Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Calton

message: Calton's comments on two recent threads make me question his suitability as an admin. He has a very condescending attitude and a very elitist way of dealing with users whose opinions differ from his own. I wish to point out two threads:
and
Specifically the discussion thread for I'm the Juggernaut Bitch
Thank you. TruthCrusader 10:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

message: ===Response by rspeer===
I supported and completed this RfC, and for me it has nothing to do with the KXGN article. That's just one dispute he's been involved in recently, among many. The issue for me isn't why these disputes arise, it's how he unnecessarily escalates every dispute with the uncivil things he says.
Whether or not SVRTVDude is "right" about KXGN (and it sounds like he isn't), he was certainly right to bring Calton's comments up on the administrators' noticeboard. It was at the suggestion of User:Jkelly that he started this RfC.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from project page

message: I supported and completed this RfC, and for me it has nothing to do with the KXGN article. That's just one dispute he's been involved in recently, among many. The issue for me isn't why these disputes arise, it's how he unnecessarily escalates every dispute with the uncivil things he says.
Whether or not SVRTVDude is "right" about KXGN (and it sounds like he isn't), he was certainly right to bring Calton's comments up on the administrators' noticeboard. It was at the suggestion of User:Jkelly that he started this RfC.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by rspeer

message: Previously posted on WP:AN..."I was working with AMIB on something last night (shocking, I know) and User:Calton PM'd with a kind of argumentative message on my talk page.  This would go on for hours of back and forth argumentative PMs from Calton...with me finally asking, twice, "Did you PM me just to argue?".  He stopped with the PMs."
"Today, User:Rspeer PM'd on User:Calton's talk page "I can't help but notice the many other users objecting to your caustic style of conversation.  You really, really need to be more civil." only to have User:Calton respond with "You really really need to mind your own business", among other things.  Other users and admins, I guess, have asked User:Calton to just chill out and he just gets more and more rude and argumentative.  If an admin would please tell User:Calton to step back, take a deep breath, and relax for Pete's sake.
After the above posted was made I recieved this from User:Calton..."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.".  I think that proves my point, as nothing I said above was intimidating in the least.
WP:AN has asked me to bring this here, I have but am leaving this active in WP:AN as well.  My apologizes for the long explanation. - SVRTVDude 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: "Thanks for the note. 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."....posted on User:Firsfron's talk page.
My response to that....yeah, I made some reverts, which I thought I was doing in good-faith.  I was corrected by an admin and I apologized for that.  I have not posted about Calton on anyone's talk page other than to apologize to the admins who are "dealing" with this and not working on more important things (that could be considered a post about him, I consider it an apology).
But, I am not stalking him...I have talk pages on my watchlist as people respond on their talk pages and sometimes I miss a response.
My reverts were not a "childish pique", again, I thought they were in good faith, I was corrected and apologized.  If I make an edit that is "out-of-policy"...and trust me, I don't know them all...please, tell me, I AM reachable.
Finally, I never tried to imtimidate Calton and I have an "enabler" since when?
I have not contacted Calton nor talked about him (unless you count the apologizes I have made) for about about 2 days and I plan on keeping it that way.  I am working on other things and trying to put this behind me and I hope Calton can do the same. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the admin in question and I find it difficult to reconcile with the fact that you went around re-adding that non-notable link without providing a rational immediately after Calton removed these. (I refrain from speculating as to the motivation, but draw attention to the apperance of it). As well, I am concerned that Rspeer (the aforementioned "enabler," I presume) did not approach this dispute in an entirely even-handed manner. As such, I think him becoming signatory to this RfC was a mistake. My advise would be for everyone to let this go. It seems too minor of a dispute to be carried to such lengths. The errors on the part of the 3 main participants can & should be overlooked. El_C 12:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this continuing?=

