ... it's a judgment call. Generally I'm happy with your judgment calls, but I'm always searching for consensus on what is and isn't db-spam. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw ... since this material had already moved to articlespace and been edited, getting rid of some of the promotionalism, I replaced the text on the userpage with a link to the article, and I edited the article for neutrality. I've got the user page and article watchlisted, and if promotionalism re-appears, I'd be open to looking at db-spam for this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry Calton, you're right, this was a copy of promotional materials. Let me see if I can get a neutral editor interested in the page that's in articlespace. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. Triplestopx315:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me but I was hoping you could help me? I curious to know if you have any (hard) evidence that user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is actually blocked blockedTruthCrusader? [4]
He's been harassing a group of editors (including myself) being uncivil, targeting certain articles, name calling, wiki-bullying, and basically being an underhanded jerk using policy against new editors as a weapon instead of a tool. A few of us suspect he might have a LGBT bias as well.
Any concrete evidence would be help as he needs to be stopped. He's making wikipedia miserable for people whom are truly trying to better articles. If he is indeed evading a block then I think action needs to be taken to block his current identity.
Read the text above: it's not very long and it's written in English, which I believe is spoken in New Jersey. --Calton | Talk13:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With a nasty answer like this, I see why you have an incredibly long intro on your talk page trying to filter out angry editors, I bet you get vandalized a lot correct? I find there tends to be a definite vandalism to general rudeness ratio.
I can refer this to actual admins if you would like. There is no promotion on my page, unless promoting 100 year old non-copyright Rump legislature is promotion.
Resolved
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_19#File:Gntm.jpg){kind=link}