User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Vanished talk

Hey there. A quick checkuser shows that user to be very unlikely to be unrelated to the IP; I know it's a short block but I was wondering if you'd reconsider it if your only basis was the logged out edit? I've put the editor's unblock on hold until you get to comment. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may unblock if you like, and I won't wheel war over it, but I'm not prepared to unblock them myself.
 * HW appears back after not having edited under that account for what, over two years? From his edits it's clear that his first aim is to stalk User:TTN, including here, here, here, and here, as well as chipping in on a request to reopen an arbitration case here. At the same time a slow-motion edit war over a sentence or two on Calton's user page has been burning for a while, and I'm supposed to accept that it's just coincidental that HW is removing exactly the same content, with exactly the same justification, as the IPs have? And that he does so on only the second day of editing after coming back from a two year break? Sorry, I don't buy it - fine, checkuser may show that the IPs making the edits and the IP from which HW is operating whilst logged in are unrelated, but to me it's quacking loudly enough to warrant the block in any event. GbT/c 09:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's pretty apparent (not just from the number of editors who are reverting the deletion) that there's actually nothing within the paragraph being removed that constitutes a violation of BLP - the only person mentioned by name is mentioned in the context of their being an indefinitely banned serial spammer...which, unless I'm much mistaken, they are. As HW himself quotes - a personal attack would have to identify the person, but also constitute a personal attack, not only an assertion that policy wasn't followed. The page in question does not, in my view constitute either a breach of BLP, or CIVIL, or any other policies, for that matter. GbT/c 11:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuf&mdash; I wasn't disputing your block, simply pointing out that the technical info supported that aspect of his unblock request. :-)   &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation
It wasn't me that removed that BLP violation on Calton's userpage, but I was wondering, why would you restore a BLP violation ? Cla68 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and why would you threaten the IP with a block for removing the violation? Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest, instead, that you remove the violation and warn Calton that he will be blocked if he repeats the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Naming a real life person and then saying something negative about them on your userpage is a BLP violation. It doesn't matter the background. Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's negative? That they're indefinitely banned from Wikipedia? Hardly a BLP violation, and it's not just me that thinks that - CalendarWatcher, Auburn Pilot, Rdfox 76 and Badger Drink have all reverted the revision. You've asked Calton to take it down. If he doesn't, and you still feel strongly about it, take it to the relevant place - at the moment the consensus is clearly that there's nothing substantially wrong with the contents of that page. GbT/c 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do plan on reporting it somewhere if he doesn't remove it. Calling someone a "spammer" is derogatory.  For some reason some of the admins in this place think it's ok to villify banned editors using their real names.  Well, it's a violation of our BLP policy and reflects poorly on our admin corps. Cla68 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I disagree. GbT/c 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That you think this is a matter for opinion is very disturbing. If you wish to remain as an administrator here then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with (as a bare minimum) the policy on BLPs. That applies equally to any other administrators who you feel are of like mind to yourself. Other than that, the offending material has been removed now and that should be an end to the matter. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh. An IP popping up out of nowhere with thinly veiled insults whilst summarily closing the discussion to automatically give you the last word. Having been an admin here for a year or so, I am familiar with all the relevant policies, and since you clearly missed it a couple of paragraphs above, I don't particularly think that calling a spade a spade constitutes, in this instance, a BLP violation. GbT/c 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you perceive as "veiled insults" in my previous comment, but contrasting your position there with your apparent inability to see that "spammer" and "crackpot" are blatant personal attacks really says it all. You have been warned that if you continue to edit war to return this or similar material that has been removed for BLP reasons then you will not remain an admin for much longer. Given the importance you attach to getting "the last word", this will be my last comment on the matter. Good day. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree very strongly with Cla68. It is not appropriate at all to restore these kinds of edits, ever, under any circumstances to Wikipedia.  Please review WP:NPA.  If you do not agree, then the honorable thing to do is to turn in your admin bits.  (And I am not being snarky here, I really mean it.  There is great honor in disagreeing with policy and having the respect to step aside.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Auburn Pilot hit the nail on the head when he said that if there's something on Wikipedia you don't like, or you don't think fits with policy, then there are ways of dealing with it - as I suggested to Cla68 in the first post in this thread. If you, Alison or whomever think that it's such a serious personal attack and a violation violation of BLP that it merits instant removal, then so be it - I continue to disagree.
 * I'll happily resign the tools. In fact, this is probably a good time to completely retire - it's been a step I'd been thinking of for a while, because the positives of being an admin on this website are few and far between (if not totally non-existent), whilst the negatives are all too prevalent. That, and I've recently remembered that there's this big green and blue thing outside my front door called "the real world" which is much more fun - not least because it has beer in it.
 * Anyway, I've got a list as long as my arm of more interesting, more productive and substantially more rewarding things that I could be doing with my time, so I'd best crack on. For a start there's some paint drying that just won't watch itself, you know...GbT/c 09:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)