message: (I moved these here, according to the directions of the RfC page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for putting these comments in the right place; I did see the no comment "comment" but wasn't sure what it applied to or where.--GordonWatts 07:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, ElaragirlTalk|Count, I acknowledge Calton is not all bad, but I have known him for a while, and I am not in the least bit surprised how quickly editors were available to support this RfC. If you doubt me, then just real slowly read through this RfC here, and study all the evidence presented; It is quite hard to even GET an RfC on first base, due to the certification requirement needed to even maintain it, trust me, and I am not picking on Calton because some of the links he deleted were to sites where I have written news or opinion articles; He is bad news for ALL of Wikipedia, and this is bad because both his talent (intelligence) and his dedication (heart; attention to care and detail) seem to be above average. But, at the end of the day, it is not about me and my personal gripes with Calton; It is about HIS inappropriate behaviour, not only in his manners vis-a-vis rudeness, but (and probably even more so) also in his editing judgement (or "lack" of good judgement, should I say). Thus, I can not, in good faith, endorse this summary. Respectfully submitted,-GordonWatts 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you don't need to make that comparison, and it reflects poorly on you.  If you stopped all of this right now, so would Calton.  Just leave him alone, and he will do the same.  Allow me to make up my own mind: of the two editors who are the principal instigators here, one is so obviously a disruptive sockpuppet that no one should listen, and the other, according to what Calton humorously but quite accurately called a spectacularly unsuccessful adminship bid  has trouble letting things drop and likes to argue a little bit himself.  I strenuously disagree with your labelling him a bad editor, and it would take a large number of diffs to convince me otherwise.  As far as being argumentative and disruptive, I don't think you should throw stones.  --Tractorkingsfan 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know the details of the editors' identities here (who is a sock puppet and who is not), but obviously, Calton has ticked off user(s) -probably plural; I remember all the trouble he's caused in years past, so I'm not totally stupid or ignorant on the subject -I'm not looking just superficially at the evidence and jumping to conclusions here. As far as the quality of edits, although his views currently have consensus backing (regarding cutting out a large number of links), that does not necessarily mean he is right here. I'm not speaking of "my" web pages -since many good sources were deleted by him recently. While I am obviously ticked at Calton's bad editing preferences here -removal of MANY good sources -I am not striking out at him; rather, I am seeking to improve the wiki here -by fully citing our sources: Even a "bad" source, and some are, is not totally bad or evil, and to say it is -is just illogical. While this is not the only weakness of Wikipedia, it has contributed to a large-scale perception that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information -and your support of his views -consensus notwithstanding -does not change the cold hard facts: Many people just plain don't view Wikipedia as reliable -and the slicing, dicing, and removal of many good sources is contributory to this malady.--GordonWatts 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You write: "I'm surprised it [a complaint against Calton] took this long to come along, honestly." I agree. I've known him for quite a while, and I was wondering when the other shoe would drop.--GordonWatts 11:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You ask: "Why bicker over someone's personality?" Well, it's simply because Calton's bad attitude also affects his editing ability -and I don't just mean the narrow dispute he has had with me recently -I mean overall, we see a pattern of bad editing, and this is NOT good -no matter how nice or how rude he is.--GordonWatts 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses from GordonWatts 

message: :With all due respect, ElaragirlTalk|Count, I acknowledge Calton is not all bad, but I have known him for a while, and I am not in the least bit surprised how quickly editors were available to support this RfC. If you doubt me, then just real slowly read through this RfC here, and study all the evidence presented; It is quite hard to even GET an RfC on first base, due to the certification requirement needed to even maintain it, trust me, and I am not picking on Calton because some of the links he deleted were to sites where I have written news or opinion articles; He is bad news for ALL of Wikipedia, and this is bad because both his talent (intelligence) and his dedication (heart; attention to care and detail) seem to be above average. But, at the end of the day, it is not about me and my personal gripes with Calton; It is about HIS inappropriate behaviour, not only in his manners vis-a-vis rudeness, but (and probably even more so) also in his editing judgement (or "lack" of good judgement, should I say). Thus, I can not, in good faith, endorse this summary. Respectfully submitted,-GordonWatts 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Elaragirl 

message: Question: Do you think all the editors who signed complaints against Calton in this short time were just a making things up; or, rather, why do you think that this all happened? I know "bad things can happen to good people," and Calton is not all bad, but ALL criminals (must we now need this comparison to make a point?), as I say, even criminals have good points; just ask their family and friends. So much more does Calton have good points, but he has serious problems. Simply read, and RE-read the evidence herein, and then make up your own mind, k?--GordonWatts 11:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't need to make that comparison, and it reflects poorly on you.  If you stopped all of this right now, so would Calton.  Just leave him alone, and he will do the same.  Allow me to make up my own mind: of the two editors who are the principal instigators here, one is so obviously a disruptive sockpuppet that no one should listen, and the other, according to what Calton humorously but quite accurately called a spectacularly unsuccessful adminship bid  has trouble letting things drop and likes to argue a little bit himself.  I strenuously disagree with your labelling him a bad editor, and it would take a large number of diffs to convince me otherwise.  As far as being argumentative and disruptive, I don't think you should throw stones.  --Tractorkingsfan 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know the details of the editors' identities here (who is a sock puppet and who is not), but obviously, Calton has ticked off user(s) -probably plural; I remember all the trouble he's caused in years past, so I'm not totally stupid or ignorant on the subject -I'm not looking just superficially at the evidence and jumping to conclusions here. As far as the quality of edits, although his views currently have consensus backing (regarding cutting out a large number of links), that does not necessarily mean he is right here. I'm not speaking of "my" web pages -since many good sources were deleted by him recently. While I am obviously ticked at Calton's bad editing preferences here -removal of MANY good sources -I am not striking out at him; rather, I am seeking to improve the wiki here -by fully citing our sources: Even a "bad" source, and some are, is not totally bad or evil, and to say it is -is just illogical. While this is not the only weakness of Wikipedia, it has contributed to a large-scale perception that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information -and your support of his views -consensus notwithstanding -does not change the cold hard facts: Many people just plain don't view Wikipedia as reliable -and the slicing, dicing, and removal of many good sources is contributory to this malady.--GordonWatts 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to anetode 

message: : You write: "I'm surprised it [a complaint against Calton] took this long to come along, honestly." I agree. I've known him for quite a while, and I was wondering when the other shoe would drop.--GordonWatts 11:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to badlydrawnjeff 

message: : You ask: "Why bicker over someone's personality?" Well, it's simply because Calton's bad attitude also affects his editing ability -and I don't just mean the narrow dispute he has had with me recently -I mean overall, we see a pattern of bad editing, and this is NOT good -no matter how nice or how rude he is.--GordonWatts 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to crud3w4re 

message: After letting other know of the RfC link, Calton is now taking his anger out on them and myself as more people sign the RfC against him.  He has even gone far enough to submit a request for a community ban against someone.  This is a editor who is going after people who speak out against him and the people who sign the RfC against him.  I would request that he be given a 12 hour temporary suspension so he can think about what he is doing and the problems he is causing, but it would only anger him further.  Is there anything that can be done, cause he is not going to stop on his own. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You added it to the description of the dispute.  If it changes anyone's opinion of the matter it will eventually become clear in the views and endorsements.  Mangojuicetalk 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After answering a question for another user posed on the community ban discussion for User:GordonWatts, User:Calton left this LONG post that again accused me of stalking, but by the looks of things, HE is the one that is stalking and keeping tabs on pretty much any and every move that I make here on Wikipedia, including my talking with other users.  Admins, Calton continues to lash out at me and anyone who I give the link to this, as he called it, "ill-considered" RfC and anyone who posts on this RfC.  If any actions are taking against him, he will lash out more and more....and if that happens, I fear Calton will be commenting on a community ban discussion of his own.  Comments from some admins are kindly requested. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? It was you who responded to Calton's community ban request on User:GordonWatts — i.e. he (Calton) was the author. El_C 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calton would immediately begin ignoring you if you weren't following him around posting everywhere he has an interest in.  Heck, he would probably ignore you even if you were following him around, but were posting on the issue and not about his behavior.  See WP:STALK.  Mangojuicetalk 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just watch his contribs, he will go to other people's talk pages and bash me....I am going to respond to that.  I am not going to have my name dragged through the dirt, but since it seems he is not going to get any consequences for his continued actions, what the hell is the point! - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calton Continues

message: I have many people on my WatchList as you all responding on your talk pages rather than on mine...I seriously need to clean that thing up.  Well, Calton's name is still on mine.  I noticed that he had a "prod2" tag on his talk page.  User:Salad Days was going to give him a barnstar, but someone beat him to it.  He wasn't sure how you agree with a barnstar, so I guess he was going to delete it and put his own, hence the prod2 tag.  He didn't know that it deletes the whole talk page.  I messaged him letting him know, after a couple messages, Salad Days made his own barnstar and awarded it Calton.  There were no messages to Calton, nothing.  Just trying to keep his talk page from being deleted.  Salad Days got "And why, exactly, is User:Orangemonster2k1 watching my page?" on his talk page and then it began.  Calton posts to User:Rspeer with this long message, then in seconds to Frisfron who I had messaged so he could take care of the prod2 tag himself (leaving me out of it), but he was obviously away when I messaged.  Next on the hit parade was User:Musical Linguist messaged me and then Calton, Calton would argue every point Musical would make, insulting along the way with Musical's post to Calton here, Calton's response here, Musical's response to Calton, and Calton's response to me (after I had posted letting him know of the prod2 tag) and to Musical.  Calton even goes as far as to accuse me of being User:GordonWatts.  No, I am User:Orangemonster2k1, SVRTVDude, or Tybois (I go by my middle name) which is posted on my user page near the top.
Now, I tried to prevent Calton's talk page from being deleted...I was trying to do a good deed to show that I am not an ass out stalking Calton (yeah, I have him on my talk page, but so it Gordon, Frisfron, Musical, and others) and I was called a liar without Calton, so much, as looking at the history on his talk page.
I meant no harm, did not speak to Calton, handled it myself with Salad Days, and before Calton knew, it was taken care of, prod2 tag gone.  Yeah, some could say it was not my place, but I was trying to be nice and prevent his talk page (or pages) from being deleted and this is what I got.  Now, I feel like shit (pardon my language) cause of something I did in good faith and with no ill-will caused another big explosive problem that I didn't mean to happen.  I feel bad cause of it.  I was only trying to help.  Hope you all have a better day than me (got the flu on top of all this)...- SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. Why did you describe Calton's response to "The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour?" as "No..." ? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that was his answer to it then he went on about Wikipedia not being "personal therapy", so I left that part out. I can add it if you would like me to. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yesterday